Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Derr. I think he knows that.

The question still applies.

And if you think "The states delegated to the federal government supreme power" is wrong, then you haven't read the one important and legally binding Document you should be paying attention to...

The States ratified a Constitution which specifically limited the power of the Federal Government, specifically to preclude the Federal Government from becoming supremely powerful over the states.

If you lack the intellectual means to understand that FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN PRINCIPLE... then you simply lack the means to remain a viable contributor to this discussion.

It's not even a debatable point.

Eat this:


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Interesting... Yet where such laws are set upon the people, outside the scope of the enumerated limits upon the power of the US Federal Government, no American is in any way obligated to so much as recognize that law, let alone to comply with such.

Of course the Federal Government will likely disagree... as did the Crown of England, when we informed them of that very principle.

A right to rebellion? Maybe and even legal IF you win . The confederates didn't

That's true... The South did not win.

But they were a peace loving people who were not interested in war... and once at war, they were poorly lead, running a fundamentally defensive war.

What they should have done is to have invaded the North from the beginning, marching directly into Washington and burning it to the ground, killing everyone in the city, including the entirely of the US Federal Government and seizing power of the entire United States.

Which they could have done, comparatively easy in 1860... .

But that's neither here nor there... as they did not and the failure in judgment cost them a fair percentage of their population and everything above that.

 

[Skylar]

It's no surprise that a Leftist would think the states were seceding just to spite a president they didn't like.

So you're going with the 'Grand Coincidence' theory, arguing that Lincoln's election had nothing to do with when the South seceded or why? That it was just a startling coincidence that secession the month after Lincoln's election? That the Battle of Ft. Sumpter was the month after Lincoln took office?

Would you care to put that to a test?

Long before Lincoln was elected, the seeds of secession were sown and sprouting because of the laws being passed by Congress enacting crippling tariffs.

For the second time, SHOW us. Don't tell us. Get very, very specific about the tariff's you're referring to, their levels and how 'crippling' they were.

With evidence. And no, you typing the claim isn't evidence. Lets test your theory in the crucible of verifiable history.

The real history of what issues pushed the country into a divided state are at loggerheads with your idiotic Leftist narrative that the war was all about slavery. Because you refuse to accept real history, your take on the entire event is fatally flawed.

Slavery was definitely the impetus of the conflict. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no civil war in 1861.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Considering the hundred years of rights denied to blacks after the Civil War

Blacks in the US have never suffered worse than they have since the mid 1960s... at the hands of the Ideological Left.

But.. don't you spend any time worrying about that. In five years there will not be any Leftists int he United States, thus far fewer blacks... but blacks will be free to build their lives without the lies set upon by the Left, thus without chronic drug and alcohol addiction and with a mother and a father... and a sound education as the sound foundation on which to build their viable life upon.

So buck up... the good life is coming to US Blacks... just none you know, or who 'believe' what you believe.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's no surprise that a Leftist would think the states were seceding just to spite a president they didn't like.

So you're going with the 'Grand Coincidence' theory, arguing that Lincoln's election had nothing to do with when the South seceded or why? That it was just a startling coincidence that secession the month after Lincoln's election? That the Battle of Ft. Sumpter was the month after Lincoln took office?

Would you care to put that to a test?

Long before Lincoln was elected, the seeds of secession were sown and sprouting because of the laws being passed by Congress enacting crippling tariffs.

For the second time, SHOW us. Don't tell us. Get very, very specific about the tariff's you're referring to, their levels and how 'crippling' they were.

With evidence. And no, you typing the claim isn't evidence. Lets test your theory in the crucible of verifiable history.

The real history of what issues pushed the country into a divided state are at loggerheads with your idiotic Leftist narrative that the war was all about slavery. Because you refuse to accept real history, your take on the entire event is fatally flawed.

Slavery was definitely the impetus of the conflict. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no civil war in 1861.

You got some reading to do. It's not my job to alleviate your ignorance of American history, but at least I can point you in the right direction.

Slavery wasn t the main cause of the Civil War - tribunedigital-baltimoresun

 

[paperview]

The tariffs we were really not much of an issue at the time, and plenty of southern politicians at the time said so.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It was explicitly communicated to them. The anti-federalists argued that the the States should remain sovereign. The federalists argued against it.

The Federalists won. With the Constitution largely written by the nation's leading Federalist, in accordance with the Federalist Papers. With a thorough majority of the founders supporting the Federalist vision.

Worse for your argument, in NY, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr tried to put language into their ratification of the Constitution that would grant them the authority to secede if they chose. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY ratification representatives that the the constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. And that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid.

Here's the letter:

First, Hamilton's question regarding 'receding', or leaving the union.

And now the relevant portion of Madison's reply, which didn't contained the slightest ambiguity:

Madison's letter was read publicly. Lansing's secessionist language was removed. And NY ratified the constitution.

This wasn't a grand secret. This was thoroughly understood, debated, and discussed at the time. The Anti-Federalists took your position. The Federalists, Madison's.

The Federalists won.

I like how strongly you point out that his letter "didn't contained the slightest ambiguity".

To bad the same can't be said of the actual written document that was actually voted on, and enshrined in law.

You lefties seem to like that term, "in toto, and FOREVER".

Can you find it in the Constitution?

ROFLMNAO!

The Cult has found a Right to murder one's own child in one's own WOMB in the Constitution...

LOL! In the first amendment which specifically forbids any laws that precludes the free exercise of religion, they found the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Wherein ALL RELIGIOUS EXERCISE MUST BE SHUT DOWN the instant one comes to any position in US government.

Which establishes them as little more than the personification of Evil itself.

Quoting the Father of the Constitution on the meaning of the Constitution is the 'personification of Evil itself'?

Wow. Decaf for you.

NOooo... the personification of Evil is in the intentional misrepresentation of the words you quote.

The Consent to be governed by the enumerated and limited powers set forth in the US Constitution, in toto and FOREVER... does not provide any obligation in the way of consent to be governed by powers taken outside the scope of those specifically enumerated power.

(That's sorta the coolest part of republican constitutional government... and why such historically survives well beyond the average span of existence of the feckless democracy.)

Yet if you secede you are no longer part of the Constitution you are in essence pissing on it. Like Obama does

One is not a part of the Constitution, one is merely protected by the limitations that it sets upon the power of Government, which as the Founders noted many times and in many ways, is the greatest threat to freedom.

The south proved in irrefutable terms that secession is not a viable means of correction. Destroying the errant government is the only potential solution.

And the only time that THAT is a viable solution is at the point where that government commits the final atrocity, setting it beyond the means of the long suffering people, to tolerate it.

And that's coming, and coming rather soon I suspect.

But don't look to me to know when that will be, as I am not the government, therefore I am not in charge of what atrocities it commits or when... I am only a man with an instinctive understanding of the natural principles that sustain freedom and which subsequently define America.

 

[paperview]

It's no surprise that a Leftist would think the states were seceding just to spite a president they didn't like.

So you're going with the 'Grand Coincidence' theory, arguing that Lincoln's election had nothing to do with when the South seceded or why? That it was just a startling coincidence that secession the month after Lincoln's election? That the Battle of Ft. Sumpter was the month after Lincoln took office?

Would you care to put that to a test?

Long before Lincoln was elected, the seeds of secession were sown and sprouting because of the laws being passed by Congress enacting crippling tariffs.

For the second time, SHOW us. Don't tell us. Get very, very specific about the tariff's you're referring to, their levels and how 'crippling' they were.

With evidence. And no, you typing the claim isn't evidence. Lets test your theory in the crucible of verifiable history.

The real history of what issues pushed the country into a divided state are at loggerheads with your idiotic Leftist narrative that the war was all about slavery. Because you refuse to accept real history, your take on the entire event is fatally flawed.

Slavery was definitely the impetus of the conflict. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no civil war in 1861.

You got some reading to do. It's not my job to alleviate your ignorance of American history, but at least I can point you in the right direction.

Slavery wasn t the main cause of the Civil War - tribunedigital-baltimoresun

Patently false.

The tariffs had been historically low for decades preceding the war.

But don't listen to me. Listen to the man who would become the Vice President of the Confederacy:

Alexander Stephens, November 14, 1860 speech to the Georgia Legislature:

The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment.

About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is.

In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils.

Reason has triumphed.
The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself.

And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that.
Alec Stephen's Speech to the Georgia Legislature

 

[Skylar]

The blacks where would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it?

The blacks in the slave places. From what I hear the freed blacks were not all that happy either back in Lincolns day. He should have taken THAT as an indication of his potential success.

Which would be where? Remember, Lincoln's priority was preserving the Union. He didn't think the nation could survive if slavery continued.

If he could see that upon eliminating slavery the nation was still going 150 years later, he'd have freed the slaves twice as hard.

As Lincoln was about the preservation of the Union. The slaves were definitely secondary.

Not incorrect. Lincoln really didn't care about the slaves and in fact probably resented the strife they were causing which is why he wanted to ship them back to Africa. In retrospect, this might have been the best way to go.

Oh, he cared. He just cared about the Union far, far more. Lincoln found slavery detestable. But it wasn't his priority. Preserving the Union was.

And why, pray tell, would have shipping former slaves back to Africa been the 'best way to go'? Please, elaborate in extravagant detail.

No, he cared about slavery, but didn't care about slaves.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

His definitely cared about slavery:

I can not but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

October 16, 1854: Speech at Peoria, Illinois

He obviously didn't consider african slaves to be the social, economic or political equal of the white man:

If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, -- to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.

Though he definitely considered them 'men' under the Declaration of Independance, which puts him head and shoulders above most Southerners.

I have made it equally plain that I think the negro is included in the word "men" used in the Declaration of Independence.

I believe the declara[tion] that "all men are created equal" is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others -- individuals, free-states and national government -- are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it.

I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed.

That such necessity does not exist in the teritories[sic], where slavery is not present.

...It does not follow that social and political equality between whites and blacks, must be incorporated, because slavery must not.

October 18, 1858: Letter to James N. Brown

Lincoln's views evolved over time, most likely due to his encounters with Fredrick Douglas. By the time of the general era of Gettysburg address, Lincoln had advocated the full franchise for certain blacks.

It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.


April 11, 1865: Last Public Address

However, Lincoln's priority was and remained until his death, the Union.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The blacks in the slave places. From what I hear the freed blacks were not all that happy either back in Lincolns day. He should have taken THAT as an indication of his potential success.

Which would be where? Remember, Lincoln's priority was preserving the Union. He didn't think the nation could survive if slavery continued.

If he could see that upon eliminating slavery the nation was still going 150 years later, he'd have freed the slaves twice as hard.

As Lincoln was about the preservation of the Union. The slaves were definitely secondary.

Not incorrect. Lincoln really didn't care about the slaves and in fact probably resented the strife they were causing which is why he wanted to ship them back to Africa. In retrospect, this might have been the best way to go.

Oh, he cared. He just cared about the Union far, far more. Lincoln found slavery detestable. But it wasn't his priority. Preserving the Union was.

And why, pray tell, would have shipping former slaves back to Africa been the 'best way to go'? Please, elaborate in extravagant detail.

No, he cared about slavery, but didn't care about slaves.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

His definitely cared about slavery:

I can not but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

October 16, 1854: Speech at Peoria, Illinois

He obviously didn't consider african slaves to be the social, economic or political equal of the white man:

If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, -- to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.

Though he definitely considered them 'men' under the Declaration of Independance, which puts him head and shoulders above most Southerners.

I have made it equally plain that I think the negro is included in the word "men" used in the Declaration of Independence.

I believe the declara[tion] that "all men are created equal" is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others -- individuals, free-states and national government -- are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it.

I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed.

That such necessity does not exist in the teritories[sic], where slavery is not present.

...It does not follow that social and political equality between whites and blacks, must be incorporated, because slavery must not.

October 18, 1858: Letter to James N. Brown

Lincoln's views evolved over time, most likely due to his encounters with Fredrick Douglas. By the time of the general era of Gettysburg address, Lincoln had advocated the full franchise for certain blacks.

It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.


April 11, 1865: Last Public Address

However, Lincoln's priority was and remained until his death, the Union.

Yes. Who are you arguing with? Did you happen to notice that my post agreed with you? Of all the Leftists on this forum, you make sense more often. Now I just wish you'd apply that impressive intellect to figuring out what issues drove the movement to secession. The link I gave you should help.

 

[bripat9643]

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

These people are stuck on stupid.

 

[Skylar]

It's no surprise that a Leftist would think the states were seceding just to spite a president they didn't like.

So you're going with the 'Grand Coincidence' theory, arguing that Lincoln's election had nothing to do with when the South seceded or why? That it was just a startling coincidence that secession the month after Lincoln's election? That the Battle of Ft. Sumpter was the month after Lincoln took office?

Would you care to put that to a test?

Long before Lincoln was elected, the seeds of secession were sown and sprouting because of the laws being passed by Congress enacting crippling tariffs.

For the second time, SHOW us. Don't tell us. Get very, very specific about the tariff's you're referring to, their levels and how 'crippling' they were.

With evidence. And no, you typing the claim isn't evidence. Lets test your theory in the crucible of verifiable history.

The real history of what issues pushed the country into a divided state are at loggerheads with your idiotic Leftist narrative that the war was all about slavery. Because you refuse to accept real history, your take on the entire event is fatally flawed.

Slavery was definitely the impetus of the conflict. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no civil war in 1861.

You got some reading to do. It's not my job to alleviate your ignorance of American history, but at least I can point you in the right direction.

Slavery wasn t the main cause of the Civil War - tribunedigital-baltimoresun

Um, buddy....That's a letter to the editor from a low level real estate consultant.

Dennis doesn't provide anything to back any claims he's made. Not a single document, not a single quote, nothing. A Letter to the Editor isn't evidence. Especially from a guy whose experience is in marketing and advertising.

That's it? That's the basis of your entire argument.

Holy shit, dude.

 

[Skylar]

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

These people are stuck on stupid.

Says the guy that just quoted an unsourced Letter to the Editor from a Real Estate Consultant as his primary source on the causes of the Civil War.

Just....wow.

 

[Skylar]

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

The attack on Ft. Sumter says differently.

 

[paperview]

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

You're in fucking lala land,.


The CSA fired on ships, seized federal property, forts--even before Lincoln was President. For christ sakes man. You're insane to make such declarations.

 

[paperview]

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

These people are stuck on stupid.

Says the guy that just quoted an unsources Letter to the Editor from a Real Estate Consultant as his primary source on the causes of the Civil War.

Just....wow.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's no surprise that a Leftist would think the states were seceding just to spite a president they didn't like.

So you're going with the 'Grand Coincidence' theory, arguing that Lincoln's election had nothing to do with when the South seceded or why? That it was just a startling coincidence that secession the month after Lincoln's election? That the Battle of Ft. Sumpter was the month after Lincoln took office?

Would you care to put that to a test?

Long before Lincoln was elected, the seeds of secession were sown and sprouting because of the laws being passed by Congress enacting crippling tariffs.

For the second time, SHOW us. Don't tell us. Get very, very specific about the tariff's you're referring to, their levels and how 'crippling' they were.

With evidence. And no, you typing the claim isn't evidence. Lets test your theory in the crucible of verifiable history.

The real history of what issues pushed the country into a divided state are at loggerheads with your idiotic Leftist narrative that the war was all about slavery. Because you refuse to accept real history, your take on the entire event is fatally flawed.

Slavery was definitely the impetus of the conflict. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no civil war in 1861.

You got some reading to do. It's not my job to alleviate your ignorance of American history, but at least I can point you in the right direction.

Slavery wasn t the main cause of the Civil War - tribunedigital-baltimoresun

Um, buddy....That's a letter to the editor from a low level real estate consultant.

Dennis doesn't provide anything to back any claims he's made. Not a single document, not a single quote, nothing. A Letter to the Editor isn't evidence. Especially from a guy whose experience is in marketing and advertising.

That's it? That's the basis of your entire argument.

Holy shit, dude.

It seems to me you can't understand it. Maybe I was wrong about your intellect.

But here's a site where you can read the Ordinances of Secession from every one of the eleven states, many of them making quite clear what issues were at stake. I love this one from Kentucky:

President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will;

Ordinances of Secession

 

[Skylar]

It's no surprise that a Leftist would think the states were seceding just to spite a president they didn't like.

So you're going with the 'Grand Coincidence' theory, arguing that Lincoln's election had nothing to do with when the South seceded or why? That it was just a startling coincidence that secession the month after Lincoln's election? That the Battle of Ft. Sumpter was the month after Lincoln took office?

Would you care to put that to a test?

Long before Lincoln was elected, the seeds of secession were sown and sprouting because of the laws being passed by Congress enacting crippling tariffs.

For the second time, SHOW us. Don't tell us. Get very, very specific about the tariff's you're referring to, their levels and how 'crippling' they were.

With evidence. And no, you typing the claim isn't evidence. Lets test your theory in the crucible of verifiable history.

The real history of what issues pushed the country into a divided state are at loggerheads with your idiotic Leftist narrative that the war was all about slavery. Because you refuse to accept real history, your take on the entire event is fatally flawed.

Slavery was definitely the impetus of the conflict. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no civil war in 1861.

You got some reading to do. It's not my job to alleviate your ignorance of American history, but at least I can point you in the right direction.

Slavery wasn t the main cause of the Civil War - tribunedigital-baltimoresun

Um, buddy....That's a letter to the editor from a low level real estate consultant.

Dennis doesn't provide anything to back any claims he's made. Not a single document, not a single quote, nothing. A Letter to the Editor isn't evidence. Especially from a guy whose experience is in marketing and advertising.

That's it? That's the basis of your entire argument.

Holy shit, dude.

It seems to me you can't understand it. Maybe I was wrong about your intellect.

You genuinely didn't know you were offering us a letter to the editor from a real estate consultant as your primary source?

Really?

You may want to dig a bit deeper next time. It took me about 30 seconds to figure it out. It wasn't particularly hard either. And checking your own sources is your responsibility.

But here's a site where you can read the Ordinances of Secession from every one of the eleven states, many of them making quite clear what issues were at stake. I love this one from Kentucky:

President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will;

Ordinances of Secession

And where is your evidence of the 'crushing tarriffs'? Your evidence backing anything Dennis the real estate consultant said?

Because so far your 'grand coincidence theory' of the Secessions happening the month after Lincoln's election is laughable inadequate. I mean, really....think of the odds!

 

[bripat9643]

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

The attack on Ft. Sumter says differently.

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

The attack on Ft. Sumter says differently.

No it doesn't. South Carolina effected some Union cockroaches from its territory.

The land belonged to the Union and South Carolina doesn't have any right to secede. Nixing both of your arguments.

The South initiated the military conflict by attacking US troops, a US fort and US enclave.

If the South didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have started one.