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

[-S-]

Only to the perpetually dim.

The dim never question anything they were taught in school. Who does that describe?

Even other conservatives think you're an idiot, Bripat.

The Confederacy was a cancer to the freedom of the people living in the United States. The Confederacy, quite literally, REJECTED THE CONSTITUTION.
God was on the USA's side. The Confederacy is gone, and their ridiculous belief that you can force others to work your fields for free is gone with them. Good riddance.

So who rejected the Constitution?

Do you mean literally rejected, or 'rejected' in the sense that you disagreed with the actions they took?

If you mean LITERALLY REJECTED THE CONSTITUTION, that would be the Confederacy.

If you mean 'rejected' as in you don't agree with the way they led or the actions they took,

That would be ______*insert worthless opinion




Talk facts, or don't talk.

You're quibbling about nothing. Only an idiot would try to claim Lincoln is the one who supported the Constitution.

That's a fact.

The Confederacy LITERALLY REJECTED THE CONSTITUTION.


There's no other way to spin that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well if nothing else this thread is definitely establishing beyond all doubt that the Southern Democrats from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were conservatives.

 

[thanatos144]

That is called history ,stupid.

Wrong. It's propaganda.

Only to the perpetually dim.

The dim never question anything they were taught in school. Who does that describe?

Even other conservatives think you're an idiot, Bripat.

The Confederacy was a cancer to the freedom of the people living in the United States. The Confederacy, quite literally, REJECTED THE CONSTITUTION.
God was on the USA's side. The Confederacy is gone, and their ridiculous belief that you can force others to work your fields for free is gone with them. Good riddance.

ROFL!

Lincoln denied habeas corpus.
Lincoln shut down 300 newspapers and arrested their editors for criticizing his administration
Lincoln put American citizens from the North in Concentration camps.
Lincoln tried to have a Supreme Court judge arrested for a ruling Lincoln didn't like.
Lincoln arrested the entire state legislature of Maryland.
Lincoln invaded states of the Union
Lincoln ordered his forces to rape murder and pillage citizens of the United States.

So who rejected the Constitution?

Bottom line: You're an imbecile and everything you know is wrong.

The first one he did for about a minuet before he resended it when the supreme court told him it was illegal.
The second he didn't do he just asked the papers to NOT publish troop movements ....We do that now.
The others are just ignorance fed by a sad little mind stuck in a trailer park.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Has it been asked by what right people had slaves?

No one is endorsing slavery, dumbass.

The Confederacy did and those who defend the Confederacy are doing so whether they are honest enough to agree with it or not.The Confederacy stated emphatically that it was about the state right to own and trade slaves

Lincoln disagreed. End of story, moron.

Lincoln saved the Union.

the end for the real Confederacy

...as opposed to the stupidly pathetic revisionist Confederate tools online

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

absolute and unadulterated nonsense

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Every time they passed the bills to buy food and wood

and other supplies

that would

month by month

grow more and more

worthless

until

it

was

nothing.

Like the dead, worthless Confederacy you so enshrine and support.

Is this supposed to prove something? Confederate bills were just like the federal reserve notes in your wallet: backed by nothing. They also become worth less and less with each passing day.

Towards the end of the War, US Greenbacks were worth $$ -- Confederate Currency? Ha! It cost on order of about 3,000.00 greybacks to buy a suit. If you could find one.

Too bad so much of the South's wealth was tied up in Slaves. Like nearly 3 billion dollars worth. In 1860 dollars.

As I've said before :

The South seceeded because it was where literally ALL their wealth was tied up, and was the literal lifeblood that ran the heart of the engine of the south. Blackhumanblood as property.

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure, Think on that.
The South was not about to give that up.

It was. About. Slavery. Preserving, protecting & expanding. Human beings as property.

Millions of these people who were *bred* as animals are -- with values in the BILLIONS.

Yes, It was. About. Slavery. Preserving, protecting & expanding. Human beings as property.

And they are *still fighting the battle----to this day, it appears. Even though they lost the war.

Lincoln spent $5.2 billion on the war, so that was a great financial move, wasn't it?

TreasuryDirect KIDS - The History of U.S. Public Debt - The Civil War 1861-1865

In 1860, the year before the American Civil War started, the U.S. Government debt was $64.8 million. Once the war began, debt grew quickly. The financial cost of the war was significant, totaling an estimated $5.2 billion.​

On top of that, Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 Americans.

That was a brilliant financial move on Lincoln's part, wasn't it?

revisionist history and a very poor attempt at it

Lincoln saved the Union

Your magic words have no power here.

Dante's 'magic words' have the power to make you jump, skip, and hop to any tune he has playing in your puny little head

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why should they leave land that was theirs because slavers threw a tantrum?

They should leave for the same reason that we would have to pull our troops out of Germany if the government asked us to leave, numskull. Failure to comply would be an act of war. The U.S. doesn't determine the legitimate uses of property in foreign countries. Any kid in grade school understands that.

Look at you hating on America like a good little democrat . You do Obama and the Pauls proud

You've already admitted you hate half of America. You want to have them killed.

You're a despicable scumbag, so who are you to be accusing me of "hating America?"

You all HATE America. It is evident in all of your posts. Get over yourselves

I certainly hate the government. Only an obedient tool would find anything to admire about our government.

you hate America

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It was an invasion the minute they were asked to leave and they refused, numskull.

Why should they leave land that was theirs because slavers threw a tantrum?

They should leave for the same reason that we would have to pull our troops out of Germany if the government asked us to leave, numskull. Failure to comply would be an act of war. The U.S. doesn't determine the legitimate uses of property in foreign countries. Any kid in grade school understands that.

Look at you hating on America like a good little democrat . You do Obama and the Pauls proud

bripat9643 is a Democrat?

who knew

All confederates are democrats. Always have been always will be

Confederates of yesterday like Confederates of today are White Southern Christian Conservatives regardless of any silly party affiliation

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Lincoln saved the Union.

the end for the real Confederacy

...as opposed to the stupidly pathetic revisionist Confederate tools online

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

Your argument might make sense except that slavery wasn't a "south" thing, it consumed the entire nation, depriving the North of any moral highground whatsoever. Many Northern states had slaves until just shortly before the war and the North continued to profit off of slavery, building the ships from New York and Boston harbors and running the slave trade. So if a violation of the principles of liberty are at issue, then all states shared equally in the guilt. The War of Northern Aggression was not about right or wrong, about the abolition of slavery, or any of the other idiotic motives you superimpose on it. It was about power, the ability of Northern states with greater numbers and military infrastructure to dragoon into submission the eleven states attempting to escape from its economic tyranny.

You're not more educated, just a moron who thinks too highly of himself.

revisionist history on slavery? You must be a White Southern Christian Conservative. While slaves existed in the colonial East that later became referred to as the "North" there is NO comparison. No one denies slaves existed, but the slave trade and it worst practices on a grand scale are the sole property of White Southern Christian Conservatism

 

[there4eyeM]

"As much as you worship the founders, I think they were cowards and their unwillingness to tackle the issue of slavery from the start lead up to strife, division, and ultimately full blown war because no nation that is founded on the principles of freedom can long endure the enslavement of other human beings. These men weren't men of principle, they were politicians and typical of politicians, they avoided the big, divisive issues. The irony is, because slavery wasn't a widespread practice at the time, it would have been much easier to deal with then 80 years later when it became an invaluable component of America's economy, both in the North and in the South.

Slavery didn't start the Civil War, but what it did do is ensure there was already an existing fault line between slave holding states and non, so that other issue that drove the secession movement neatly divided this nation along that fault line. Either way, the blood of 600,000 Americans lays at the feet of the cowards who didn't want to rock the boat by addressing this issue."

A bit strong, but essentially true.

 

[-S-]

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

Your argument might make sense except that slavery wasn't a "south" thing, it consumed the entire nation, depriving the North of any moral highground whatsoever. Many Northern states had slaves until just shortly before the war and the North continued to profit off of slavery, building the ships from New York and Boston harbors and running the slave trade. So if a violation of the principles of liberty are at issue, then all states shared equally in the guilt. The War of Northern Aggression was not about right or wrong, about the abolition of slavery, or any of the other idiotic motives you superimpose on it. It was about power, the ability of Northern states with greater numbers and military infrastructure to dragoon into submission the eleven states attempting to escape from its economic tyranny.

You're not more educated, just a moron who thinks too highly of himself.

revisionist history on slavery? You must be a White Southern Christian Conservative. While slaves existed in the colonial East that later became referred to as the "North" there is NO comparison. No one denies slaves existed, but the slave trade and it worst practices on a grand scale are the sole property of White Southern Christian Conservatism

How did you know he was a White Southern Christian Conservative?





Oh yeah, because his entire posting history absolutely reeks of it.
"Saint Michael" is a joke. He quit responding to me when I tore apart that very argument of his.



EDIT: Just checked, he's actually from Idaho. Three outta four ain't bad.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

Your argument might make sense except that slavery wasn't a "south" thing, it consumed the entire nation, depriving the North of any moral highground whatsoever. Many Northern states had slaves until just shortly before the war and the North continued to profit off of slavery, building the ships from New York and Boston harbors and running the slave trade. So if a violation of the principles of liberty are at issue, then all states shared equally in the guilt. The War of Northern Aggression was not about right or wrong, about the abolition of slavery, or any of the other idiotic motives you superimpose on it. It was about power, the ability of Northern states with greater numbers and military infrastructure to dragoon into submission the eleven states attempting to escape from its economic tyranny.

You're not more educated, just a moron who thinks too highly of himself.

revisionist history on slavery? You must be a White Southern Christian Conservative. While slaves existed in the colonial East that later became referred to as the "North" there is NO comparison. No one denies slaves existed, but the slave trade and it worst practices on a grand scale are the sole property of White Southern Christian Conservatism

How did you know he was a White Southern Christian Conservative?





Oh yeah, because his entire posting history absolutely reeks of it.
"Saint Michael" is a joke. He quit responding to me when I tore apart that very argument of his.



EDIT: Just checked, he's actually from Idaho. Three outta four ain't bad.

And I'm Native American. Racists like you never see that coming.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And another supporter of Might Makes Right...

This country's independence was achieved by that very principle. Are you shitting on the American Revolution intentionally,
or did you just carelessly squat in the wrong spot?

Please explain your claim that the American REvolution was founded on the idea that Might Makes Right?

Because that does not match my understanding of the principles of the American Revolution.

The was a war of Independence. A war.

That one side won a war, does not mean they are operating from a MIght Makes Right principle.

That's exactly what might makes right means.

The Revolutionary War was actually a religious war with the Americans defending a belief that men had God given rights to equality and self-determination,

and England defending the belief in the divine right of Kings.

There's no such thing as a religious war. All wars are caused by competing economic interests and the protection or acquisition of resources. Anything short of that is not worth the cost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This country's independence was achieved by that very principle. Are you shitting on the American Revolution intentionally,
or did you just carelessly squat in the wrong spot?

Please explain your claim that the American REvolution was founded on the idea that Might Makes Right?

Because that does not match my understanding of the principles of the American Revolution.

The was a war of Independence. A war.

That one side won a war, does not mean they are operating from a MIght Makes Right principle.

That's exactly what might makes right means.

The Revolutionary War was actually a religious war with the Americans defending a belief that men had God given rights to equality and self-determination,

and England defending the belief in the divine right of Kings.

There's no such thing as a religious war. All wars are caused by competing economic interests and the protection or acquisition of resources. Anything short of that is not worth the cost.

You're an idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This country's independence was achieved by that very principle. Are you shitting on the American Revolution intentionally,
or did you just carelessly squat in the wrong spot?

Please explain your claim that the American REvolution was founded on the idea that Might Makes Right?

Because that does not match my understanding of the principles of the American Revolution.

The was a war of Independence. A war.

That one side won a war, does not mean they are operating from a MIght Makes Right principle.

That's exactly what might makes right means.

The Revolutionary War was actually a religious war with the Americans defending a belief that men had God given rights to equality and self-determination,

and England defending the belief in the divine right of Kings.

There's no such thing as a religious war. All wars are caused by competing economic interests and the protection or acquisition of resources. Anything short of that is not worth the cost.

So we can never blame the religion of Islam for causing, or inspiring, or perpetrating a war.

 

[bripat9643]

The dim never question anything they were taught in school. Who does that describe?

Even other conservatives think you're an idiot, Bripat.

The Confederacy was a cancer to the freedom of the people living in the United States. The Confederacy, quite literally, REJECTED THE CONSTITUTION.
God was on the USA's side. The Confederacy is gone, and their ridiculous belief that you can force others to work your fields for free is gone with them. Good riddance.

So who rejected the Constitution?

Do you mean literally rejected, or 'rejected' in the sense that you disagreed with the actions they took?

If you mean LITERALLY REJECTED THE CONSTITUTION, that would be the Confederacy.

If you mean 'rejected' as in you don't agree with the way they led or the actions they took,

That would be ______*insert worthless opinion




Talk facts, or don't talk.

You're quibbling about nothing. Only an idiot would try to claim Lincoln is the one who supported the Constitution.

That's a fact.

The Confederacy LITERALLY REJECTED THE CONSTITUTION.


There's no other way to spin that.

That's nothing but pure spin. The Confederacy rejected the looters and crony capitalists who were running the government, not the Constitution

Even if they did reject the Constitution, so what? Are you under the impression the Constitution was flawless? Liberals are the first to attack it because it legalized slavery. Watching liberals, who defend Obama's numerous unconstitutional actions to the hilt, wax sanctimoniously about the Constitution is enough to make honest men vomit. You're all a bunch of scathing unmitigated hypocrites.

 

[bripat9643]

Please explain your claim that the American REvolution was founded on the idea that Might Makes Right?

Because that does not match my understanding of the principles of the American Revolution.

The was a war of Independence. A war.

That one side won a war, does not mean they are operating from a MIght Makes Right principle.

That's exactly what might makes right means.

The Revolutionary War was actually a religious war with the Americans defending a belief that men had God given rights to equality and self-determination,

and England defending the belief in the divine right of Kings.

There's no such thing as a religious war. All wars are caused by competing economic interests and the protection or acquisition of resources. Anything short of that is not worth the cost.

You're an idiot.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

So what your saying is like a progressive you want to piss all over the constitution and STILL demand that you are protected by it? Are you bipolor?

I am protected by my willingness to do defend myself by whatever means is necessary to do so.

I do that based upon my duty to do so.

That duty is what sustains my right and my right is based upon my responsibility to not exercise my rights to the detriment of an innocent's means to exercise their own. And it is upon that soundly reasoned moral justification that my freedom... And your freedom... And all freedom rests.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Please explain your claim that the American REvolution was founded on the idea that Might Makes Right?

Because that does not match my understanding of the principles of the American Revolution.

The was a war of Independence. A war.

That one side won a war, does not mean they are operating from a MIght Makes Right principle.

That's exactly what might makes right means.

The Revolutionary War was actually a religious war with the Americans defending a belief that men had God given rights to equality and self-determination,

and England defending the belief in the divine right of Kings.

There's no such thing as a religious war. All wars are caused by competing economic interests and the protection or acquisition of resources. Anything short of that is not worth the cost.

So we can never blame the religion of Islam for causing, or inspiring, or perpetrating a war.

True... Because Islam is comprised of Muslims, therefore the responsibility rests with them, and the evil that animates them, which is the same that animates you and the political cult through both are advanced.

 

[thanatos144]

Why should they leave land that was theirs because slavers threw a tantrum?

They should leave for the same reason that we would have to pull our troops out of Germany if the government asked us to leave, numskull. Failure to comply would be an act of war. The U.S. doesn't determine the legitimate uses of property in foreign countries. Any kid in grade school understands that.

Look at you hating on America like a good little democrat . You do Obama and the Pauls proud

bripat9643 is a Democrat?

who knew

All confederates are democrats. Always have been always will be

Confederates of yesterday like Confederates of today are White Southern Christian Conservatives regardless of any silly party affiliation

How is trying to destroy the Constitution conservative?

 

[thanatos144]

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.

So what your saying is like a progressive you want to piss all over the constitution and STILL demand that you are protected by it? Are you bipolor?

I am protected by my willingness to do defend myself by whatever means is necessary to do so.

I do that based upon my duty to do so.

That duty is what sustains my right and my right is based upon my responsibility to not exercise my rights to the detriment of an innocent's means to exercise their own. And it is upon that soundly reasoned moral justification that my freedom... And your freedom... And all freedom rests.

And yet here you are defending slavers