Nathan Bedford Forrest statue causing controversy

The south committed acts of war against the Union.

The south had no legal right to secede.

The old south was executed for its perfidy.

Nothing you write changes any of that.

Lincoln believed the Union perpetual, indivisible, and he put paid to those who did not and could not follow constitutional, electoral process. The losers got what the deserved, and their defenders on this thread get what they deserve, disdain.

In other words, you don't give a flying fuck what the facts are.

None of you carpetbagger whores have produced an iota of proof that secession is unconstitutional. Until you do, all posts like the one above are just so much verbal masterbation.


Still not a shred of proof for your claims, Fakey.
 
Lincoln started the war, you stupid mother fucker.

The south seceded before Lincoln was sworn in. Because Buchanan was too chickenshit to do anything about it, LIncoln was the guy who had to mobilize the army.

Virginia, Norh Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas did not secede until Lincoln decided to put down the rebellion. How was he going to get them there except by invading those upper southern ststes?

so then, why was West Virginia allowed to secede from Virginia if secession is illegal?
 
Last edited:
Lincoln believed the Union perpetual, indivisible, and he put paid to those who did not and could not follow constitutional, electoral process. The losers got what the deserved, and their defenders on this thread get what they deserve, disdain.


Lincoln was wrong. End of story, dumbshit.

No, Lincoln was right. That was settled at Appamotox. The Confedaracy was a throwback to feudalism, and died a deserved death. The issue of slavery was settled, and the United States bacame just that. No matter how many people like you hate this nation, it is the United States, and will remain so.
 
Lincoln started the war, you stupid mother fucker.

The south seceded before Lincoln was sworn in. Because Buchanan was too chickenshit to do anything about it, LIncoln was the guy who had to mobilize the army.

Virginia, Norh Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas did not secede until Lincoln decided to put down the rebellion. How was he going to get them there except by invading those upper southern ststes?

so then, why was West Virginia allowed to secede from Virginia if secession is illegal?

Because West Virginia was seceding from a state, not the Union. Out west, the Oregon Territory became many states. Colorado was once part of Kansas. Your logic is silly.
 
Lincoln started the war, you stupid mother fucker.

The south seceded before Lincoln was sworn in. Because Buchanan was too chickenshit to do anything about it, LIncoln was the guy who had to mobilize the army.

Virginia, Norh Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas did not secede until Lincoln decided to put down the rebellion. How was he going to get them there except by invading those upper southern ststes?

so then, why was West Virginia allowed to secede from Virginia if secession is illegal?

The Constitution specifically denies the federal government the authority to make a state by carving the territory out of another state. So here we have just one example of many where Lincoln wiped his ass on the Constitution.
 
Lincoln believed the Union perpetual, indivisible, and he put paid to those who did not and could not follow constitutional, electoral process. The losers got what the deserved, and their defenders on this thread get what they deserve, disdain.


Lincoln was wrong. End of story, dumbshit.

No, Lincoln was right. That was settled at Appamotox. The Confedaracy was a throwback to feudalism, and died a deserved death. The issue of slavery was settled, and the United States bacame just that. No matter how many people like you hate this nation, it is the United States, and will remain so.

Lincoln was wrong. No matter what you may think of the Southern states, the Constitution gave Lincoln no authority to invade them.

War doesn't settle matters of truth. It only determines whose version of reality will be rammed down your throat.
 
The south seceded before Lincoln was sworn in. Because Buchanan was too chickenshit to do anything about it, LIncoln was the guy who had to mobilize the army.

Virginia, Norh Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas did not secede until Lincoln decided to put down the rebellion. How was he going to get them there except by invading those upper southern ststes?

so then, why was West Virginia allowed to secede from Virginia if secession is illegal?

Because West Virginia was seceding from a state, not the Union. Out west, the Oregon Territory became many states. Colorado was once part of Kansas. Your logic is silly.

ROFL! You defend the right of part of a state to secede, even though the constitution specifically prohibits that, but you attack the right of the confederate states to secede, even though the document is silent on that issue.

You're a special kind of stupid, Rocks in the Head.
 
bripat has clearly lost the argument. By constitution, by reason, by philosophy, by force of arms ~ the south failed in every way, and so has every attempt on this thread to defend the traitors of the past.

We know who the traitors of our time are on the board and can keep an eye on them.
 
bripat has clearly lost the argument. By constitution, by reason, by philosophy, by force of arms ~ the south failed in every way, and so has every attempt on this thread to defend the traitors of the past.

We know who the traitors of our time are on the board and can keep an eye on them.

Fuck off, Fakey. You've gona 56 pages now without ONE SHRED of evidence that your opinion is worth anything more than dogshit. You've yet to cite any author, treatise, book or paper that supports your version of American history, and you've looked quite the fool arguing against the Constitution itself.

That propagandized swill you swallowed back in your 'skool daze' sure must have been sweet, too bad it was poison.
 
Amazing there are fools who think that assholes who started a hopeless war so a few rich douchebags could continue to own slaves is worth defending.
 
Amazing there are fools who think that assholes who started a hopeless war so a few rich douchebags could continue to own slaves is worth defending.

Mr. History Degree has had the same 56 pages to provide some kind of evidence also, and has chosen instead to spend it calling people names.

Way to keep it classy, JoeB.
 
Guy describes his attempt to defend his position, a failure.

bripat has clearly lost the argument. By constitution, by reason, by philosophy, by force of arms ~ the south failed in every way, and so has every attempt on this thread to defend the traitors of the past.

We know who the traitors of our time are on the board and can keep an eye on them.

Fuck off, Fakey. You've gona 56 pages now without ONE SHRED of evidence that your opinion is worth anything more than dogshit. You've yet to cite any author, treatise, book or paper that supports your version of American history, and you've looked quite the fool arguing against the Constitution itself.

That propagandized swill you swallowed back in your 'skool daze' sure must have been sweet, too bad it was poison.
 
Guy describes his attempt to defend his position, a failure.

bripat has clearly lost the argument. By constitution, by reason, by philosophy, by force of arms ~ the south failed in every way, and so has every attempt on this thread to defend the traitors of the past.

We know who the traitors of our time are on the board and can keep an eye on them.

Fuck off, Fakey. You've gona 56 pages now without ONE SHRED of evidence that your opinion is worth anything more than dogshit. You've yet to cite any author, treatise, book or paper that supports your version of American history, and you've looked quite the fool arguing against the Constitution itself.

That propagandized swill you swallowed back in your 'skool daze' sure must have been sweet, too bad it was poison.

Wassamatter Fakey, still can't find anything to back up your misguided and uninformed opinion?
 
Guy, you can't competently defend the south's collective treason.

You simply suck at this.
 
bripat has clearly lost the argument. By constitution, by reason, by philosophy, by force of arms ~ the south failed in every way, and so has every attempt on this thread to defend the traitors of the past.

We know who the traitors of our time are on the board and can keep an eye on them.

You have failed to prove a single claim you've made, Fakey. You haven't even attempted to prove any of them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top