Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[paperview]

You've been informed you when hostilities started.

You have also been shown all the forts and arsenals that were seized, well before Lincoln was inaugurated.

On December 27, Francis Pickens, the newly elected governor of South Carolina, demanded that Anderson return to Fort Moultrie. The major refused. Pickens also ordered the state militia to occupy Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney and the U.S. Arsenal, all of which occurred without incident. Then, South Carolina forces began building defensive works around the harbor. Some were directed at Fort Sumter, others on Morris and Sullivan’s Islands were directed to fire into the shipping channels. On James Island, the long-abandoned Fort Johnson was occupied and guns mounted. Simultaneously, inside Fort Sumter, Anderson’s command, aided by three Army Corps of Engineer officers and 40 civilian employees, began mounting cannon and improving the fort’s defenses. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., President James Buchanan’s response to the growing crisis was to send the civilian ship, Star of the West, with troops and supplies to Fort Sumter. Citadel cadets assigned to a battery on Morris Island and troops at Fort Moultrie fired upon the ship on January 9, and it turned back without accomplishing its mission.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The Problem in Charleston Harbor
=============================================
=============================================

"CHARLESTON, S.C. --- Gray-clad cadets from South Carolina's historic military college fired cannons Saturday on a barren, wind-swept island on Charleston Harbor to re-enact the 150th anniversary of a key episode leading up to the Civil War.

The event recalled what some consider the first shots of the war -- the 1861 firing on the steamship Star of the West that was trying to reach Fort Sumter with supplies and 200 federal troops. Cadets manning a battery on Morris Island hit the ship and forced it to turn back.
...
The incident is ingrained in the history of the military college, founded in 1842. The Citadel's regimental colors carry eight Confederate battle ribbons.

The best drilled Citadel cadet still receives the Star of the West Medal each spring. It incorporates wood from the historic vessel."

Citadel cadets re-enact first shots of Civil War The Augusta Chronicle


You can deny it as insignificant, and say war was not a foregone conclusion, (it was) -- but that January 1861 incident was recognized by all involved at the time as an important milestone and a full-on escalation of the dispute over Federal installations and most certainly the gasoline that was being tossed by the Southerners to ignite the fire of war.

Before Lincoln ever stepped into office.

And if you really want to get picky in some of those January events....

Barrancas: The First Shots Fired in the Rebellion

"The firing on Fort Sumter in Charleston's harbor traditionally marks the opening salvos of the Rebellion. But before this assault on April 14, 1861, there was another battle—the first shots of the Civil War—hundreds of miles to the south in Florida.

On Jan. 8, 1861, United States Army guards repelled a group of men intending to take Fort Barrancas in Pensacola Harbor. Historians say that this event could be considered the first shots fired on Union forces in the Civil War.

Military History Online - Fort Barrancas


Tell us again about "The War of Northern Aggression."

Gowan.

Recounting the same events over and over again doesn't strengthen your case. Sovereign nations have a right to evict trespassers, and all union troops in the South became trespassers the minute the Southern states seceded. Wasn't it you who admitted that no military base in a foreign country can ever be permanent?

No, no, & no.

You lost, long ago.

Give up your crusade to defend people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children.

Again, the sleazy insinuations of racism. If your "victory" was so obvious you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics

"Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children. "

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

...
Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

Ok, child.

It's not racist to say you are defending people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

It's fact.

 

[bripat9643]

You've been informed you when hostilities started.

You have also been shown all the forts and arsenals that were seized, well before Lincoln was inaugurated.

On December 27, Francis Pickens, the newly elected governor of South Carolina, demanded that Anderson return to Fort Moultrie. The major refused. Pickens also ordered the state militia to occupy Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney and the U.S. Arsenal, all of which occurred without incident. Then, South Carolina forces began building defensive works around the harbor. Some were directed at Fort Sumter, others on Morris and Sullivan’s Islands were directed to fire into the shipping channels. On James Island, the long-abandoned Fort Johnson was occupied and guns mounted. Simultaneously, inside Fort Sumter, Anderson’s command, aided by three Army Corps of Engineer officers and 40 civilian employees, began mounting cannon and improving the fort’s defenses. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., President James Buchanan’s response to the growing crisis was to send the civilian ship, Star of the West, with troops and supplies to Fort Sumter. Citadel cadets assigned to a battery on Morris Island and troops at Fort Moultrie fired upon the ship on January 9, and it turned back without accomplishing its mission.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The Problem in Charleston Harbor
=============================================
=============================================

"CHARLESTON, S.C. --- Gray-clad cadets from South Carolina's historic military college fired cannons Saturday on a barren, wind-swept island on Charleston Harbor to re-enact the 150th anniversary of a key episode leading up to the Civil War.

The event recalled what some consider the first shots of the war -- the 1861 firing on the steamship Star of the West that was trying to reach Fort Sumter with supplies and 200 federal troops. Cadets manning a battery on Morris Island hit the ship and forced it to turn back.
...
The incident is ingrained in the history of the military college, founded in 1842. The Citadel's regimental colors carry eight Confederate battle ribbons.

The best drilled Citadel cadet still receives the Star of the West Medal each spring. It incorporates wood from the historic vessel."

Citadel cadets re-enact first shots of Civil War The Augusta Chronicle


You can deny it as insignificant, and say war was not a foregone conclusion, (it was) -- but that January 1861 incident was recognized by all involved at the time as an important milestone and a full-on escalation of the dispute over Federal installations and most certainly the gasoline that was being tossed by the Southerners to ignite the fire of war.

Before Lincoln ever stepped into office.

And if you really want to get picky in some of those January events....

Barrancas: The First Shots Fired in the Rebellion

"The firing on Fort Sumter in Charleston's harbor traditionally marks the opening salvos of the Rebellion. But before this assault on April 14, 1861, there was another battle—the first shots of the Civil War—hundreds of miles to the south in Florida.

On Jan. 8, 1861, United States Army guards repelled a group of men intending to take Fort Barrancas in Pensacola Harbor. Historians say that this event could be considered the first shots fired on Union forces in the Civil War.

Military History Online - Fort Barrancas


Tell us again about "The War of Northern Aggression."

Gowan.

Recounting the same events over and over again doesn't strengthen your case. Sovereign nations have a right to evict trespassers, and all union troops in the South became trespassers the minute the Southern states seceded. Wasn't it you who admitted that no military base in a foreign country can ever be permanent?

No, no, & no.

You lost, long ago.

Give up your crusade to defend people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children.

Again, the sleazy insinuations of racism. If your "victory" was so obvious you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics

"Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children. "

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

...
Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

Ok, child.

It's not racist to say you are defending people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

It's fact.

I'm not defending slavery, jackass. In the end, when the ignominious lib poltroons can't win on the facts, they always get out the race card. That's the tell that indicates they know they've lost.

 

[paperview]

...
Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

You've been informed you when hostilities started.

You have also been shown all the forts and arsenals that were seized, well before Lincoln was inaugurated.

On December 27, Francis Pickens, the newly elected governor of South Carolina, demanded that Anderson return to Fort Moultrie. The major refused. Pickens also ordered the state militia to occupy Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney and the U.S. Arsenal, all of which occurred without incident. Then, South Carolina forces began building defensive works around the harbor. Some were directed at Fort Sumter, others on Morris and Sullivan’s Islands were directed to fire into the shipping channels. On James Island, the long-abandoned Fort Johnson was occupied and guns mounted. Simultaneously, inside Fort Sumter, Anderson’s command, aided by three Army Corps of Engineer officers and 40 civilian employees, began mounting cannon and improving the fort’s defenses. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., President James Buchanan’s response to the growing crisis was to send the civilian ship, Star of the West, with troops and supplies to Fort Sumter. Citadel cadets assigned to a battery on Morris Island and troops at Fort Moultrie fired upon the ship on January 9, and it turned back without accomplishing its mission.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The Problem in Charleston Harbor
=============================================
=============================================

"CHARLESTON, S.C. --- Gray-clad cadets from South Carolina's historic military college fired cannons Saturday on a barren, wind-swept island on Charleston Harbor to re-enact the 150th anniversary of a key episode leading up to the Civil War.

The event recalled what some consider the first shots of the war -- the 1861 firing on the steamship Star of the West that was trying to reach Fort Sumter with supplies and 200 federal troops. Cadets manning a battery on Morris Island hit the ship and forced it to turn back.
...
The incident is ingrained in the history of the military college, founded in 1842. The Citadel's regimental colors carry eight Confederate battle ribbons.

The best drilled Citadel cadet still receives the Star of the West Medal each spring. It incorporates wood from the historic vessel."

Citadel cadets re-enact first shots of Civil War The Augusta Chronicle


You can deny it as insignificant, and say war was not a foregone conclusion, (it was) -- but that January 1861 incident was recognized by all involved at the time as an important milestone and a full-on escalation of the dispute over Federal installations and most certainly the gasoline that was being tossed by the Southerners to ignite the fire of war.

Before Lincoln ever stepped into office.

And if you really want to get picky in some of those January events....

Barrancas: The First Shots Fired in the Rebellion

"The firing on Fort Sumter in Charleston's harbor traditionally marks the opening salvos of the Rebellion. But before this assault on April 14, 1861, there was another battle—the first shots of the Civil War—hundreds of miles to the south in Florida.

On Jan. 8, 1861, United States Army guards repelled a group of men intending to take Fort Barrancas in Pensacola Harbor. Historians say that this event could be considered the first shots fired on Union forces in the Civil War.

Military History Online - Fort Barrancas


Tell us again about "The War of Northern Aggression."

Gowan.

Recounting the same events over and over again doesn't strengthen your case. Sovereign nations have a right to evict trespassers, and all union troops in the South became trespassers the minute the Southern states seceded. Wasn't it you who admitted that no military base in a foreign country can ever be permanent?

No, no, & no.

You lost, long ago.

Give up your crusade to defend people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children.

Again, the sleazy insinuations of racism. If your "victory" was so obvious you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics

"Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children. "

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

...
Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

Ok, child.

It's not racist to say you are defending people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

It's fact.

I'm not defending slavery, jackass. In the end, when the ignominious lib poltroons can't win on the facts, they always get out the race card. That's the tell that indicates they know they've lost.

do you have a hard time reading?

You are defending people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

You are defending the people who defended slavery.

There's no getting around that.

 

[bodecea]

You've been informed you when hostilities started.

You have also been shown all the forts and arsenals that were seized, well before Lincoln was inaugurated.

On December 27, Francis Pickens, the newly elected governor of South Carolina, demanded that Anderson return to Fort Moultrie. The major refused. Pickens also ordered the state militia to occupy Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney and the U.S. Arsenal, all of which occurred without incident. Then, South Carolina forces began building defensive works around the harbor. Some were directed at Fort Sumter, others on Morris and Sullivan’s Islands were directed to fire into the shipping channels. On James Island, the long-abandoned Fort Johnson was occupied and guns mounted. Simultaneously, inside Fort Sumter, Anderson’s command, aided by three Army Corps of Engineer officers and 40 civilian employees, began mounting cannon and improving the fort’s defenses. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., President James Buchanan’s response to the growing crisis was to send the civilian ship, Star of the West, with troops and supplies to Fort Sumter. Citadel cadets assigned to a battery on Morris Island and troops at Fort Moultrie fired upon the ship on January 9, and it turned back without accomplishing its mission.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The Problem in Charleston Harbor
=============================================
=============================================

"CHARLESTON, S.C. --- Gray-clad cadets from South Carolina's historic military college fired cannons Saturday on a barren, wind-swept island on Charleston Harbor to re-enact the 150th anniversary of a key episode leading up to the Civil War.

The event recalled what some consider the first shots of the war -- the 1861 firing on the steamship Star of the West that was trying to reach Fort Sumter with supplies and 200 federal troops. Cadets manning a battery on Morris Island hit the ship and forced it to turn back.
...
The incident is ingrained in the history of the military college, founded in 1842. The Citadel's regimental colors carry eight Confederate battle ribbons.

The best drilled Citadel cadet still receives the Star of the West Medal each spring. It incorporates wood from the historic vessel."

Citadel cadets re-enact first shots of Civil War The Augusta Chronicle


You can deny it as insignificant, and say war was not a foregone conclusion, (it was) -- but that January 1861 incident was recognized by all involved at the time as an important milestone and a full-on escalation of the dispute over Federal installations and most certainly the gasoline that was being tossed by the Southerners to ignite the fire of war.

Before Lincoln ever stepped into office.

And if you really want to get picky in some of those January events....

Barrancas: The First Shots Fired in the Rebellion

"The firing on Fort Sumter in Charleston's harbor traditionally marks the opening salvos of the Rebellion. But before this assault on April 14, 1861, there was another battle—the first shots of the Civil War—hundreds of miles to the south in Florida.

On Jan. 8, 1861, United States Army guards repelled a group of men intending to take Fort Barrancas in Pensacola Harbor. Historians say that this event could be considered the first shots fired on Union forces in the Civil War.

Military History Online - Fort Barrancas


Tell us again about "The War of Northern Aggression."

Gowan.

Recounting the same events over and over again doesn't strengthen your case. Sovereign nations have a right to evict trespassers, and all union troops in the South became trespassers the minute the Southern states seceded. Wasn't it you who admitted that no military base in a foreign country can ever be permanent?

No, no, & no.

You lost, long ago.

Give up your crusade to defend people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children.

Again, the sleazy insinuations of racism. If your "victory" was so obvious you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics

"Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children. "

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

...
Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

Ok, child.

It's not racist to say you are defending people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

It's fact.

I'm not defending slavery, jackass. In the end, when the ignominious lib poltroons can't win on the facts, they always get out the race card. That's the tell that indicates they know they've lost.

Wait...it's a discussion of the Civil War and you complain about a "race card"? Sorry, child. You cannot separate the topic of Robert E. Lee and the Civil War from the issue of Race and Slavery. You just can't.

 

[bripat9643]

...
Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

Recounting the same events over and over again doesn't strengthen your case. Sovereign nations have a right to evict trespassers, and all union troops in the South became trespassers the minute the Southern states seceded. Wasn't it you who admitted that no military base in a foreign country can ever be permanent?

No, no, & no.

You lost, long ago.

Give up your crusade to defend people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children.

Again, the sleazy insinuations of racism. If your "victory" was so obvious you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics

"Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children. "

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

...
Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

Ok, child.

It's not racist to say you are defending people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

It's fact.

I'm not defending slavery, jackass. In the end, when the ignominious lib poltroons can't win on the facts, they always get out the race card. That's the tell that indicates they know they've lost.

do you have a hard time reading?

You are defending people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

You are defending the people who defended slavery.

There's no getting around that.

I've already dispense with your sleazy personal attack.

 

[bripat9643]

Recounting the same events over and over again doesn't strengthen your case. Sovereign nations have a right to evict trespassers, and all union troops in the South became trespassers the minute the Southern states seceded. Wasn't it you who admitted that no military base in a foreign country can ever be permanent?

No, no, & no.

You lost, long ago.

Give up your crusade to defend people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children.

Again, the sleazy insinuations of racism. If your "victory" was so obvious you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics

"Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children. "

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

...
Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

Ok, child.

It's not racist to say you are defending people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

It's fact.

I'm not defending slavery, jackass. In the end, when the ignominious lib poltroons can't win on the facts, they always get out the race card. That's the tell that indicates they know they've lost.

Wait...it's a discussion of the Civil War and you complain about a "race card"? Sorry, child. You cannot separate the topic of Robert E. Lee and the Civil War from the issue of Race and Slavery. You just can't.

Sure you can. Only a sleazy dishonest liberal poltroon who doesn't want his agenda questioned would claim otherwise.

 

[bendog]

Obscenity boy aside, remember Lincoln did not set out to free a single slave. That's not to say slavery wasn't the issue at the core of all other issues, but had the south been willing to avoid secession, not a single slave would have been freed.

 

[bripat9643]

Obscenity boy aside, remember Lincoln did not set out to free a single slave. That's not to say slavery wasn't the issue at the core of all other issues, but had the south been willing to avoid secession, not a single slave would have been freed.

You just proved that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery.

 

[bendog]

no obscenity boy, I just pointed out the reality that the North would have accepted slavery in the theretofore identified slave states.

 

[boilermaker55]

Defending those that believed and fought to retain slavery, means you are defending slavery.

You've been informed you when hostilities started.

You have also been shown all the forts and arsenals that were seized, well before Lincoln was inaugurated.

On December 27, Francis Pickens, the newly elected governor of South Carolina, demanded that Anderson return to Fort Moultrie. The major refused. Pickens also ordered the state militia to occupy Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney and the U.S. Arsenal, all of which occurred without incident. Then, South Carolina forces began building defensive works around the harbor. Some were directed at Fort Sumter, others on Morris and Sullivan’s Islands were directed to fire into the shipping channels. On James Island, the long-abandoned Fort Johnson was occupied and guns mounted. Simultaneously, inside Fort Sumter, Anderson’s command, aided by three Army Corps of Engineer officers and 40 civilian employees, began mounting cannon and improving the fort’s defenses. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., President James Buchanan’s response to the growing crisis was to send the civilian ship, Star of the West, with troops and supplies to Fort Sumter. Citadel cadets assigned to a battery on Morris Island and troops at Fort Moultrie fired upon the ship on January 9, and it turned back without accomplishing its mission.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The Problem in Charleston Harbor
=============================================
=============================================

"CHARLESTON, S.C. --- Gray-clad cadets from South Carolina's historic military college fired cannons Saturday on a barren, wind-swept island on Charleston Harbor to re-enact the 150th anniversary of a key episode leading up to the Civil War.

The event recalled what some consider the first shots of the war -- the 1861 firing on the steamship Star of the West that was trying to reach Fort Sumter with supplies and 200 federal troops. Cadets manning a battery on Morris Island hit the ship and forced it to turn back.
...
The incident is ingrained in the history of the military college, founded in 1842. The Citadel's regimental colors carry eight Confederate battle ribbons.

The best drilled Citadel cadet still receives the Star of the West Medal each spring. It incorporates wood from the historic vessel."

Citadel cadets re-enact first shots of Civil War The Augusta Chronicle


You can deny it as insignificant, and say war was not a foregone conclusion, (it was) -- but that January 1861 incident was recognized by all involved at the time as an important milestone and a full-on escalation of the dispute over Federal installations and most certainly the gasoline that was being tossed by the Southerners to ignite the fire of war.

Before Lincoln ever stepped into office.

And if you really want to get picky in some of those January events....

Barrancas: The First Shots Fired in the Rebellion

"The firing on Fort Sumter in Charleston's harbor traditionally marks the opening salvos of the Rebellion. But before this assault on April 14, 1861, there was another battle—the first shots of the Civil War—hundreds of miles to the south in Florida.

On Jan. 8, 1861, United States Army guards repelled a group of men intending to take Fort Barrancas in Pensacola Harbor. Historians say that this event could be considered the first shots fired on Union forces in the Civil War.

Military History Online - Fort Barrancas


Tell us again about "The War of Northern Aggression."

Gowan.

Recounting the same events over and over again doesn't strengthen your case. Sovereign nations have a right to evict trespassers, and all union troops in the South became trespassers the minute the Southern states seceded. Wasn't it you who admitted that no military base in a foreign country can ever be permanent?

No, no, & no.

You lost, long ago.

Give up your crusade to defend people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children.

Again, the sleazy insinuations of racism. If your "victory" was so obvious you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics

"Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children. "

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

...
Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

Ok, child.

It's not racist to say you are defending people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

It's fact.

I'm not defending slavery, jackass. In the end, when the ignominious lib poltroons can't win on the facts, they always get out the race card. That's the tell that indicates they know they've lost.

 

[bripat9643]

Defending those that believed and fought to retain slavery, means you are defending slavery.

Recounting the same events over and over again doesn't strengthen your case. Sovereign nations have a right to evict trespassers, and all union troops in the South became trespassers the minute the Southern states seceded. Wasn't it you who admitted that no military base in a foreign country can ever be permanent?

No, no, & no.

You lost, long ago.

Give up your crusade to defend people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children.

Again, the sleazy insinuations of racism. If your "victory" was so obvious you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics

"Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children. "

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

...
Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

Ok, child.

It's not racist to say you are defending people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

It's fact.

I'm not defending slavery, jackass. In the end, when the ignominious lib poltroons can't win on the facts, they always get out the race card. That's the tell that indicates they know they've lost.

No it doesn't, you prehensile poltroon. That claim is the hail marry pass of the Lincoln cult members who are unable to defend the crimes of their patron saint.

 

[bendog]

Defending those that believed and fought to retain slavery, means you are defending slavery.

No, no, & no.

You lost, long ago.

Give up your crusade to defend people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children.

Again, the sleazy insinuations of racism. If your "victory" was so obvious you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics

"Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children. "

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

...
Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

Ok, child.

It's not racist to say you are defending people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

It's fact.

I'm not defending slavery, jackass. In the end, when the ignominious lib poltroons can't win on the facts, they always get out the race card. That's the tell that indicates they know they've lost.

No it doesn't, you prehensile poltroon. That claim is the hail marry pass of the Lincoln cult members who are unable to defend the crimes of their patron saint.

penny for your thoughts. (-:

 

[boilermaker55]

When you have no idea what you are trying to say and then you try to defend yourself with name calling, it only demonstrates
your childish and ignorant ways.
Defending someone that fights to preserve an injustice, advocates ones belief in the injustice.

Defending those that believed and fought to retain slavery, means you are defending slavery.

No, no, & no.

You lost, long ago.

Give up your crusade to defend people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children.

Again, the sleazy insinuations of racism. If your "victory" was so obvious you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics

"Declaring yourself the winner doesn't make you the winner. Most people learned that lesson when they were children. "

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

...
Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

Ok, child.

It's not racist to say you are defending people whose stated intent was a desire to continue to enslave millions of black human beings to be bought as sold as cattle and horses.

It's fact.

I'm not defending slavery, jackass. In the end, when the ignominious lib poltroons can't win on the facts, they always get out the race card. That's the tell that indicates they know they've lost.

No it doesn't, you prehensile poltroon. That claim is the hail marry pass of the Lincoln cult members who are unable to defend the crimes of their patron saint.

 

[reconmark]

Citing the White Nationalist DiLorenzo doesn't help your cause much, birdbrain.

Don't you understand "white nationalism" and the assorted lunacy is the basis of their entire argument???

There's no such thing as "white nationalism," shit-for-brains.

Citing the White Nationalist DiLorenzo doesn't help your cause much, birdbrain.

Don't you understand "white nationalism" and the assorted lunacy is the basis of their entire argument???

There's no such thing as "white nationalism," shit-for-brains.

Wow...Look!!!!!...a definition for a non-existant word...


What is White Nationalism?

1. Q. What is White Nationalism?
A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.
What is White Nationalism

You were saying...shit for brains.

 

[reconmark]

Citing the White Nationalist DiLorenzo doesn't help your cause much, birdbrain.

Don't you understand "white nationalism" and the assorted lunacy is the basis of their entire argument???

"White nationalist" is just a smear by the Lincoln cult of anyone who criticizes their dogma. It's a substitute for logic and facts.

So most sane people and organizations are attempting to smear the racist you are fellating???...go figure.

You're obviously not a sane person. You're a neurotic who feels threatened by anyone who criticizes all the foolish dogma you believe.

Along with the majority of people world wide...
Maybe it's you...

 

[hazlnut]

 

[nodoginnafight]

Apparently Lee was not what a lot of his racist sheep like to think he was:

LEE S LIGHT SKINNED SLAVE GIRLS

Hearsay -- no actual evidence -- fail.

Head in the sand stupidity, willful ignorance and denial of common sense.
Your rebuttal=fail

Hearsay?
From Robert E. Lee's personal papers?
His own words are hearsay ?

LOL

 

[DriftingSand]

Apparently Lee was not what a lot of his racist sheep like to think he was:

LEE S LIGHT SKINNED SLAVE GIRLS

Hearsay -- no actual evidence -- fail.

Head in the sand stupidity, willful ignorance and denial of common sense.
Your rebuttal=fail

Hearsay?
From Robert E. Lee's personal papers?
His own words are hearsay ?

LOL

No links to real proof means it didn't happen! Progressive nutjobs have been re-writing history since the 60s so it comes as no surprise that your "new evidence" magically appeared in the 21st century.

 

[bripat9643]

Citing the White Nationalist DiLorenzo doesn't help your cause much, birdbrain.

Don't you understand "white nationalism" and the assorted lunacy is the basis of their entire argument???

There's no such thing as "white nationalism," shit-for-brains.

Citing the White Nationalist DiLorenzo doesn't help your cause much, birdbrain.

Don't you understand "white nationalism" and the assorted lunacy is the basis of their entire argument???

There's no such thing as "white nationalism," shit-for-brains.

Wow...Look!!!!!...a definition for a non-existant word...


What is White Nationalism?

1. Q. What is White Nationalism?
A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.
What is White Nationalism

You were saying...shit for brains.

In other words, it's a smear conceived by liberals. No one has ever expressed such an opinion.

 

[bripat9643]

Citing the White Nationalist DiLorenzo doesn't help your cause much, birdbrain.

Don't you understand "white nationalism" and the assorted lunacy is the basis of their entire argument???

"White nationalist" is just a smear by the Lincoln cult of anyone who criticizes their dogma. It's a substitute for logic and facts.

So most sane people and organizations are attempting to smear the racist you are fellating???...go figure.

You're obviously not a sane person. You're a neurotic who feels threatened by anyone who criticizes all the foolish dogma you believe.

Along with the majority of people world wide...
Maybe it's you...

The majority of people believe all kinds of things that are just plain untrue. For instance, they believe politicians are actually trying to help them.