Sarah Palin Faces Conservative Backlash

[Uncle Kenny]

Totally false. The Southern rebels fired first...a little thing called Fort Sumter.

Where is that located? That was a foreign army that was attempting to force them to rejoin the union at the time. By invading the Union started the war. Read more and assume less. Understanding history requires you know the context, not just the event.

Fort Sumter was a FEDERAL fort on FEDERAL property. And it was fired on by REBELS trying to steal federal property and hurt federal soldiers.

Can you just imagine today if someone fired on a federal installation and the President did NOTHING about it...or worse...just handed it over without a fight? to Traitors?

It wasn't a "Federal" anything, the land was not the United States' land it belonged to SC and they had suceeded from the union. The soldiers were there as invaders from the U.S. when they refused to leave the fort. They were offered the right to surrender and when they didn't they were fired upon. Again it was no longer the property, under law of the U.S. and at that time SC had no "Federal" government affiliation or agreements with the U.S. By right of the Constitution, the soldiers had to surrender and leave SC when asked. They didn't, which violated both SC state law and U.S. federal law and they were fired upon.

If Germany asked us to leave a military base in Germany and we refused to do so, they wouldn't be starting the war if they attempted to drive us out any more than the SC militia started the war by trying to drive invaders out.

 

[bodecea]

Where is that located? That was a foreign army that was attempting to force them to rejoin the union at the time. By invading the Union started the war. Read more and assume less. Understanding history requires you know the context, not just the event.

Fort Sumter was a FEDERAL fort on FEDERAL property. And it was fired on by REBELS trying to steal federal property and hurt federal soldiers.

Can you just imagine today if someone fired on a federal installation and the President did NOTHING about it...or worse...just handed it over without a fight? to Traitors?

It wasn't a "Federal" anything, the land was not the United States' land it belonged to SC and they had suceeded from the union. The soldiers were there as invaders from the U.S. when they refused to leave the fort. They were offered the right to surrender and when they didn't they were fired upon. Again it was no longer the property, under law of the U.S. and at that time SC had no "Federal" government affiliation or agreements with the U.S. By right of the Constitution, the soldiers had to surrender and leave SC when asked. They didn't, which violated both SC state law and U.S. federal law and they were fired upon.

If Germany asked us to leave a military base in Germany and we refused to do so, they wouldn't be starting the war if they attempted to drive us out any more than the SC militia started the war by trying to drive invaders out.

Fort Sumter was Federal Property and had been manned by Federal Troops. If it had belonged to SC, why wasn't it manned by SC troops?


Sorry....but the southern traitors not only had no right to leave, but they started the shooting. They were losers all the way around. And still whine about it over 140years later. They had already proved they were willing to resort to violence....on the Senate floor, no less.

Can you imagine the British whining 140 years or more after losing the Rev War?

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Losing the war. Just like us winning the Revolutionary War gave us the right to declare independence.

Your so-called ancestors backed a losing, traitorous cause...and worse, they started it. Bummer for you....tho you still like to have a NIC that spits on U.S. soldiers who bravely fought and died to keep this one country. One GREAT country....not one GREAT country and one backwoods, inbred 3rd world country.

We declarde independance before the Revolutionary War. My dear God, please retake history and pay attention this time.

Um, you are incorrect again. Where did you go to school? The fighting started in April 1775 and the Dec of Ind was not approved and signed til July 1776. Over a year later.


So, your post is extremely Ironic to say the least.

I stand corrected, it was not signed and delivered until the war was under way. I appologize for my error. I should not try to post while working, I will do my best not to make mistakes in future. Thank you for your correction.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Fort Sumter was a FEDERAL fort on FEDERAL property. And it was fired on by REBELS trying to steal federal property and hurt federal soldiers.

Can you just imagine today if someone fired on a federal installation and the President did NOTHING about it...or worse...just handed it over without a fight? to Traitors?

It wasn't a "Federal" anything, the land was not the United States' land it belonged to SC and they had suceeded from the union. The soldiers were there as invaders from the U.S. when they refused to leave the fort. They were offered the right to surrender and when they didn't they were fired upon. Again it was no longer the property, under law of the U.S. and at that time SC had no "Federal" government affiliation or agreements with the U.S. By right of the Constitution, the soldiers had to surrender and leave SC when asked. They didn't, which violated both SC state law and U.S. federal law and they were fired upon.

If Germany asked us to leave a military base in Germany and we refused to do so, they wouldn't be starting the war if they attempted to drive us out any more than the SC militia started the war by trying to drive invaders out.

Fort Sumter was Federal Property and had been manned by Federal Troops. If it had belonged to SC, why wasn't it manned by SC troops?


Sorry....but the southern traitors not only had no right to leave, but they started the shooting. They were losers all the way around. And still whine about it over 140years later. They had already proved they were willing to resort to violence....on the Senate floor, no less.

Can you imagine the British whining 140 years or more after losing the Rev War?

Simple enough, did the Constitution allow any state to secede if they so chose? Yes. If a state seceded from the union, did they owe land, tax or affiliation to the union without negotiation and agreement? No. Did SC ask the federal troops to peacefully surrender and leave? Yes. Did they? No. Did that constitute an invasion? Yes, by any international standard it surely did. Is that what initiated the war? Yes.

Again, the traitor tag is totally wrong. Of course the north often uses that to deflect from obvious war crimes they commited all over the south, even after the war, but for a modern American to be that brainwashed? Really?

 

[bodecea]

It wasn't a "Federal" anything, the land was not the United States' land it belonged to SC and they had suceeded from the union. The soldiers were there as invaders from the U.S. when they refused to leave the fort. They were offered the right to surrender and when they didn't they were fired upon. Again it was no longer the property, under law of the U.S. and at that time SC had no "Federal" government affiliation or agreements with the U.S. By right of the Constitution, the soldiers had to surrender and leave SC when asked. They didn't, which violated both SC state law and U.S. federal law and they were fired upon.

If Germany asked us to leave a military base in Germany and we refused to do so, they wouldn't be starting the war if they attempted to drive us out any more than the SC militia started the war by trying to drive invaders out.

Fort Sumter was Federal Property and had been manned by Federal Troops. If it had belonged to SC, why wasn't it manned by SC troops?


Sorry....but the southern traitors not only had no right to leave, but they started the shooting. They were losers all the way around. And still whine about it over 140years later. They had already proved they were willing to resort to violence....on the Senate floor, no less.

Can you imagine the British whining 140 years or more after losing the Rev War?

Simple enough, did the Constitution allow any state to secede if they so chose? Yes. If a state seceded from the union, did they owe land, tax or affiliation to the union without negotiation and agreement? No. Did SC ask the federal troops to peacefully surrender and leave? Yes. Did they? No. Did that constitute an invasion? Yes, by any international standard it surely did. Is that what initiated the war? Yes.

Again, the traitor tag is totally wrong. Of course the north often uses that to deflect from obvious war crimes they commited all over the south, even after the war, but for a modern American to be that brainwashed? Really?

Article and Section please.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Fort Sumter was Federal Property and had been manned by Federal Troops. If it had belonged to SC, why wasn't it manned by SC troops?


Sorry....but the southern traitors not only had no right to leave, but they started the shooting. They were losers all the way around. And still whine about it over 140years later. They had already proved they were willing to resort to violence....on the Senate floor, no less.

Can you imagine the British whining 140 years or more after losing the Rev War?

Simple enough, did the Constitution allow any state to secede if they so chose? Yes. If a state seceded from the union, did they owe land, tax or affiliation to the union without negotiation and agreement? No. Did SC ask the federal troops to peacefully surrender and leave? Yes. Did they? No. Did that constitute an invasion? Yes, by any international standard it surely did. Is that what initiated the war? Yes.

Again, the traitor tag is totally wrong. Of course the north often uses that to deflect from obvious war crimes they commited all over the south, even after the war, but for a modern American to be that brainwashed? Really?

Article and Section please.

See Bill of Rights Articles 9 and 10 below:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In short, the states all have the right to secede as there is no law of prohibition or procedure and it is therefore at their discretion to remain part of the union or to secede and the federal government has no authority to stop or prohibit that act.

 

[bodecea]

Simple enough, did the Constitution allow any state to secede if they so chose? Yes. If a state seceded from the union, did they owe land, tax or affiliation to the union without negotiation and agreement? No. Did SC ask the federal troops to peacefully surrender and leave? Yes. Did they? No. Did that constitute an invasion? Yes, by any international standard it surely did. Is that what initiated the war? Yes.

Again, the traitor tag is totally wrong. Of course the north often uses that to deflect from obvious war crimes they commited all over the south, even after the war, but for a modern American to be that brainwashed? Really?

Article and Section please.

See Bill of Rights Articles 9 and 10 below:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In short, the states all have the right to secede as there is no law of prohibition or procedure and it is therefore at their discretion to remain part of the union or to secede and the federal government has no authority to stop or prohibit that act.

Nothing in there about the right to secede. Sorry.

Even John C. Calhoun, the Father of Nullification, backed down from secession when Jackson threatened SC with federal troops.

It's illegal and it was proven illegal with the blood of over 600,000 lives...most of them Loyal Americans, some traitors.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Losing the war. Just like us winning the Revolutionary War gave us the right to declare independence.

Your so-called ancestors backed a losing, traitorous cause...and worse, they started it. Bummer for you....tho you still like to have a NIC that spits on U.S. soldiers who bravely fought and died to keep this one country. One GREAT country....not one GREAT country and one backwoods, inbred 3rd world country.

We declarde independance before the Revolutionary War. My dear God, please retake history and pay attention this time.

Um, you are incorrect again. Where did you go to school? The fighting started in April 1775 and the Dec of Ind was not approved and signed til July 1776. Over a year later.


So, your post is extremely Ironic to say the least.

Nope not even close. Not every state at the time of Bunker hill or the teaparty were fighting the British.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Article and Section please.

See Bill of Rights Articles 9 and 10 below:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In short, the states all have the right to secede as there is no law of prohibition or procedure and it is therefore at their discretion to remain part of the union or to secede and the federal government has no authority to stop or prohibit that act.

Nothing in there about the right to secede. Sorry.

Even John C. Calhoun, the Father of Nullification, backed down from secession when Jackson threatened SC with federal troops.

It's illegal and it was proven illegal with the blood of over 600,000 lives...most of them Loyal Americans, some traitors.

Just because Calhoun backed down does not mean the sates did not have the right to dissolve the union. Calhoun did not want to go to war.

 

[bodecea]

We declarde independance before the Revolutionary War. My dear God, please retake history and pay attention this time.

Um, you are incorrect again. Where did you go to school? The fighting started in April 1775 and the Dec of Ind was not approved and signed til July 1776. Over a year later.


So, your post is extremely Ironic to say the least.

Nope not even close. Not every state at the time of Bunker hill or the teaparty were fighting the British.

Better to not speak up than prove that you do not know what you are talking about, Reb lover.

 

[bodecea]

See Bill of Rights Articles 9 and 10 below:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In short, the states all have the right to secede as there is no law of prohibition or procedure and it is therefore at their discretion to remain part of the union or to secede and the federal government has no authority to stop or prohibit that act.

Nothing in there about the right to secede. Sorry.

Even John C. Calhoun, the Father of Nullification, backed down from secession when Jackson threatened SC with federal troops.

It's illegal and it was proven illegal with the blood of over 600,000 lives...most of them Loyal Americans, some traitors.

Just because Calhoun backed down does not mean the sates did not have the right to dissolve the union. Calhoun did not want to go to war.

Calhoun was a racist coward who backed down in front of his Better, Jackson.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nothing in there about the right to secede. Sorry.

Even John C. Calhoun, the Father of Nullification, backed down from secession when Jackson threatened SC with federal troops.

It's illegal and it was proven illegal with the blood of over 600,000 lives...most of them Loyal Americans, some traitors.

Just because Calhoun backed down does not mean the sates did not have the right to dissolve the union. Calhoun did not want to go to war.

Calhoun was a racist coward who backed down in front of his Better, Jackson.

Lincoln was racist also , so do you have a point? Most in the North were racist. Maybe you shouild grab a history book.

 

[bodecea]

Just because Calhoun backed down does not mean the sates did not have the right to dissolve the union. Calhoun did not want to go to war.

Calhoun was a racist coward who backed down in front of his Better, Jackson.

Lincoln was racist also , so do you have a point? Most in the North were racist. Maybe you shouild grab a history book.

Not as Racist as Calhoun by a long shot. Yeah...the North was so racist, they fought a war to keep blacks as slaves......

Your little struggling attempts to justify treason are pathetic at best...no wonder the South lost big...and are still whining about it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Calhoun was a racist coward who backed down in front of his Better, Jackson.

Lincoln was racist also , so do you have a point? Most in the North were racist. Maybe you shouild grab a history book.

Not as Racist as Calhoun by a long shot. Yeah...the North was so racist, they fought a war to keep blacks as slaves......

Your little struggling attempts to justify treason are pathetic at best...no wonder the South lost big...and are still whining about it.

Really whats the difference between licolns racism and Calhouns? The North didn't fight to free them either. The North when they came south were well known for ho they treated Black women. "Sex in the civil war the story the soldiers wouldn't tell."

 

[bodecea]

Lincoln was racist also , so do you have a point? Most in the North were racist. Maybe you shouild grab a history book.

Not as Racist as Calhoun by a long shot. Yeah...the North was so racist, they fought a war to keep blacks as slaves......

Your little struggling attempts to justify treason are pathetic at best...no wonder the South lost big...and are still whining about it.

Really whats the difference between licolns racism and Calhouns? The North didn't fight to free them either. The North when they came south were well known for ho they treated Black women. "Sex in the civil war the story the soldiers wouldn't tell."

I'm real sorry your educational background is so thin and gruelly.

Calhoun had no problem with blacks as property. Lincoln believed blacks were human and did not deserve to be treated as property. Maybe you have a hard time with that concept?

But, I understand how you are in the position of trying to justify the Southern traitors.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not as Racist as Calhoun by a long shot. Yeah...the North was so racist, they fought a war to keep blacks as slaves......

Your little struggling attempts to justify treason are pathetic at best...no wonder the South lost big...and are still whining about it.

Really whats the difference between licolns racism and Calhouns? The North didn't fight to free them either. The North when they came south were well known for ho they treated Black women. "Sex in the civil war the story the soldiers wouldn't tell."

I'm real sorry your educational background is so thin and gruelly.

Calhoun had no problem with blacks as property. Lincoln believed blacks were human and did not deserve to be treated as property. Maybe you have a hard time with that concept?

But, I understand how you are in the position of trying to justify the Southern traitors.

Moron, I am a 19th century historian I do my reseach., I have to because I also do living history's.

Racism is racism no matter how you try to defend it. And yes you are defending Lincolns racism .

 

[bodecea]

Really whats the difference between licolns racism and Calhouns? The North didn't fight to free them either. The North when they came south were well known for ho they treated Black women. "Sex in the civil war the story the soldiers wouldn't tell."

I'm real sorry your educational background is so thin and gruelly.

Calhoun had no problem with blacks as property. Lincoln believed blacks were human and did not deserve to be treated as property. Maybe you have a hard time with that concept?

But, I understand how you are in the position of trying to justify the Southern traitors.

Moron, I am a 19th century historian I do my reseach., I have to because I also do living history's.

Racism is racism no matter how you try to defend it. And yes you are defending Lincolns racism .

I too study the 19th century and have walked many of the battlefields from Gettysburg to Vicksburg. My brother is an American history teacher.

And racism IS racism...but it has degrees as does everything else...unless you want to say the KKKr who threw the bomb in that church, killing those three little girls is just as much a racist as the guy lets the word "******" out when he's mad at a black man.

BTW....if you are going to LIE, you might want to have something to back it up. I'm not defending Lincoln's racism...I even admit he was. But he certainly wasn't the racist that John C. Calhoun was.

Now...I notice you STILL spit on the glorious Union dead with your Nic...no amount of goal post moving and spinning on your part is hiding that.

 

[Synthaholic]

Little Rebecca is a racist bigot who thinks that he and his fellow teabaggers should be the ones to run this country.

Fucker doesn't know shit about history.

You are hung up with that racist word for some reason. Are you a racist? Also sea bitchhave you learned the difference between a clip and a magazine?

A clip is what Big Rebecca puts in her hair.

A magazine is where Big Rebecca finds the latest on Justin Bieber.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm real sorry your educational background is so thin and gruelly.

Calhoun had no problem with blacks as property. Lincoln believed blacks were human and did not deserve to be treated as property. Maybe you have a hard time with that concept?

But, I understand how you are in the position of trying to justify the Southern traitors.

Moron, I am a 19th century historian I do my reseach., I have to because I also do living history's.

Racism is racism no matter how you try to defend it. And yes you are defending Lincolns racism .

I too study the 19th century and have walked many of the battlefields from Gettysburg to Vicksburg. My brother is an American history teacher.

And racism IS racism...but it has degrees as does everything else...unless you want to say the KKKr who threw the bomb in that church, killing those three little girls is just as much a racist as the guy lets the word "******" out when he's mad at a black man.

BTW....if you are going to LIE, you might want to have something to back it up. I'm not defending Lincoln's racism...I even admit he was. But he certainly wasn't the racist that John C. Calhoun was.

Now...I notice you STILL spit on the glorious Union dead with your Nic...no amount of goal post moving and spinning on your part is hiding that.

.if you are going to LIE, you might want to have something to back it up. I'm not defending Lincoln's racism...I even admit he was. But he certainly wasn't the racist that John C. Calhoun was.

Why do people call others a liar without proof? OK here's your chance you called me a liar, where's your proof?

However you are defending lincolns racism against Calhouns racsm. By saying there's different degree's of it.

Now...I notice you STILL spit on the glorious Union dead with your Nic...no amount of goal post moving and spinning on your part is hiding that.

You are right I go to Salisbury national cemetry to piss on the graves of the union soldiers buried there. They were here to kill Southerners on Southern soil. yankme go home. Ever five dollar bill I have I put a hole in the image of lincolns head.

 

[bodecea]

Moron, I am a 19th century historian I do my reseach., I have to because I also do living history's.

Racism is racism no matter how you try to defend it. And yes you are defending Lincolns racism .

I too study the 19th century and have walked many of the battlefields from Gettysburg to Vicksburg. My brother is an American history teacher.

And racism IS racism...but it has degrees as does everything else...unless you want to say the KKKr who threw the bomb in that church, killing those three little girls is just as much a racist as the guy lets the word "******" out when he's mad at a black man.

BTW....if you are going to LIE, you might want to have something to back it up. I'm not defending Lincoln's racism...I even admit he was. But he certainly wasn't the racist that John C. Calhoun was.

Now...I notice you STILL spit on the glorious Union dead with your Nic...no amount of goal post moving and spinning on your part is hiding that.

.if you are going to LIE, you might want to have something to back it up. I'm not defending Lincoln's racism...I even admit he was. But he certainly wasn't the racist that John C. Calhoun was.

Why do people call others a liar without proof? OK here's your chance you called me a liar, where's your proof?

However you are defending lincolns racism against Calhouns racsm. By saying there's different degree's of it.

Now...I notice you STILL spit on the glorious Union dead with your Nic...no amount of goal post moving and spinning on your part is hiding that.

You are right I go to Salisbury national cemetry to piss on the graves of the union soldiers buried there. They were here to kill Southerners on Southern soil. yankme go home. Ever five dollar bill I have I put a hole in the image of lincolns head.

I believe that you do. They were killing Traitors in defense of the United States. I suspect that you really don't get that concept.