She’s Right About Civil War

[Kondor3]

...Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war...

Correct; however, in the case of Fort Sumter, there was no foreign power occupying Charleston Harbor; merely a US Army garrison.

This garrison was engaged in its rightful duties and pursuits, on Federal property, amidst one of several States of the Union at that time.

...Refusing to leave when asked and even intruding on sovereign territorial waters are acts of war...

The State of South Carolina was not "sovereign" with respect to the United States and the US Constitution.

...If Japan kicks us out of base they're leasing to us, that's not an act of war...

Apples and Oranges.

Japan is a sovereign country.

South Carolina was (and is) merely one of several States, subordinate to the Federal government.

...I know you sleazy lying douchebags will continue to insist that all that matters is who fired first, but only dumbasses fall for that "logic."

It is not a lie to rightfully posit: the millisecond that the S.C. legislature voted for secession, that State was engaged in unlawful rebellion.

The very millisecond.

-----------------------

These matters were settled on the battlefield and at Appomattox Court House 150+ years ago.

In our own present age, you will abide by the Constitution and the majority Will of the People.

Guaranteed.

Any assertions to the contrary are merely Little Boy Minds in Big Bodies, waving their pee-pees guns, braying like jackasses.

To absolutely no avail whatsoever.

-----------------------

Next batter, please.

 

[sealybobo]

Lincoln caused the Civil War by invading Virginia, dumbass.

Class dismissed.

Wrong South Carolina started the war by attacking a Federal garrison.

The Confederacy has already seized numerous federal facilities in the south long before Lincoln was ever inaugurated. Did you conveniently forget that or never knew it?

BUT they had NOT fired on US Troops. Lincoln was still willing to talk until the South ATTACKED the Union.

Put away the crayons, learn to read, get a degree, and then I will consider your uneducated theory.

Empty troll post.

What was your post? Empty troll post?

 

[Faun]

So, let's review:

The Civil War was caused by a bunch of rich slavers and the hapless victims of their propaganda in hopes of preserving the right to own other human beings as objects. And the racist senator-elect from Mississippi believes they were right and laments the presence of all of these free darkies in her State.

Class dismissed.

Lincoln caused the Civil War by invading Virginia, dumbass.

Class dismissed.

Wrong South Carolina started the war by attacking a Federal garrison.

Nope. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war. Refusing to leave when asked and even intruding on sovereign territorial waters are acts of war. If Japan kicks us out of base they're leasing to us, that's not an act of war. I know you sleazy lying douchebags will continue to insist that all that matters is who fired first, but only dumbasses fall for that "logic."

Federal employees in a federal installation on federal territory are not trespassing, ya fucking moron.

 

[Faun]

It’s federally owned property on federal territory. South Carolina has no legal jurisdiction there. They ceded ”ALL the right, title and claim.”

We've already established that SC retained the right to enforce its laws, dumbass. "right title and claim" are terms that refer to property, not territory.

LOLOL

"We've already established that SC retained the right to enforce its laws, dumbass."​

No fucking moron, we did no such thing.

"right title and claim" are terms that refer to property, not territory."​

And the right, title and claim referred to both the property and the territory...

Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory​

How is it you're actually getting dumber?? I didn't think there was even room for such a possibility.

You keep leaving out this part:

"Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law"

In other words, the laws of SC were still in force on the property.

There's no way to lie your way out of that fact.

I guess "getting dumber" means I keep proving you wrong.

LOLOLOL

You're such a fucking moron. Fucking moron, as you've been shown more times than I've counted, that did not leave any laws in force on the property or on the territory. All that did was to allow the state to process serve people being sued or charged with a crime. That's not enforcing any laws, of which, South Carolina ceded "all rights,"
just as their cession resolution stipulated.

Not to mention, the U.S. Constitution grants the Congress the power to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" in districts acquired by cession of states.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings​

Congress also governs forts, arsenals, and other places obtained from the states for the federal government’s purposes.

It cracks me up no end to watch you fight the same losing argument, over and over.

It means that SC had the right to enforce its laws by arresting anyone who broke them, you lying dumbass.

Ft Sumter wasn't purchased, so that shoots that theory down. Furthermore, it's vague.

Fucking moron, being able to process serve is not being able to enforce their laws. If South Carolina passed a law that alcohol was illegal, they could not enforce people to not drink alcohol on that territory. Drinking alcohol in Fort Sumter would still be legal, ya fucking moron. What that provision meant was that if someone drank alcohol in South Carolina outside of that territory, that would be a criminal offense, and such a person could then be process served if they tried to hide in Fort Sumter.

It never ceases to amaze me to see just how retarded you are.

 

[bripat9643]

So, let's review:

The Civil War was caused by a bunch of rich slavers and the hapless victims of their propaganda in hopes of preserving the right to own other human beings as objects. And the racist senator-elect from Mississippi believes they were right and laments the presence of all of these free darkies in her State.

Class dismissed.

Lincoln caused the Civil War by invading Virginia, dumbass.

Class dismissed.

Wrong South Carolina started the war by attacking a Federal garrison.

The Confederacy has already seized numerous federal facilities in the south long before Lincoln was ever inaugurated. Did you conveniently forget that or never knew it?

BUT they had NOT fired on US Troops. Lincoln was still willing to talk until the South ATTACKED the Union.

Bullshit. Lincoln deliberately provoked a confrontation at Ft Sumter.

 

[bripat9643]

We've already established that SC retained the right to enforce its laws, dumbass. "right title and claim" are terms that refer to property, not territory.

LOLOL

"We've already established that SC retained the right to enforce its laws, dumbass."​

No fucking moron, we did no such thing.

"right title and claim" are terms that refer to property, not territory."​

And the right, title and claim referred to both the property and the territory...

Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory​

How is it you're actually getting dumber?? I didn't think there was even room for such a possibility.

You keep leaving out this part:

"Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law"

In other words, the laws of SC were still in force on the property.

There's no way to lie your way out of that fact.

I guess "getting dumber" means I keep proving you wrong.

LOLOLOL

You're such a fucking moron. Fucking moron, as you've been shown more times than I've counted, that did not leave any laws in force on the property or on the territory. All that did was to allow the state to process serve people being sued or charged with a crime. That's not enforcing any laws, of which, South Carolina ceded "all rights,"
just as their cession resolution stipulated.

Not to mention, the U.S. Constitution grants the Congress the power to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" in districts acquired by cession of states.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings​

Congress also governs forts, arsenals, and other places obtained from the states for the federal government’s purposes.

It cracks me up no end to watch you fight the same losing argument, over and over.

It means that SC had the right to enforce its laws by arresting anyone who broke them, you lying dumbass.

Ft Sumter wasn't purchased, so that shoots that theory down. Furthermore, it's vague.

Fucking moron, being able to process serve is not being able to enforce their laws. If South Carolina passed a law that alcohol was illegal, they could not enforce people to not drink alcohol on that territory. Drinking alcohol in Fort Sumter would still be legal, ya fucking moron. What that provision meant was that if someone drank alcohol in South Carolina outside of that territory, that would be a criminal offense, and such a person could then be process served if they tried to hide in Fort Sumter.

It never ceases to amaze me to see just how retarded you are.

It doesn't say "serve a process." It says "all processes, civil and criminal" that means things like arresting people for violating the laws of SC, ya fucking moron.

 

[bripat9643]

...Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war...

Correct; however, in the case of Fort Sumter, there was no foreign power occupying Charleston Harbor; merely a US Army garrison.

This garrison was engaged in its rightful duties and pursuits, on Federal property, amidst one of several States of the Union at that time.

...Refusing to leave when asked and even intruding on sovereign territorial waters are acts of war...

The State of South Carolina was not "sovereign" with respect to the United States and the US Constitution.

...If Japan kicks us out of base they're leasing to us, that's not an act of war...

Apples and Oranges.

Japan is a sovereign country.

South Carolina was (and is) merely one of several States, subordinate to the Federal government.

...I know you sleazy lying douchebags will continue to insist that all that matters is who fired first, but only dumbasses fall for that "logic."

It is not a lie to rightfully posit: the millisecond that the S.C. legislature voted for secession, that State was engaged in unlawful rebellion.

The very millisecond.

-----------------------

These matters were settled on the battlefield and at Appomattox Court House 150+ years ago.

In our own present age, you will abide by the Constitution and the majority Will of the People.

Guaranteed.

Any assertions to the contrary are merely Little Boy Minds in Big Bodies, waving their pee-pees guns, braying like jackasses.

To absolutely no avail whatsoever.

-----------------------

Next batter, please.

After SC seceded, it was a sovereign nation. the US was a foreign power. End of discussion.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

"We've already established that SC retained the right to enforce its laws, dumbass."​

No fucking moron, we did no such thing.

"right title and claim" are terms that refer to property, not territory."​

And the right, title and claim referred to both the property and the territory...

Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory​

How is it you're actually getting dumber?? I didn't think there was even room for such a possibility.

You keep leaving out this part:

"Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law"

In other words, the laws of SC were still in force on the property.

There's no way to lie your way out of that fact.

I guess "getting dumber" means I keep proving you wrong.

LOLOLOL

You're such a fucking moron. Fucking moron, as you've been shown more times than I've counted, that did not leave any laws in force on the property or on the territory. All that did was to allow the state to process serve people being sued or charged with a crime. That's not enforcing any laws, of which, South Carolina ceded "all rights,"
just as their cession resolution stipulated.

Not to mention, the U.S. Constitution grants the Congress the power to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" in districts acquired by cession of states.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings​

Congress also governs forts, arsenals, and other places obtained from the states for the federal government’s purposes.

It cracks me up no end to watch you fight the same losing argument, over and over.

It means that SC had the right to enforce its laws by arresting anyone who broke them, you lying dumbass.

Ft Sumter wasn't purchased, so that shoots that theory down. Furthermore, it's vague.

Fucking moron, being able to process serve is not being able to enforce their laws. If South Carolina passed a law that alcohol was illegal, they could not enforce people to not drink alcohol on that territory. Drinking alcohol in Fort Sumter would still be legal, ya fucking moron. What that provision meant was that if someone drank alcohol in South Carolina outside of that territory, that would be a criminal offense, and such a person could then be process served if they tried to hide in Fort Sumter.

It never ceases to amaze me to see just how retarded you are.

It doesn't say "serve a process." It says "all processes, civil and criminal" that means things like arresting people for violating the laws of SC, ya fucking moron.

It doesn't say "serve a process."

LOLOLOLOL

You’re such a fucking moron.

Yeah, fucking moron, it says process serve...

"Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law"​

 

[anynameyouwish]

You confuse me. Do you LOVE the USA or HATE it? It sure sounds to me like you HATE the USA because they "invaded" your homeland. So are you a REAL American (like you claim in that picture you post) or an America hater because lincoln and the USA invaded the south?

 

[Faun]

...Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war...

Correct; however, in the case of Fort Sumter, there was no foreign power occupying Charleston Harbor; merely a US Army garrison.

This garrison was engaged in its rightful duties and pursuits, on Federal property, amidst one of several States of the Union at that time.

...Refusing to leave when asked and even intruding on sovereign territorial waters are acts of war...

The State of South Carolina was not "sovereign" with respect to the United States and the US Constitution.

...If Japan kicks us out of base they're leasing to us, that's not an act of war...

Apples and Oranges.

Japan is a sovereign country.

South Carolina was (and is) merely one of several States, subordinate to the Federal government.

...I know you sleazy lying douchebags will continue to insist that all that matters is who fired first, but only dumbasses fall for that "logic."

It is not a lie to rightfully posit: the millisecond that the S.C. legislature voted for secession, that State was engaged in unlawful rebellion.

The very millisecond.

-----------------------

These matters were settled on the battlefield and at Appomattox Court House 150+ years ago.

In our own present age, you will abide by the Constitution and the majority Will of the People.

Guaranteed.

Any assertions to the contrary are merely Little Boy Minds in Big Bodies, waving their pee-pees guns, braying like jackasses.

To absolutely no avail whatsoever.

-----------------------

Next batter, please.

After SC seceded, it was a sovereign nation. the US was a foreign power. End of discussion.

Fucking moron, the federal government still owned the fort and the territory on which it was built.

What part of, Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, don’t you understand?

 

[bripat9643]

You keep leaving out this part:

"Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law"

In other words, the laws of SC were still in force on the property.

There's no way to lie your way out of that fact.

I guess "getting dumber" means I keep proving you wrong.

LOLOLOL

You're such a fucking moron. Fucking moron, as you've been shown more times than I've counted, that did not leave any laws in force on the property or on the territory. All that did was to allow the state to process serve people being sued or charged with a crime. That's not enforcing any laws, of which, South Carolina ceded "all rights,"
just as their cession resolution stipulated.

Not to mention, the U.S. Constitution grants the Congress the power to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" in districts acquired by cession of states.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings​

Congress also governs forts, arsenals, and other places obtained from the states for the federal government’s purposes.

It cracks me up no end to watch you fight the same losing argument, over and over.

It means that SC had the right to enforce its laws by arresting anyone who broke them, you lying dumbass.

Ft Sumter wasn't purchased, so that shoots that theory down. Furthermore, it's vague.

Fucking moron, being able to process serve is not being able to enforce their laws. If South Carolina passed a law that alcohol was illegal, they could not enforce people to not drink alcohol on that territory. Drinking alcohol in Fort Sumter would still be legal, ya fucking moron. What that provision meant was that if someone drank alcohol in South Carolina outside of that territory, that would be a criminal offense, and such a person could then be process served if they tried to hide in Fort Sumter.

It never ceases to amaze me to see just how retarded you are.

It doesn't say "serve a process." It says "all processes, civil and criminal" that means things like arresting people for violating the laws of SC, ya fucking moron.

It doesn't say "serve a process."

LOLOLOLOL

You’re such a fucking moron.

Yeah, fucking moron, it says process serve...

"Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law"​

Once again, you lie about what was said. The context of words has a profound affect on their meaning.

 

[bripat9643]

...Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war...

Correct; however, in the case of Fort Sumter, there was no foreign power occupying Charleston Harbor; merely a US Army garrison.

This garrison was engaged in its rightful duties and pursuits, on Federal property, amidst one of several States of the Union at that time.

...Refusing to leave when asked and even intruding on sovereign territorial waters are acts of war...

The State of South Carolina was not "sovereign" with respect to the United States and the US Constitution.

...If Japan kicks us out of base they're leasing to us, that's not an act of war...

Apples and Oranges.

Japan is a sovereign country.

South Carolina was (and is) merely one of several States, subordinate to the Federal government.

...I know you sleazy lying douchebags will continue to insist that all that matters is who fired first, but only dumbasses fall for that "logic."

It is not a lie to rightfully posit: the millisecond that the S.C. legislature voted for secession, that State was engaged in unlawful rebellion.

The very millisecond.

-----------------------

These matters were settled on the battlefield and at Appomattox Court House 150+ years ago.

In our own present age, you will abide by the Constitution and the majority Will of the People.

Guaranteed.

Any assertions to the contrary are merely Little Boy Minds in Big Bodies, waving their pee-pees guns, braying like jackasses.

To absolutely no avail whatsoever.

-----------------------

Next batter, please.

After SC seceded, it was a sovereign nation. the US was a foreign power. End of discussion.

Fucking moron, the federal government still owned the fort and the territory on which it was built.

What part of, Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, don’t you understand?

No one is arguing that it wasn't the property of the federal government. So is the Post Office down the street.

 

[Faun]

LOLOLOL

You're such a fucking moron. Fucking moron, as you've been shown more times than I've counted, that did not leave any laws in force on the property or on the territory. All that did was to allow the state to process serve people being sued or charged with a crime. That's not enforcing any laws, of which, South Carolina ceded "all rights,"
just as their cession resolution stipulated.

Not to mention, the U.S. Constitution grants the Congress the power to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" in districts acquired by cession of states.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings​

Congress also governs forts, arsenals, and other places obtained from the states for the federal government’s purposes.

It cracks me up no end to watch you fight the same losing argument, over and over.

It means that SC had the right to enforce its laws by arresting anyone who broke them, you lying dumbass.

Ft Sumter wasn't purchased, so that shoots that theory down. Furthermore, it's vague.

Fucking moron, being able to process serve is not being able to enforce their laws. If South Carolina passed a law that alcohol was illegal, they could not enforce people to not drink alcohol on that territory. Drinking alcohol in Fort Sumter would still be legal, ya fucking moron. What that provision meant was that if someone drank alcohol in South Carolina outside of that territory, that would be a criminal offense, and such a person could then be process served if they tried to hide in Fort Sumter.

It never ceases to amaze me to see just how retarded you are.

It doesn't say "serve a process." It says "all processes, civil and criminal" that means things like arresting people for violating the laws of SC, ya fucking moron.

It doesn't say "serve a process."

LOLOLOLOL

You’re such a fucking moron.

Yeah, fucking moron, it says process serve...

"Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law"​

Once again, you lie about what was said. The context of words has a profound affect on their meaning.

LOL

Fucking moron, the liar would be the one who posted only a few words from that sentence and omitted the remainder where it says civil and criminal process ”may be served.”

That would be you who did that.

I’m the one who posted the entire sentence, putting it into the proper context.

It says what it says and your limited comprehension is not actually even needed. The resolution is quite clear. “ALL rights, title and claim” of that territory and property were ceded to the United States. The only provisio was that the state could process serve “any person there being who may be implicated by law.”

If you knew anything, and you don’t know a damn thing, you’d know that was a standard provision every state included when ceding land to the United States so that fugitives couldn’t escape the law by taking up refuge in a federal installation. Something they had to do since while states would extradite fugitives who crossed state lines, there was no such arrangement with the federal government.

It boggles my mind how someone can be as stupid as you to lose this argument every time we have it; and you never learn. Even idiots yearn to learn things they know nothing about, whereas you continue to thrive in your ignorance. That makes you dumber than an idiot.

 

[Faun]

...Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war...

Correct; however, in the case of Fort Sumter, there was no foreign power occupying Charleston Harbor; merely a US Army garrison.

This garrison was engaged in its rightful duties and pursuits, on Federal property, amidst one of several States of the Union at that time.

...Refusing to leave when asked and even intruding on sovereign territorial waters are acts of war...

The State of South Carolina was not "sovereign" with respect to the United States and the US Constitution.

...If Japan kicks us out of base they're leasing to us, that's not an act of war...

Apples and Oranges.

Japan is a sovereign country.

South Carolina was (and is) merely one of several States, subordinate to the Federal government.

...I know you sleazy lying douchebags will continue to insist that all that matters is who fired first, but only dumbasses fall for that "logic."

It is not a lie to rightfully posit: the millisecond that the S.C. legislature voted for secession, that State was engaged in unlawful rebellion.

The very millisecond.

-----------------------

These matters were settled on the battlefield and at Appomattox Court House 150+ years ago.

In our own present age, you will abide by the Constitution and the majority Will of the People.

Guaranteed.

Any assertions to the contrary are merely Little Boy Minds in Big Bodies, waving their pee-pees guns, braying like jackasses.

To absolutely no avail whatsoever.

-----------------------

Next batter, please.

After SC seceded, it was a sovereign nation. the US was a foreign power. End of discussion.

Fucking moron, the federal government still owned the fort and the territory on which it was built.

What part of, Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, don’t you understand?

No one is arguing that it wasn't the property of the federal government. So is the Post Office down the street.

Fucking moron, if it belonged to the United States, and it did and still does — South Carolina had no claim on it, even after they seceded from the nation.

 

[LaDexter]

Head of Confederacy = Democrat Jefferson DAVIS (don't notice Davis is a JEWISH last name, or that would make you blah blah blah....)

Gov of TN = Democrat Isham HARRIS (don't notice HARRIS is a JEWISH last name, or that would make you blah blah blah....)


Jews and the African Slave Trade | My Jewish Learning


Did Jews really own slaves?
Yes. Jacob Rader Marcus, a historian and Reform rabbi, wrote in his four-volume history of Americans Jews that over 75 percent of Jewish families in Charleston, South Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; and Savannah, Georgia, owned slaves, and nearly 40 percent of Jewish households across the country did. The Jewish population in these cities was quite small, however, so the total number of slaves they owned represented just a small fraction of the total slave population; Eli Faber, a historian at New York City’s John Jay College reported that in 1790, Charleston’s Jews owned a total of 93 slaves, and that “perhaps six Jewish families” lived in Savannah in 1771.

A number of wealthy Jews were also involved in the slave trade in the Americas, some as shipowners who imported slaves and others as agents who resold them. In the United States, Isaac Da Costa of Charleston, David Franks of Philadelphia and Aaron Lopez of Newport, Rhode Island, are among the early American Jews who were prominent in the importation and sale of African slaves. In addition, some Jews were involved in the trade in various European Caribbean colonies. Alexandre Lindo, a French-born Jew who became a wealthy merchant in Jamaica in the late 18th century, was a major seller of slaves on the island.




Just remember, if you ever suggest Jews were involved with the slave trade, the origin of slavery in America, the "legal decision" to import slaves without Washington's approval, the succession, and the attack on Ft Sumter....

yeah.... you are a blah blah blah noticing way too much truth as usual....



The SOUTH has ALWAYS been RULED by JDAACs, JEWS disguised as "christians...."

and white Southern Christians are still TOO DUMB TO NOTICE....

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, let's review:

The Civil War was caused by a bunch of rich slavers and the hapless victims of their propaganda in hopes of preserving the right to own other human beings as objects. And the racist senator-elect from Mississippi believes they were right and laments the presence of all of these free darkies in her State.

Class dismissed.

So let's review: you're an idiot, and no one is interested in accepting your "understanding" of things as reality.

Class dismissed.

 

[bendog]

the civil war was NOT Miss history at it's finest, and if you think it was, you're a fcuikiong racist loser.

Having lived in Mississippi, I have to wonder what do Mississippians consider their finest moments in history if not the civil war. Hopefully, it wasn't the introduction of slavery in the early 1700's, the lynchings, race riots, miscegenation laws, the KKK, the Mississippi sterilization law, segregation, or the suppression of black voting. Surely there must be something Mississippians can be proud of.

They elected a good candidate to the United States Senate. They vote Republican. They voted for Wallace in 1968. They oppose abortion. They have a long military tradition, including defending their state from invasion when they belonged to the CSA. Their youth say’s “yessir...nossir...yes ma’am...no ma’am.” They are strong supporters of the NRA.

And strong supporters of the Klan.

Really? Hmmmm. So Northern cities welcomed Catholic’s and Jews with open arms? What was the “Know Nothing Party” and where was it’s political strength?

I have often pointed out how much Trumpies remind me of the Know Nothings. Your rhetoric is IDENTICAL. It's amazing how similar it is. Except instead of picking on all the Non-English immigrants (Irish, German, Italian, Polish, Catholics, etc.), the focus of you modern day Know Nothings is on brown and black people.

Did you know the official name of the Know Nothing party was The American Party? I've often thought Trump should start a new American Party to make the circle complete.

Then we can all wave bye-bye to you as you sink into obsolescence like the original.

Like others I also found the comparison to Trumpism and the Know Knothings interesting. The KN raison d'être was organizing native born protestants to fear immigrant catholics, who of course turned to be just like everybody else. But the reason the KN were just a footnote was their raison d'être was subsumed by the civil war in two election cycles. And catholic immigrant loyalty was not an issue. To me the issue is how long Trumpism can sustain itself. I suspect Trumpism will also become a footnote, and this issue will be debt.

Lincoln despised the KN, but he didn't pause in getting their votes on the slavery expansion issue. LOL

The analogies to me are pretty much that W tracks close to Buchanan, the worst ever. Buchanan promised no legislative compromise on the issue of slavery expansion, and got the SC to answer the question by ruling that blacks could never be citizens. Thus Buchanan insured that every new state would decide whether they'd be a slave state or not. And free states would have to allow blacks to be removed form their state and returned to their masters.

W abandoned limited federal govt and the use of power on the Reagan Doctrine. At the end of W, 25-40 members of the Freedom Caucus controlled the gop in the House. A pol party cannot govern that way.

But immigration isn't anywhere close to slavery as an issue central to preserving the republic ... despite what the Trump drinkers would say. Illegal immigration can be solved with one law, or two legislative bills, and not much money in the scheme of things. The debt will be generational, and the gop's last effort at it just collapsed today in the House. McConnell said no compromise till Trump is gone, and that's the final word.

 

[LaDexter]

W abandoned limited federal govt and the use of power on the Reagan Doctrine.

That's not all he "abandoned..."

He abandoned every decent person on the planet by....

 

[bendog]

Head of Confederacy = Democrat Jefferson DAVIS (don't notice Davis is a JEWISH last name, or that would make you blah blah blah....)

Gov of TN = Democrat Isham HARRIS (don't notice HARRIS is a JEWISH last name, or that would make you blah blah blah....)


Jews and the African Slave Trade | My Jewish Learning


Did Jews really own slaves?
Yes. Jacob Rader Marcus, a historian and Reform rabbi, wrote in his four-volume history of Americans Jews that over 75 percent of Jewish families in Charleston, South Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; and Savannah, Georgia, owned slaves, and nearly 40 percent of Jewish households across the country did. The Jewish population in these cities was quite small, however, so the total number of slaves they owned represented just a small fraction of the total slave population; Eli Faber, a historian at New York City’s John Jay College reported that in 1790, Charleston’s Jews owned a total of 93 slaves, and that “perhaps six Jewish families” lived in Savannah in 1771.

A number of wealthy Jews were also involved in the slave trade in the Americas, some as shipowners who imported slaves and others as agents who resold them. In the United States, Isaac Da Costa of Charleston, David Franks of Philadelphia and Aaron Lopez of Newport, Rhode Island, are among the early American Jews who were prominent in the importation and sale of African slaves. In addition, some Jews were involved in the trade in various European Caribbean colonies. Alexandre Lindo, a French-born Jew who became a wealthy merchant in Jamaica in the late 18th century, was a major seller of slaves on the island.




Just remember, if you ever suggest Jews were involved with the slave trade, the origin of slavery in America, the "legal decision" to import slaves without Washington's approval, the succession, and the attack on Ft Sumter....

yeah.... you are a blah blah blah noticing way too much truth as usual....



The SOUTH has ALWAYS been RULED by JDAACs, JEWS disguised as "christians...."

and white Southern Christians are still TOO DUMB TO NOTICE....

THAT EXPLAINS IT. Davis was Jew, no wonder he was such a fokign..... wait, that doesn't explain it. LOL

 

[LaDexter]

wait, that doesn't explain it.

Yes it does.

The history of Zionist aggression against the US and US interests like FREEDOM are obvious....

Slavery
Civil War
JFK assassination
attack on USS Liberty
US Marines in Lebanon 1983
Pan Am 103
911
ISIS