She’s Right About Civil War

[bripat9643]

No state ever seceded from the Perpetual Union (yes, words do have meaning). Some states declared they were separate. Some states tried to enforce their claim. Their claim was refuted and their illegal action nullified through military action. An unfortunate turn of events made necessary by anti-republican, inhuman elements in society.

Yes, eventually that happened. How many military victories did the South have over the North by the summer of 1863?

And who WON again?

So your theory is that might makes right?

The Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that a State can NOT unilaterally leave the Union. So much for might.

A bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks issued that ruling. They were wrong, of course.

 

[bripat9643]

"I should have made a hard right at the sea."
\

Sherman was a psychopath and a war criminal.

 

[cnm]

Because of ONE State. With out California Trump had over a Million more votes then Hillary.

Prairie is people too.

 

[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.

No, that's stupid, and you just failed a 7th grade history test.

7th grade history is mostly a big fat lie.

 

[Bush92]

Backing a lewd, crude, boorish, deceitful, arrogant, ignorant, half-senile amateur?

In your opinion.

Yep... and I'm in good company... a vast percentage of the total voting population... as evidenced on November 6, 2018.

Hmmmm. The vast majority of the voting population in the individual states elected Donald Trump as per the Constitution.

he lost by almost 3 million votes. If you actually believe that only red states or conservative votes count then you are even more deranged than I thought

Because of ONE State. With out California Trump had over a Million more votes then Hillary.

The Founders set it up in such a way so that one or two states would not dominate the country.

 

[Bush92]

What’s so poison about patriotism?

Zzzzzzzzzz

Patriot love Americans. You are no patriot.

So I guess, by your standards, two gay guys jacking each other off are the most patriotic people in America?

And by your rational other Americans are the enemy. Because you are a poisonous nationalist.

We have those that want to destroy the United States living in our country. They call themselves “Democrats” but they are really socialist and a threat to liberty.

and there is nothing you can do bout it!

Oh...yes there is.

 

[cnm]

The Founders set it up in such a way so that one or two states would not dominate the country.

Without considering 50 states. Their model is now deeply flawed. But in any case they set it up so the slave states would dominate. You know, three fifths and all that.

 

[Bush92]

...What is “Trumpism?

Backing a lewd, crude, boorish, deceitful, arrogant, ignorant, half-senile amateur?

In your opinion.

Yep... and I'm in good company... a vast percentage of the total voting population... as evidenced on November 6, 2018.

Hmmmm. The vast majority of the voting population in the individual states elected Donald Trump as per the Constitution.

he lost by almost 3 million votes. If you actually believe that only red states or conservative votes count then you are even more deranged than I thought

He won. Electoral College.

 

[Bush92]

The Founders set it up in such a way so that one or two states would not dominate the country.

Without considering 50 states. Their model is now deeply flawed.

No it’s not. It’s perfect. States hold the elections. The Constitution gives them this right. Compromise of federalism at the Convention. Presidents are elected by THE STATES. The people speak through their state. We don’t have mob rule based on a popular national vote.

 

[bripat9643]

The Founders set it up in such a way so that one or two states would not dominate the country.

Without considering 50 states. Their model is now deeply flawed. But in any case they set it up so the slave states would dominate. You know, three fifths and all that.

I'm sure any model you would support is far more flawed. You don't have a clue what the 3/5ths compromise was about. It wasn't so slave states could "dominate," moron.

 

[Bush92]

The Founders set it up in such a way so that one or two states would not dominate the country.

Without considering 50 states. Their model is now deeply flawed. But in any case they set it up so the slave states would dominate. You know, three fifths and all that.

It was set up so states would share power with federal government.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is no rational, moral defense for allowing the 3/5 clause. Either slaves are citizens with representation or they are not.
This is like the Koran saying that women are only half equivalent to men; common sense and logic tell us this is absurd.

 

[cnm]

But in any case they set it up so the slave states would dominate. You know, three fifths and all that.

I withdraw that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because of ONE State. With out California Trump had over a Million more votes then Hillary.

Prairie is people too.

with 49 states Trump had the most votes meaning that a Majority of the people in the vast majority of States voted FOR Trump.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no rational, moral defense for allowing the 3/5 clause. Either slaves are citizens with representation or they are not.
This is like the Koran saying that women are only half equivalent to men; common sense and logic tell us this is absurd.

Who's defending it, moron?

 

[Faun]

Because of ONE State. With out California Trump had over a Million more votes then Hillary.

Prairie is people too.

with 49 states Trump had the most votes meaning that a Majority of the people in the vast majority of States voted FOR Trump.

Not if you eliminate Texas.

 

[peach174]

There is no rational, moral defense for allowing the 3/5 clause. Either slaves are citizens with representation or they are not.
This is like the Koran saying that women are only half equivalent to men; common sense and logic tell us this is absurd.

There is no rational, moral defense for allowing the 3/5 clause. Either slaves are citizens with representation or they are not.
This is like the Koran saying that women are only half equivalent to men; common sense and logic tell us this is absurd.

There is no rational, moral defense for allowing the 3/5 clause. Either slaves are citizens with representation or they are not.
This is like the Koran saying that women are only half equivalent to men; common sense and logic tell us this is absurd.

There is no rational, moral defense for allowing the 3/5 clause. Either slaves are citizens with representation or they are not.
This is like the Koran saying that women are only half equivalent to men; common sense and logic tell us this is absurd.

There is no rational, moral defense for allowing the 3/5 clause. Either slaves are citizens with representation or they are not.
This is like the Koran saying that women are only half equivalent to men; common sense and logic tell us this is absurd.

It was done so that the southern states would not dominate the rest of the States.
Slaves were considered bought property at the time.
South Carolina, 258,000 white and 315,000 black slave

Louisiana, 89,000 white and 110,000 black slave.
If they had been counted individually then the southern states would rule over the rest of the states.
History and facts.

 

[there4eyeM]

The 3/5 clause was put in when the Constitution was written, not at the end of slavery.
1790 Census

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We have those that want to destroy the United States living in our country.

Nah, that's your tiny, angry little mind deluding yourself into thinking that anyone who doesn't lap up your poisonous nationalism is trying to destroy the country. It's like you're trying to make my point, brother.

Number one. I ain’t your brother. Number two, you’re making my point with your lack of an argument other then to say ”poisonous nationalism” which I must assume is what you read on some socialist web page. Your lack of intellectual depth is only superseded by your poor argumentation skills. Go smoke another joint dopey.

Yes, brother, your brand of nationalism is very poisonous, belligerent, and hate based. It is precisely the disease that brought us our world wars and keeps nasty bigotry alive in this country. You would stomp out your own grandmother, if you thought it would please dear leader.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

No, that's stupid, and you just failed a 7th grade history test.

7th grade history is mostly a big fat lie.

Haha, okay.