The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Equat]

I don't have to prove anything until you can offer probative commentary. Equat and Paper View destroyed everything you put out there. Pipe dreams, Kevin, pipe dreams.

Yes, Equat and Paperview have been willing to discuss the issue. You've been more concerned with stating your opinion and then declaring victory.

Two months ago I competently dismantled your slavery argument. Paper View and Equat destroyed your pro-secession argument. We have proved our arguments. You have not, such as your silly argument about it not being treason when levying war against the U.S.

KK's claim to "Vicotry" is classic of neo-Confederates. They declare victory in defeat. That's why they rellish Civil War re-enactments. The loosers claim they've won despite all evidence to the contrary. Its all quite dillusional. Most other societies (e.g. Japanese, Germans, and those loyal to the US) hate loosing and would rather forget about it. Rebs are gluttons for punishment.

They think they win by controlling speach and/or having the last word. In their Confederacy free speach was denied and posession of anti-slavery books were punished in court as seditious.

 

[paperview]

"That's why they rellish Civil War re-enactments."

Hold on there. Reenactors are both Confederate and Union sympathizing.

I don't agree with your premise about that subset of Civil War buffs.
They reenact because it was an important, very important war and are true history aficionados.

I don't think neo-confederates (who I will agree, have come from a long line of sore losers) should be cast in with reenactors.

CW Reenacting is a noble hobby.

 

[paperview]

The constitutional definition of treason is quite clear, levying war against the states. It doesn't mention the federal government whatsoever. So no, I do not believe it is treasonous to levy war against the federal government.

Wow.

That's all I can say.

Wow.

Double "Wow"! Do you understand his rebuttal?

Not really. But I've noticed when faced with a compelling argument that does not support his theory, Kevin speaks in high vagueness. Never really addressing the topic, grabbing a flag & constitution and doing a semantical version of Whistling Dixie too loud for any one to notice he just got sideswiped.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KevinKennedy is a loon. A nicely behaved loon, I must say. He does not swear or curse or really get angry, so I give him credit.

Immoral stubborness, however, does competently describe his character weakness. He is wrong, but he simply cannot admit it. That is why he will inevitably fail at what he does because he cannot learn from his mistakes and from those incidents when others are right.

What you describe about KK is Southern gentility.

Yes, I learned my southern gentility up here in northeast Ohio.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, Equat and Paperview have been willing to discuss the issue. You've been more concerned with stating your opinion and then declaring victory.

Two months ago I competently dismantled your slavery argument. Paper View and Equat destroyed your pro-secession argument. We have proved our arguments. You have not, such as your silly argument about it not being treason when levying war against the U.S.

KK's claim to "Vicotry" is classic of neo-Confederates. They declare victory in defeat. That's why they rellish Civil War re-enactments. The loosers claim they've won despite all evidence to the contrary. Its all quite dillusional. Most other societies (e.g. Japanese, Germans, and those loyal to the US) hate loosing and would rather forget about it. Rebs are gluttons for punishment.

They think they win by controlling speach and/or having the last word. In their Confederacy free speach was denied and posession of anti-slavery books were punished in court as seditious.

Excuse me? I never claimed "victory" in this thread or any other. That would be our friend Jake claiming some imagined victory after piggybacking your and paperview's arguments.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wow.

That's all I can say.

Wow.

Double "Wow"! Do you understand his rebuttal?

Not really. But I've noticed when faced with a compelling argument that does not support his theory, Kevin speaks in high vagueness. Never really addressing the topic, grabbing a flag & constitution and doing a semantical version of Whistling Dixie too loud for any one to notice he just got sideswiped.

The definition of treason that is in the Constitution is vague and doesn't address the topic of treason? And my further explanation of why there can be no treason against the federal government was an example of me refusing to address the topic further?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, all three of us demolished your arguments.

You are wrong, pure and simple.

Because you have refused to accept what reasonably can be construed as "Kevin got his butt whipped royally" merely means that you are now also immorally stubborn as well as wrong.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, all three of us demolished your arguments.

You are wrong, pure and simple.

Because you have refused to accept what reasonably can be construed as "Kevin got his butt whipped royally" merely means that you are now also immorally stubborn as well as wrong.

Another wonderful example of the great and powerful claim to victory by our friend Jake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, simply, you did not prove your case. That you refuse to recognize that simple fact says very much about you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, simply, you did not prove your case. That you refuse to recognize that simple fact says very much about you.

Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. But the fact that you think you had any relevant role in this discussion is laughable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Kevin, this is not a matter of differing opinion. You did not prove your case, and whether you continue to deny it means absolutely nothing to the discussion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, Kevin, this is not a matter of differing opinion. You did not prove your case, and whether you continue to deny it means absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Actually it is a matter of differing opinions, as all discussions on this message board are. It is your opinion that I didn't prove my case. Others may believe that I did prove my case, and still others may believe that I gave a thorough defense of my case but didn't prove it in the end. These are all, however, opinions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that you and those that believe as you that (1) secession was legal and (2) slavery was not the prime cause of the war are wrong. None of you have offered anything that can offset or move the evidence that clearly substantiates that (1) secession is treason, and (2) slavery was the prime cause of the war. If you and the others continued this attitude in business you would go bankrupt in short order.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that you and those that believe as you that (1) secession was legal and (2) slavery was not the prime cause of the war are wrong. None of you have offered anything that can offset or move the evidence that clearly substantiates taht (1) secession is treason, and (2) slavery was the prime cause of the war.

In your opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, in the weight of evidence. As a judge would say, "dismissed".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nope, in the weight of evidence. As a judge would say, "dismissed".

Again, in your opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all, Kevin.

 

[Toronado3800]

Kevin, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that you and those that believe as you that (1) secession was legal and (2) slavery was not the prime cause of the war are wrong. None of you have offered anything that can offset or move the evidence that clearly substantiates that (1) secession is treason, and (2) slavery was the prime cause of the war. If you and the others continued this attitude in business you would go bankrupt in short order.

For the record I believe secession was legal but slavery was the prime cause of the war if for no other reason than the powder keg theory. Alabama wasn't about to declare independence during the 19th century over any of the tariff arguments.

I'm very Anti-Confederacy though and the practical parts of me would have supported Lincoln.

 

[Citizen]

Sunni Man, if that is true, then the South should have lost because of certain defects included in our founding document. Some, such as representation and freedom from religious intolerance, have been worked out peacefully. But the issue of slavery had to be eliminated by warfare because of the South's inhumanity to mankind, its hatred of personal liberty.

And, Kevin, the Sons of the South nonsense is getting old. The Confederates, like our Republicans in the last election, lost. Choices have consequences. Deal with it.

IMHO, you are overlooking the fact that even after the emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves in the Confederate states there were still over 250,000 slaves held in the Union states, so where do you get off claiming the South was the inhumane one when it was the Union that required the 13th Amendment to free the Northern slaves?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sunni Man, if that is true, then the South should have lost because of certain defects included in our founding document. Some, such as representation and freedom from religious intolerance, have been worked out peacefully. But the issue of slavery had to be eliminated by warfare because of the South's inhumanity to mankind, its hatred of personal liberty.

And, Kevin, the Sons of the South nonsense is getting old. The Confederates, like our Republicans in the last election, lost. Choices have consequences. Deal with it.

IMHO, you are overlooking the fact that even after the emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves in the Confederate states there were still over 250,000 slaves held in the Union states, so where do you get off claiming the South was the inhumane one when it was the Union that required the 13th Amendment to free the Northern slaves?

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves in the Confederacy. It was simple political posturing by Lincoln.