We banned a flag not too long ago...HEY what about this one? A very long rant...

[Conservative65]

Poor, poor retard Liberal that can't distinguish truth from agenda.

The Confederate Flag is not banned...you are still free to fly it from your pickup

You just can't demand that it fly on the statehouse

I'll fly it in your yard.

With permission perfectly okay.
Without permission, you may come to regret our Second Amendment rights....

Don't think I don't exercise my 2nd amendment rights, too. I don't need your permission. I'll do it and laugh at you when you try to stop me.

Well you see, like so many Conservatives-you think your 2nd Amendment rights gives you permission to break the law.

Carrying a weapon with the intent to break the law- criminal trespass- is not a 2nd Amendment right.

But shooting an armed criminal trespassing on my land- yeah- that is my right.

Since the first 10 or so feet, depending on the local laws where you live is the right of way, while you maintain it (i.e. cutting grass), it's not yours. Try stopping the local government from putting a sidewalk on that area. Therefore, if what I put is in the right of way, I'm not putting it on your property. That means if you're dumb enough to make the mistake of shooting, don't be surprised if you get return fire.

Based on your premise, I have the right to shoot someone and their dog if it's taking a shit on my yard unless you're going to claim someone's dog has a right to do that.

 

[Syriusly]

The Confederate Flag is not banned...you are still free to fly it from your pickup

You just can't demand that it fly on the statehouse

I'll fly it in your yard.

With permission perfectly okay.
Without permission, you may come to regret our Second Amendment rights....

Don't think I don't exercise my 2nd amendment rights, too. I don't need your permission. I'll do it and laugh at you when you try to stop me.

Well you see, like so many Conservatives-you think your 2nd Amendment rights gives you permission to break the law.

Carrying a weapon with the intent to break the law- criminal trespass- is not a 2nd Amendment right.

But shooting an armed criminal trespassing on my land- yeah- that is my right.

Since the first 10 or so feet, depending on the local laws where you live is the right of way, while you maintain it (i.e. cutting grass), it's not yours. Try stopping the local government from putting a sidewalk on that area. Therefore, if what I put is in the right of way, I'm not putting it on your property. That means if you're dumb enough to make the mistake of shooting, don't be surprised if you get return fire.

Based on your premise, I have the right to shoot someone and their dog if it's taking a shit on my yard unless you're going to claim someone's dog has a right to do that.

Well I do agree- you putting up a Confederate flag in someone's yard is the same as dumping dog shit there.

 

[gtopa1]

You got to look deeper, all the evidence doesn't make it that simple. If it were the rebellious states would have accepted Lincoln's offer and rejoined the union. No one has provided an answer as to why the offer was rejected.

What reason would the south have to reject joining the union and keeping their slaves? Instead they chose to go to war. No one on this thread has offered a reason the south rejected joining the union when they would have kept their slaves if they had. They say it's about slavery, but the south didn't go along with Lincoln's proposal to "end their rebellion with the north", now did they? Even IF in doing so meant keeping their slaves.

The evidence doesn't make it as strong an argument as you would like.

I have no idea why they chose to continue the war, but the reason they started it is unquestionable. The reason was plainly laid our in their declarations. Are you suggesting they didn't list all their grievances for trying to seceded in those documents? Why would they do that?

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

 

[Syriusly]

I have no idea why they chose to continue the war, but the reason they started it is unquestionable. The reason was plainly laid our in their declarations. Are you suggesting they didn't list all their grievances for trying to seceded in those documents? Why would they do that?

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

 

[gtopa1]

You got to look deeper, all the evidence doesn't make it that simple. If it were the rebellious states would have accepted Lincoln's offer and rejoined the union. No one has provided an answer as to why the offer was rejected.

What reason would the south have to reject joining the union and keeping their slaves? Instead they chose to go to war. No one on this thread has offered a reason the south rejected joining the union when they would have kept their slaves if they had. They say it's about slavery, but the south didn't go along with Lincoln's proposal to "end their rebellion with the north", now did they? Even IF in doing so meant keeping their slaves.

The evidence doesn't make it as strong an argument as you would like.

I have no idea why they chose to continue the war, but the reason they started it is unquestionable. The reason was plainly laid our in their declarations. Are you suggesting they didn't list all their grievances for trying to seceded in those documents? Why would they do that?

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

Are you too dumb to know that Union troops were American troops? Saying those troops shouldn't have been it the south is as dumb as saying recent military maneuvers in Texas were the same attacking Texas.

Who said this?

I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.

Perhaps it is not as "Black and white" as you suggest??

As for "dumb"? Get stuffed!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

South Carolina took it back so I suggest that the incident following was a reaction to a presence the locals found illegal and intolerable. Now what would you do if a mob of foreigners encamped on your front lawn and wouldn't leave and threatened you with guns and stuff?

Greg

 

[Conservative65]

I'll fly it in your yard.

With permission perfectly okay.
Without permission, you may come to regret our Second Amendment rights....

Don't think I don't exercise my 2nd amendment rights, too. I don't need your permission. I'll do it and laugh at you when you try to stop me.

Well you see, like so many Conservatives-you think your 2nd Amendment rights gives you permission to break the law.

Carrying a weapon with the intent to break the law- criminal trespass- is not a 2nd Amendment right.

But shooting an armed criminal trespassing on my land- yeah- that is my right.

Since the first 10 or so feet, depending on the local laws where you live is the right of way, while you maintain it (i.e. cutting grass), it's not yours. Try stopping the local government from putting a sidewalk on that area. Therefore, if what I put is in the right of way, I'm not putting it on your property. That means if you're dumb enough to make the mistake of shooting, don't be surprised if you get return fire.

Based on your premise, I have the right to shoot someone and their dog if it's taking a shit on my yard unless you're going to claim someone's dog has a right to do that.

Well I do agree- you putting up a Confederate flag in someone's yard is the same as dumping dog shit there.

Interesting how you purposely twisted what I said. Only in your yard would the person living their be the same as dog shit. I bet it smells like the sewer treatment plant inside your house. That's what happens when turds occupy the place.

 

[Syriusly]

With permission perfectly okay.
Without permission, you may come to regret our Second Amendment rights....

Don't think I don't exercise my 2nd amendment rights, too. I don't need your permission. I'll do it and laugh at you when you try to stop me.

Well you see, like so many Conservatives-you think your 2nd Amendment rights gives you permission to break the law.

Carrying a weapon with the intent to break the law- criminal trespass- is not a 2nd Amendment right.

But shooting an armed criminal trespassing on my land- yeah- that is my right.

Since the first 10 or so feet, depending on the local laws where you live is the right of way, while you maintain it (i.e. cutting grass), it's not yours. Try stopping the local government from putting a sidewalk on that area. Therefore, if what I put is in the right of way, I'm not putting it on your property. That means if you're dumb enough to make the mistake of shooting, don't be surprised if you get return fire.

Based on your premise, I have the right to shoot someone and their dog if it's taking a shit on my yard unless you're going to claim someone's dog has a right to do that.

Well I do agree- you putting up a Confederate flag in someone's yard is the same as dumping dog shit there.

Interesting how you purposely twisted what I said. Only in your yard would the person living their be the same as dog shit. I bet it smells like the sewer treatment plant inside your house. That's what happens when turds occupy the place.

I just want to know why you want to take your dog into people's yards to shit.

Why can't you take care of your own shit?

 

[Syriusly]

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

South Carolina took it back so I suggest that the incident following was a reaction to a presence the locals found illegal and intolerable. Now what would you do if a mob of foreigners encamped on your front lawn and wouldn't leave and threatened you with guns and stuff?

Greg

Yes- South Carolina did take it back- by firing on American troops.

What do you think about those who fire on the U.S. military?

Do you prefer we give them aid and comfort?

 

[Conservative65]

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

South Carolina took it back so I suggest that the incident following was a reaction to a presence the locals found illegal and intolerable. Now what would you do if a mob of foreigners encamped on your front lawn and wouldn't leave and threatened you with guns and stuff?

Greg

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

The U.S. didn't agree? That's make no difference.

 

[Conservative65]

Don't think I don't exercise my 2nd amendment rights, too. I don't need your permission. I'll do it and laugh at you when you try to stop me.

Well you see, like so many Conservatives-you think your 2nd Amendment rights gives you permission to break the law.

Carrying a weapon with the intent to break the law- criminal trespass- is not a 2nd Amendment right.

But shooting an armed criminal trespassing on my land- yeah- that is my right.

Since the first 10 or so feet, depending on the local laws where you live is the right of way, while you maintain it (i.e. cutting grass), it's not yours. Try stopping the local government from putting a sidewalk on that area. Therefore, if what I put is in the right of way, I'm not putting it on your property. That means if you're dumb enough to make the mistake of shooting, don't be surprised if you get return fire.

Based on your premise, I have the right to shoot someone and their dog if it's taking a shit on my yard unless you're going to claim someone's dog has a right to do that.

Well I do agree- you putting up a Confederate flag in someone's yard is the same as dumping dog shit there.

Interesting how you purposely twisted what I said. Only in your yard would the person living their be the same as dog shit. I bet it smells like the sewer treatment plant inside your house. That's what happens when turds occupy the place.

I just want to know why you want to take your dog into people's yards to shit.

Why can't you take care of your own shit?

I don't. I want to know how you're so stupid that you got that from what I said.

I take care of my own. I flush a likeness of you down the toilet daily.

 

[Syriusly]

I have no idea why they chose to continue the war, but the reason they started it is unquestionable. The reason was plainly laid our in their declarations. Are you suggesting they didn't list all their grievances for trying to seceded in those documents? Why would they do that?

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

Are you too dumb to know that Union troops were American troops? Saying those troops shouldn't have been it the south is as dumb as saying recent military maneuvers in Texas were the same attacking Texas.

Who said this?

I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.

Perhaps it is not as "Black and white" as you suggest??

As for "dumb"? Get stuffed!!

Greg

Yep- Robert E. Lee was against secession. But when his native Virginia did secede- he choose his state over his country.

 

[Syriusly]

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:
What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

South Carolina took it back so I suggest that the incident following was a reaction to a presence the locals found illegal and intolerable. Now what would you do if a mob of foreigners encamped on your front lawn and wouldn't leave and threatened you with guns and stuff?

Greg

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

The U.S. didn't agree? That's make no difference.

Clearly it did.

Which is why we are still the United States- not the country north of the Confederate Slave States.

 

[Syriusly]

Well you see, like so many Conservatives-you think your 2nd Amendment rights gives you permission to break the law.

Carrying a weapon with the intent to break the law- criminal trespass- is not a 2nd Amendment right.

But shooting an armed criminal trespassing on my land- yeah- that is my right.

Since the first 10 or so feet, depending on the local laws where you live is the right of way, while you maintain it (i.e. cutting grass), it's not yours. Try stopping the local government from putting a sidewalk on that area. Therefore, if what I put is in the right of way, I'm not putting it on your property. That means if you're dumb enough to make the mistake of shooting, don't be surprised if you get return fire.

Based on your premise, I have the right to shoot someone and their dog if it's taking a shit on my yard unless you're going to claim someone's dog has a right to do that.

Well I do agree- you putting up a Confederate flag in someone's yard is the same as dumping dog shit there.

Interesting how you purposely twisted what I said. Only in your yard would the person living their be the same as dog shit. I bet it smells like the sewer treatment plant inside your house. That's what happens when turds occupy the place.

I just want to know why you want to take your dog into people's yards to shit.

Why can't you take care of your own shit?

I don't. I want to know how you're so stupid that you got that from what I said.

I take care of my own. I flush a likeness of you down the toilet daily.

You take care of your own-by bringing your dog shit and flags into other people's yards.......

What a 'conservative' position.

 

[Conservative65]

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

South Carolina took it back so I suggest that the incident following was a reaction to a presence the locals found illegal and intolerable. Now what would you do if a mob of foreigners encamped on your front lawn and wouldn't leave and threatened you with guns and stuff?

Greg

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:
What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

The U.S. didn't agree? That's make no difference.

Clearly it did.

Which is why we are still the United States- not the country north of the Confederate Slave States.

Only to northern aggressors.

 

[Conservative65]

Since the first 10 or so feet, depending on the local laws where you live is the right of way, while you maintain it (i.e. cutting grass), it's not yours. Try stopping the local government from putting a sidewalk on that area. Therefore, if what I put is in the right of way, I'm not putting it on your property. That means if you're dumb enough to make the mistake of shooting, don't be surprised if you get return fire.

Based on your premise, I have the right to shoot someone and their dog if it's taking a shit on my yard unless you're going to claim someone's dog has a right to do that.

Well I do agree- you putting up a Confederate flag in someone's yard is the same as dumping dog shit there.

Interesting how you purposely twisted what I said. Only in your yard would the person living their be the same as dog shit. I bet it smells like the sewer treatment plant inside your house. That's what happens when turds occupy the place.

I just want to know why you want to take your dog into people's yards to shit.

Why can't you take care of your own shit?

I don't. I want to know how you're so stupid that you got that from what I said.

I take care of my own. I flush a likeness of you down the toilet daily.

You take care of your own-by bringing your dog shit and flags into other people's yards.......

What a 'conservative' position.

Again, still stupid enough to believe I said I bring dog shit to someone else's yard. I don't need to bring shit to your. There's enough of it already residing at your address. The house is full of shit.

 

[gtopa1]

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:
What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

South Carolina took it back so I suggest that the incident following was a reaction to a presence the locals found illegal and intolerable. Now what would you do if a mob of foreigners encamped on your front lawn and wouldn't leave and threatened you with guns and stuff?

Greg

Yes- South Carolina did take it back- by firing on American troops.

What do you think about those who fire on the U.S. military?

Do you prefer we give them aid and comfort?

So you consider firing on invaders the same as attacking the USA? The Union may have had one view but the locals had another. The Union's presence was not acceptable to the new Nation and they gave ample opportunity for Anderson to retire the facility. I consider the whole situation a failure of Political will and frankly a blight on US History. Yes: Lincoln did preserve the Union and that matter is settled. I am quite glad of the outcome in that a united USA is a wonderful thing. But the scar of the Civil War still has not healed. That is obvious by posts I have read here and on other sites. I question whether it was necessary. As for the "excuse" of Fort Sumter? The only person killed was by friendly fire AFTER the surrender. How on earth was that enough to start a war of annihilation??

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:
What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

South Carolina took it back so I suggest that the incident following was a reaction to a presence the locals found illegal and intolerable. Now what would you do if a mob of foreigners encamped on your front lawn and wouldn't leave and threatened you with guns and stuff?

Greg

Yes- South Carolina did take it back- by firing on American troops.

What do you think about those who fire on the U.S. military?

Do you prefer we give them aid and comfort?

The people fired on were NOT the US military; they were the Union Military. Why weren't they back in the Union Territory where they belonged?

Greg

 

[Syriusly]

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

South Carolina took it back so I suggest that the incident following was a reaction to a presence the locals found illegal and intolerable. Now what would you do if a mob of foreigners encamped on your front lawn and wouldn't leave and threatened you with guns and stuff?

Greg

Yes- South Carolina did take it back- by firing on American troops.

What do you think about those who fire on the U.S. military?

Do you prefer we give them aid and comfort?

The people fired on were NOT the US military; they were the Union Military. Why weren't they back in the Union Territory where they belonged?

Greg

They were members of the United States Army- here let me help with with this:

They were commanded by Robert Anderson- a graduate of West Point- and a major with the United States Army- and commanded the First Regiment of Artillery of the United States Army.

 

[Syriusly]

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

South Carolina took it back so I suggest that the incident following was a reaction to a presence the locals found illegal and intolerable. Now what would you do if a mob of foreigners encamped on your front lawn and wouldn't leave and threatened you with guns and stuff?

Greg

Yes- South Carolina did take it back- by firing on American troops.

What do you think about those who fire on the U.S. military?

Do you prefer we give them aid and comfort?

So you consider firing on invaders the same as attacking the USA? The Union may have had one view but the locals had another. The Union's presence was not acceptable to the new Nation and they gave ample opportunity for Anderson to retire the facility. I consider the whole situation a failure of Political will and frankly a blight on US History. Yes: Lincoln did preserve the Union and that matter is settled. I am quite glad of the outcome in that a united USA is a wonderful thing. But the scar of the Civil War still has not healed. That is obvious by posts I have read here and on other sites. I question whether it was necessary. As for the "excuse" of Fort Sumter? The only person killed was by friendly fire AFTER the surrender. How on earth was that enough to start a war of annihilation??

Greg

What did they 'invade'?

They were troops of the United States Army- lawfully stationed in a federal fort.

The rebels didn't have to fire on the United States Army- but chose to do so.

Certainly that wasn't necessary. Nor was secession necessary for the Confederacy to protect slavery- no one was taking away the right to own slaves.