Why gay marriage is wrong!

[bripat9643]

I can't believe so many people here are defending the Confederacy. How un-American can you get?
What is wrong with conservatives nowadays?

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government? That's what the American revolution was all about.

An 'oppressor'?

It was the US government, simply telling people to treat other people like people.

Nope. Again, Lincoln did not invade Virginia to free the slaves. He said many times that if maintaining slavery would "save" the Union, then he would do it.

Lincoln didn't invade anything- Federal troops invading territory of the Confederacy- to maintain the Union.

However, the South seceded in order to protect the legal institution of slavery.

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

You haven't even provided a source for this quote.

Regardless of that, whatever reason SC seceded from the Union is irrelevant. Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. No Southerner fired on any union forces that were on Union territory before then. In fact, no Southerner set foot on Union territory until the battle of Gettysburg.

 

[hipeter924]

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

The civil war was not fought to free the dam' slaves.

And it should be noted that it was not a 'civil war'. It was a war by the United States; A sovereign nation, which invaded the Confederate States; a sovereign nation. The consequences of which was the United States conquering the Confederacy.

Had it been an actual Civil war... The south would have prevailed. The civil war which is about to start will demonstrate that...

The Confederate states were never officially recognized, and never counted as a sovereign nation. Might have been different had they won against the North, but they didn't so claims to legitimacy are pretty much nil.

So winning makes your cause right and losing makes it wrong?

I just love what passes for ethics among liberals.

I never claimed it was fought purely on basis of the slavery issue, in fact one thread I disagreed with the premise it was a few months back.

However, if you are entering into moral claims i.e. x is more moral than y, then yes slavery by the South is a factor in the moral equation. I would counter, that there was little moral superiority either side could claim - though obviously millions of slaves being freed was a positive development.

This only issue is whether Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. Slavery is irrelevant to that issue. If it was relevant, the U.S. would have been justified in invadining all the territories in the Caribbean and all the nations in South America.

Turds like you keep trying to make the war about slavery because you can't win anyo ther way. You use the slavery issue to bludgeon people so the real issues won't get discussed. It's just typical leftwing sleazy propaganda

As far as secession is concerned today, if a state wishes to leave the US it can, so long as legislation is passed by the House, Senate, and signed off by the President that allows a state to leave.

In other words, it can't leave. Unfortunately for your theory, there isn't a shred of historical or legal evidence to support it. There is no language in the Constitution that says a state must get permission from the federal government to secede, so your claim is entirely unsupported. It's pure hooey.

In fact, I would be apathetic if a state decided to leave, as it is their right of self-determination. But it wasn't a legislative process through the Federal government that created the Confederacy - rather it was violent secession.

That's big of you (sarcasm). There was no violence until Lincoln invaded Virginia.

Sure a state can leave. Petition for the House your party controls to pass legislation that allows state referendums to secede. Never thought of that have you?

 

[toxicmedia]

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Wrong
We don't need bias here but does anybody have any weighty argument for homosexual marriage?
Without words about choice and freedom of love please.
Why gay marriage is good and why it is becoming legal so fast?

Yeah...how foolish can anyone be......thinking about things like the freedom to love someone, and marriage, together!....how insane!

 

[bripat9643]

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

The civil war was not fought to free the dam' slaves.

And it should be noted that it was not a 'civil war'. It was a war by the United States; A sovereign nation, which invaded the Confederate States; a sovereign nation. The consequences of which was the United States conquering the Confederacy.

Had it been an actual Civil war... The south would have prevailed. The civil war which is about to start will demonstrate that...

The Confederate states were never officially recognized, and never counted as a sovereign nation. Might have been different had they won against the North, but they didn't so claims to legitimacy are pretty much nil.

So winning makes your cause right and losing makes it wrong?

I just love what passes for ethics among liberals.

I never claimed it was fought purely on basis of the slavery issue, in fact one thread I disagreed with the premise it was a few months back.

However, if you are entering into moral claims i.e. x is more moral than y, then yes slavery by the South is a factor in the moral equation. I would counter, that there was little moral superiority either side could claim - though obviously millions of slaves being freed was a positive development.

This only issue is whether Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. Slavery is irrelevant to that issue. If it was relevant, the U.S. would have been justified in invadining all the territories in the Caribbean and all the nations in South America.

Turds like you keep trying to make the war about slavery because you can't win anyo ther way. You use the slavery issue to bludgeon people so the real issues won't get discussed. It's just typical leftwing sleazy propaganda

As far as secession is concerned today, if a state wishes to leave the US it can, so long as legislation is passed by the House, Senate, and signed off by the President that allows a state to leave.

In other words, it can't leave. Unfortunately for your theory, there isn't a shred of historical or legal evidence to support it. There is no language in the Constitution that says a state must get permission from the federal government to secede, so your claim is entirely unsupported. It's pure hooey.

In fact, I would be apathetic if a state decided to leave, as it is their right of self-determination. But it wasn't a legislative process through the Federal government that created the Confederacy - rather it was violent secession.

That's big of you (sarcasm). There was no violence until Lincoln invaded Virginia.

Sure a state can leave. Petition for the House your party controls to pass legislation that allows state referendums to secede. Never thought of that have you?

Not required, asshole. That's just another way of saying a state can't leave.

 

[-S-]

Not required, asshole. That's just another way of saying a state can't leave.

Nut up or shut up, bro. Stand by your principles. You said you thought there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for, yet won't say whether you would support the continued slavery that would have resulted in their win.

Stand by what you believe and don't be such a doormat. I may not agree with you, but I at least want to be able to respect you.

 

[Skylar]

Says you.

Says Nature.

There is no marriage in nature. There's fucking. We invented marriage.

You can pretend otherwise. But your willful ignorance really doesn't change the situation.

 

[bripat9643]

Not required, asshole. That's just another way of saying a state can't leave.

Nut up or shut up, bro. Stand by your principles. You said you thought there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for, yet won't say whether you would support the continued slavery that would have resulted in their win.

Stand by what you believe and don't be such a doormat. I may not agree with you, but I at least want to be able to respect you.

Of course I don't support slavery, you stupid asshole. That doesn't mean Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. They have slavery right now in multiple countries in Africa and the Middle East. Why aren't morons like you calling for the government to invade them? If you don't, then you must support slavery. That's your dumbass argument, isn't it?

 

[hipeter924]

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

The civil war was not fought to free the dam' slaves.

And it should be noted that it was not a 'civil war'. It was a war by the United States; A sovereign nation, which invaded the Confederate States; a sovereign nation. The consequences of which was the United States conquering the Confederacy.

Had it been an actual Civil war... The south would have prevailed. The civil war which is about to start will demonstrate that...

The Confederate states were never officially recognized, and never counted as a sovereign nation. Might have been different had they won against the North, but they didn't so claims to legitimacy are pretty much nil.

So winning makes your cause right and losing makes it wrong?

I just love what passes for ethics among liberals.

I never claimed it was fought purely on basis of the slavery issue, in fact one thread I disagreed with the premise it was a few months back.

However, if you are entering into moral claims i.e. x is more moral than y, then yes slavery by the South is a factor in the moral equation. I would counter, that there was little moral superiority either side could claim - though obviously millions of slaves being freed was a positive development.

This only issue is whether Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. Slavery is irrelevant to that issue. If it was relevant, the U.S. would have been justified in invadining all the territories in the Caribbean and all the nations in South America.

Turds like you keep trying to make the war about slavery because you can't win anyo ther way. You use the slavery issue to bludgeon people so the real issues won't get discussed. It's just typical leftwing sleazy propaganda

As far as secession is concerned today, if a state wishes to leave the US it can, so long as legislation is passed by the House, Senate, and signed off by the President that allows a state to leave.

In other words, it can't leave. Unfortunately for your theory, there isn't a shred of historical or legal evidence to support it. There is no language in the Constitution that says a state must get permission from the federal government to secede, so your claim is entirely unsupported. It's pure hooey.

In fact, I would be apathetic if a state decided to leave, as it is their right of self-determination. But it wasn't a legislative process through the Federal government that created the Confederacy - rather it was violent secession.

That's big of you (sarcasm). There was no violence until Lincoln invaded Virginia.

Sure a state can leave. Petition for the House your party controls to pass legislation that allows state referendums to secede. Never thought of that have you?

Not required, asshole. That's just another way of saying a state can't leave.

Meh. If you know me at least a little, then you should realize that swearing doesn't phase me in the slightest. Also calling me 'x' swear word, doesn't make an argument more valid.

 

[bodecea]

Not required, asshole. That's just another way of saying a state can't leave.

Nut up or shut up, bro. Stand by your principles. You said you thought there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for, yet won't say whether you would support the continued slavery that would have resulted in their win.

Stand by what you believe and don't be such a doormat. I may not agree with you, but I at least want to be able to respect you.

Of course I don't support slavery, you stupid asshole. That doesn't mean Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. They have slavery right now in multiple countries in Africa and the Middle East. Why aren't morons like you calling for the government to invade them? If you don't, then you must support slavery. That's your dumbass argument, isn't it?

The South fired first and got their asses whipped (tho it took awhile). You'd think that Lincoln shouldn't have done all he could to win a war the other guy started.

 

[bripat9643]

The civil war was not fought to free the dam' slaves.

And it should be noted that it was not a 'civil war'. It was a war by the United States; A sovereign nation, which invaded the Confederate States; a sovereign nation. The consequences of which was the United States conquering the Confederacy.

Had it been an actual Civil war... The south would have prevailed. The civil war which is about to start will demonstrate that...

The Confederate states were never officially recognized, and never counted as a sovereign nation. Might have been different had they won against the North, but they didn't so claims to legitimacy are pretty much nil.

So winning makes your cause right and losing makes it wrong?

I just love what passes for ethics among liberals.

I never claimed it was fought purely on basis of the slavery issue, in fact one thread I disagreed with the premise it was a few months back.

However, if you are entering into moral claims i.e. x is more moral than y, then yes slavery by the South is a factor in the moral equation. I would counter, that there was little moral superiority either side could claim - though obviously millions of slaves being freed was a positive development.

This only issue is whether Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. Slavery is irrelevant to that issue. If it was relevant, the U.S. would have been justified in invadining all the territories in the Caribbean and all the nations in South America.

Turds like you keep trying to make the war about slavery because you can't win anyo ther way. You use the slavery issue to bludgeon people so the real issues won't get discussed. It's just typical leftwing sleazy propaganda

As far as secession is concerned today, if a state wishes to leave the US it can, so long as legislation is passed by the House, Senate, and signed off by the President that allows a state to leave.

In other words, it can't leave. Unfortunately for your theory, there isn't a shred of historical or legal evidence to support it. There is no language in the Constitution that says a state must get permission from the federal government to secede, so your claim is entirely unsupported. It's pure hooey.

In fact, I would be apathetic if a state decided to leave, as it is their right of self-determination. But it wasn't a legislative process through the Federal government that created the Confederacy - rather it was violent secession.

That's big of you (sarcasm). There was no violence until Lincoln invaded Virginia.

Sure a state can leave. Petition for the House your party controls to pass legislation that allows state referendums to secede. Never thought of that have you?

Not required, asshole. That's just another way of saying a state can't leave.

Meh. If you know me at least a little, then you should realize that swearing doesn't phase me in the slightest. Also calling me 'x' swear word, doesn't make an argument more valid.

Fine, asshole. I couldn't care less.

 

[bodecea]

The Confederate states were never officially recognized, and never counted as a sovereign nation. Might have been different had they won against the North, but they didn't so claims to legitimacy are pretty much nil.

So winning makes your cause right and losing makes it wrong?

I just love what passes for ethics among liberals.

I never claimed it was fought purely on basis of the slavery issue, in fact one thread I disagreed with the premise it was a few months back.

However, if you are entering into moral claims i.e. x is more moral than y, then yes slavery by the South is a factor in the moral equation. I would counter, that there was little moral superiority either side could claim - though obviously millions of slaves being freed was a positive development.

This only issue is whether Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. Slavery is irrelevant to that issue. If it was relevant, the U.S. would have been justified in invadining all the territories in the Caribbean and all the nations in South America.

Turds like you keep trying to make the war about slavery because you can't win anyo ther way. You use the slavery issue to bludgeon people so the real issues won't get discussed. It's just typical leftwing sleazy propaganda

As far as secession is concerned today, if a state wishes to leave the US it can, so long as legislation is passed by the House, Senate, and signed off by the President that allows a state to leave.

In other words, it can't leave. Unfortunately for your theory, there isn't a shred of historical or legal evidence to support it. There is no language in the Constitution that says a state must get permission from the federal government to secede, so your claim is entirely unsupported. It's pure hooey.

In fact, I would be apathetic if a state decided to leave, as it is their right of self-determination. But it wasn't a legislative process through the Federal government that created the Confederacy - rather it was violent secession.

That's big of you (sarcasm). There was no violence until Lincoln invaded Virginia.

Sure a state can leave. Petition for the House your party controls to pass legislation that allows state referendums to secede. Never thought of that have you?

Not required, asshole. That's just another way of saying a state can't leave.

Meh. If you know me at least a little, then you should realize that swearing doesn't phase me in the slightest. Also calling me 'x' swear word, doesn't make an argument more valid.

Fine, asshole. I couldn't care less.

My. That's effective.

 

[bripat9643]

Not required, asshole. That's just another way of saying a state can't leave.

Nut up or shut up, bro. Stand by your principles. You said you thought there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for, yet won't say whether you would support the continued slavery that would have resulted in their win.

Stand by what you believe and don't be such a doormat. I may not agree with you, but I at least want to be able to respect you.

Of course I don't support slavery, you stupid asshole. That doesn't mean Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. They have slavery right now in multiple countries in Africa and the Middle East. Why aren't morons like you calling for the government to invade them? If you don't, then you must support slavery. That's your dumbass argument, isn't it?

The South fired first and got their asses whipped (tho it took awhile). You'd think that Lincoln shouldn't have done all he could to win a war the other guy started.

They fired on Union trespassers, something they had every right to do.

Lincoln started the war.

 

[hipeter924]

So winning makes your cause right and losing makes it wrong?

I just love what passes for ethics among liberals.

This only issue is whether Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. Slavery is irrelevant to that issue. If it was relevant, the U.S. would have been justified in invadining all the territories in the Caribbean and all the nations in South America.

Turds like you keep trying to make the war about slavery because you can't win anyo ther way. You use the slavery issue to bludgeon people so the real issues won't get discussed. It's just typical leftwing sleazy propaganda

In other words, it can't leave. Unfortunately for your theory, there isn't a shred of historical or legal evidence to support it. There is no language in the Constitution that says a state must get permission from the federal government to secede, so your claim is entirely unsupported. It's pure hooey.

That's big of you (sarcasm). There was no violence until Lincoln invaded Virginia.

Sure a state can leave. Petition for the House your party controls to pass legislation that allows state referendums to secede. Never thought of that have you?

Not required, asshole. That's just another way of saying a state can't leave.

Meh. If you know me at least a little, then you should realize that swearing doesn't phase me in the slightest. Also calling me 'x' swear word, doesn't make an argument more valid.

Fine, asshole. I couldn't care less.

My. That's effective.

Yep. A swear word on the web, from behind a computer screen. Just quaking in my boots. /Sarcasm

 

[-S-]

Of course I don't support slavery, you stupid asshole. That doesn't mean Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. They have slavery right now in multiple countries in Africa and the Middle East. Why aren't morons like you calling for the government to invade them? If you don't, then you must support slavery. That's your dumbass argument, isn't it?

You're not making any sense.
How can you say that nothing is more American than what the Confederacy fought for, if you don't support the very unAmerican principles that would have continued if the Confederacy won? What don't you understand about this?

I don't know if you're stupid or just too cowardly to admit your true feelings. Either way, you're a pitiful example of a 'strong conservative'.

Cheers!

 

[Skylar]

Again Reader, you're seeing in the would-be 'contributions' from the Advocacy to Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents as sexual deviancy, is the addled species of reasoning OKA: Relativism.

And when pressed with specific examples of how your claims are blithering nonsense, asking you questions you can't possibly answer.....

.....you mechanically flee to your 'relativism' block post. Something you wouldn't have had to do if your claims had actual merit.

Again, Reader.....Keyes shows us where he knows his argument is weakest by where he chooses to run. When pressed for how an 'axiomatically objective' standard could produce wildly different conclusions, he knows that he has no rational answer. As there is none.

His 'axiomatically objective' standard is itself relativistic. Subject to culture, society, history and personal context. And it changes as these relativistic standards change.

And worse for his fallaciously 'objective' standard, his religious beliefs are but one among thousands and thousands of such beliefs. Most of which are mutually exclusive. Most of which contradict one another. It can't, for example, be both Jesus AND a Greek Pantheon of Gods.

Nor does it need to be either. Or any. He subjectively chooses one, subjectively chooses his interpretation, subjectively chooses his priorities, subjectively chooses what he'll ignore, and then declares his beliefs 'axiomatically objective'.

Which of course is just silly. Subjective is not objective. Which Keyes knows....as he'll run from any conversation where he is confronted with this simple fact. Exactly as he's doing right now.

And with that, the Reader can see why the above cited, would-be 'contributor' has been sentenced to LIFE IN IGNORE...

Of course. I dared to question your assumptions or show how your logic doesn't work. And you have no choice but to ignore me. As you clearly can't defend your position with logic or reason.

I mean, if religion is 'axiomatically objective', how do you account for the wildly different religious interpretations of the same 'axiomatically objective' relative to culture, history, society or personal context.

You can't. All you can do is ignore these huge, theory killing holes in your claims. And then pretend they don't exist. What you can't do, however, is make us pretend with you.

Which is why you fail.

(save these little bouts of parole I grant when it serves the debate) with its never ending litany of irrational drivel, wherein it claims in response to the natural fact that the individual is intrinsically subjective... that "Religion" is subjective, only to prove such by pointing to the individual... who is, as was pointed out in the argument, inherently subjective and who learns objectivity only through its religious faith.

And given that you are an individual, who by your own admission is inherently subjective.....how can your interpretation of any religion be 'axiomatically objective'? Obviously it can't be. No religious expression canexist save through subjective interpretation.

Your own reasoning demonstrates the absurdity of you trying to claim anything you have to say is 'axiomatically objective'. As you aren't objective. You're inherently subjective. And it is through the relativistic lens of your own experience, your own beliefs, your own assumptions that you offer us your religious interpretations.

Someone with different experiences, beliefs or assumptions will have different interpretations. As the Puritians did, despite following the same faith. As did the founders, despite following the same faith.

And there's nothing to say that your faith is the objectively accurate. Or that any faith is. That too is merely your relativistic assumption, based on what you choose to believe. Which in turn is based on your subjective perception, your society, your time in history, and your personal context.

Which makes your bizarre rants on how 'relativism' is 'innately evil' all the more ironic and amusing. As you're a walking, talking demonstration of relativism. And you know it.

 

[Skylar]

Not required, asshole. That's just another way of saying a state can't leave.

Nut up or shut up, bro. Stand by your principles. You said you thought there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for, yet won't say whether you would support the continued slavery that would have resulted in their win.

Stand by what you believe and don't be such a doormat. I may not agree with you, but I at least want to be able to respect you.

Of course I don't support slavery, you stupid asshole. That doesn't mean Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. They have slavery right now in multiple countries in Africa and the Middle East. Why aren't morons like you calling for the government to invade them? If you don't, then you must support slavery. That's your dumbass argument, isn't it?

Either the confederacy was a rebellion, in which case Lincoln had every right to put it down.

Or the confederacy was a different country. In which case the attack on Ft. Sumpter would be an act of war. And Lincoln had every authority to invade and conquer the territory. Exactly as the US had huge swaths of Mexico only a generation earlier.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I see a certain connectivity between the radical right an ISSI. The Radical Right (which is a significant minority, fortunately) wants to demonize gays in the name of religion and deny them equal rights. ISSI goes for a more direct approach. They throw gays off of buildings.

 

[Syriusly]

I can't believe so many people here are defending the Confederacy. How un-American can you get?
What is wrong with conservatives nowadays?

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government? That's what the American revolution was all about.

An 'oppressor'?

It was the US government, simply telling people to treat other people like people.

Nope. Again, Lincoln did not invade Virginia to free the slaves. He said many times that if maintaining slavery would "save" the Union, then he would do it.

Lincoln didn't invade anything- Federal troops invading territory of the Confederacy- to maintain the Union.

However, the South seceded in order to protect the legal institution of slavery.

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

You haven't even provided a source for this quote.

Regardless of that, whatever reason SC seceded from the Union is irrelevant. Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. No Southerner fired on any union forces that were on Union territory before then. In fact, no Southerner set foot on Union territory until the battle of Gettysburg.

Google is your friend- most of the Confederates states, just like South Carolina, specifically mention protecting the right to slavery as one reason for secession.
South Carolina Declaration of Secession

And once again- the first shots were fired by Confederate Troops on Federal troops- when they started the war by firing on Fort Sumter.

You can lie about it anyway you want to- but the first shots were Confederates opening fire on Federal troops.

 

[Syriusly]

Not required, asshole. That's just another way of saying a state can't leave.

Nut up or shut up, bro. Stand by your principles. You said you thought there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for, yet won't say whether you would support the continued slavery that would have resulted in their win.

Stand by what you believe and don't be such a doormat. I may not agree with you, but I at least want to be able to respect you.

Of course I don't support slavery, you stupid asshole. That doesn't mean Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. They have slavery right now in multiple countries in Africa and the Middle East. Why aren't morons like you calling for the government to invade them? If you don't, then you must support slavery. That's your dumbass argument, isn't it?

The South fired first and got their asses whipped (tho it took awhile). You'd think that Lincoln shouldn't have done all he could to win a war the other guy started.

They fired on Union trespassers, something they had every right to do.

Lincoln started the war.

LOL....now you are reduced to stomping your feet.

You are supporting states that rebelled from the United States in order to protect their legal right to own slaves.

And you are also a homophobic bigot.

Not a mere coincidence.

 

[-S-]

Not required, asshole. That's just another way of saying a state can't leave.

Nut up or shut up, bro. Stand by your principles. You said you thought there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for, yet won't say whether you would support the continued slavery that would have resulted in their win.

Stand by what you believe and don't be such a doormat. I may not agree with you, but I at least want to be able to respect you.

Of course I don't support slavery, you stupid asshole. That doesn't mean Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. They have slavery right now in multiple countries in Africa and the Middle East. Why aren't morons like you calling for the government to invade them? If you don't, then you must support slavery. That's your dumbass argument, isn't it?

The South fired first and got their asses whipped (tho it took awhile). You'd think that Lincoln shouldn't have done all he could to win a war the other guy started.

They fired on Union trespassers, something they had every right to do.

Lincoln started the war.

LOL....now you are reduced to stomping your feet.

You are supporting states that rebelled from the United States in order to protect their legal right to own slaves.

And you are also a homophobic bigot.

Not a mere coincidence.

Bripat is a complex guy, don't sell him short!

He supports states that rebelled from the United States in order to protect their legal right to own slaves, but he doesn't support the act of slavery



(or if he does support it, he's too cowardly to admit it. He's such a doormat.)