Why is the South such an embarrassment?

[Kondor3]

,,,The South did not start the Civil War, the North did. Read up on the Norths refusal to transfer their military bases over to the south and the one at Pensecola firing on a civilian delegation to emphasize their 'NO!'

Incorrect.

The South started the Civil War by (1) attempting to secede from the Union, then (2) attacking and seizing Federal property in pursuit of that secession.

War began the moment that (1) was accomplished.

Incorrect. When the south seceded, said property ceased being Federal property. They were ordered to leave, and instead of leaving Lincoln reinforced and resupplied it.

War began because that's exactly what Lincoln wanted.

The Southern states offered to buy those properties, but Lincoln refused. He wanted war.

Incorrect. He wanted a United States, and had a sworn duty to preserve that very thing; "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

 

[bripat9643]

,,,The South did not start the Civil War, the North did. Read up on the Norths refusal to transfer their military bases over to the south and the one at Pensecola firing on a civilian delegation to emphasize their 'NO!'

Incorrect.

The South started the Civil War by (1) attempting to secede from the Union, then (2) attacking and seizing Federal property in pursuit of that secession.

War began the moment that (1) was accomplished.

Seceding isn't a justification for war. The Yankees were trespassing in Southern territory.

Each Southern State began or joined the war the split second that they passed an Ordinance of Secession.

Secession is, indeed, a casus belli, and the matter was settled by force of arms 150 years ago.

There is no such thing as a Federal force, trespassing, anywhere on American soil, in order to enforce the laws of the Nation.

That, too, was settled 150 years ago.

Let it go.

Total bullshit. Where does the Constitution grant the federal government the authority to make war on any of the states?

If a state secedes, then it's no longer part of the United States. Any federal troops who refuse to leave are trespassing.

 

[Kondor3]

,,,The South did not start the Civil War, the North did. Read up on the Norths refusal to transfer their military bases over to the south and the one at Pensecola firing on a civilian delegation to emphasize their 'NO!'

Incorrect.

The South started the Civil War by (1) attempting to secede from the Union, then (2) attacking and seizing Federal property in pursuit of that secession.

War began the moment that (1) was accomplished.

Seceding isn't a justification for war. The Yankees were trespassing in Southern territory.

Each Southern State began or joined the war the split second that they passed an Ordinance of Secession.

Secession is, indeed, a casus belli, and the matter was settled by force of arms 150 years ago.

There is no such thing as a Federal force, trespassing, anywhere on American soil, in order to enforce the laws of the Nation.

That, too, was settled 150 years ago.

Let it go.

Total bullshit. Where does the Constitution grant the federal government the authority to make war on any of the states?

If a state secedes, then it's no longer part of the United States. Any federal troops who refuse to leave are trespassing.

The matter has been settled.

Forever.

You lost.

We won.

Deal with it.

 

[bripat9643]

,,,The South did not start the Civil War, the North did. Read up on the Norths refusal to transfer their military bases over to the south and the one at Pensecola firing on a civilian delegation to emphasize their 'NO!'

Incorrect.

The South started the Civil War by (1) attempting to secede from the Union, then (2) attacking and seizing Federal property in pursuit of that secession.

War began the moment that (1) was accomplished.

Incorrect. When the south seceded, said property ceased being Federal property. They were ordered to leave, and instead of leaving Lincoln reinforced and resupplied it.

War began because that's exactly what Lincoln wanted.

The Southern states offered to buy those properties, but Lincoln refused. He wanted war.

Incorrect. He wanted a United States, and had a sworn duty to preserve that very thing; "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

He had no such duty, and saying "he wanted a United States" is the same as saying he wanted war. A state doesn't become an enemy simply because it secedes.

 

[bripat9643]

,,,The South did not start the Civil War, the North did. Read up on the Norths refusal to transfer their military bases over to the south and the one at Pensecola firing on a civilian delegation to emphasize their 'NO!'

Incorrect.

The South started the Civil War by (1) attempting to secede from the Union, then (2) attacking and seizing Federal property in pursuit of that secession.

War began the moment that (1) was accomplished.

Seceding isn't a justification for war. The Yankees were trespassing in Southern territory.

Each Southern State began or joined the war the split second that they passed an Ordinance of Secession.

Secession is, indeed, a casus belli, and the matter was settled by force of arms 150 years ago.

There is no such thing as a Federal force, trespassing, anywhere on American soil, in order to enforce the laws of the Nation.

That, too, was settled 150 years ago.

Let it go.

Total bullshit. Where does the Constitution grant the federal government the authority to make war on any of the states?

If a state secedes, then it's no longer part of the United States. Any federal troops who refuse to leave are trespassing.

The matter has been settled.

Forever.

You lost.

We won.

Deal with it.

Wrong. Force of arms never settles anything expect who gets to write history.

 

[Kondor3]

,,,The South did not start the Civil War, the North did. Read up on the Norths refusal to transfer their military bases over to the south and the one at Pensecola firing on a civilian delegation to emphasize their 'NO!'

Incorrect.

The South started the Civil War by (1) attempting to secede from the Union, then (2) attacking and seizing Federal property in pursuit of that secession.

War began the moment that (1) was accomplished.

Incorrect. When the south seceded, said property ceased being Federal property. They were ordered to leave, and instead of leaving Lincoln reinforced and resupplied it.

War began because that's exactly what Lincoln wanted.

The Southern states offered to buy those properties, but Lincoln refused. He wanted war.

Incorrect. He wanted a United States, and had a sworn duty to preserve that very thing; "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

He had no such duty, and saying "he wanted a United States" is the same as saying he wanted war. A state doesn't become an enemy simply because it secedes.

Did too... did not... am too... am not... were too... were not... automatic gainsay is pointless.

The matter was settled on the battlefield by force of arms, 150 years ago.

You lost.

We won.

End of story.

Next contestant, please.

 

[blackhawk]

Why do some people continue to embarrass themselves by posting the same old stale talking points?

 

[bripat9643]

Incorrect.

The South started the Civil War by (1) attempting to secede from the Union, then (2) attacking and seizing Federal property in pursuit of that secession.

War began the moment that (1) was accomplished.

Incorrect. When the south seceded, said property ceased being Federal property. They were ordered to leave, and instead of leaving Lincoln reinforced and resupplied it.

War began because that's exactly what Lincoln wanted.

The Southern states offered to buy those properties, but Lincoln refused. He wanted war.

Incorrect. He wanted a United States, and had a sworn duty to preserve that very thing; "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

He had no such duty, and saying "he wanted a United States" is the same as saying he wanted war. A state doesn't become an enemy simply because it secedes.

Did too... did not... am too... am not... were too... were not... automatic gainsay is pointless.

The matter was settled on the battlefield by force of arms, 150 years ago.

You lost.

We won.

End of story.

Next contestant, please.

All you said is "did too." I, however, included logic that you can't refute.

For example, how does secession justify invasion by the federal government?

 

[bripat9643]

Why do some people continue to embarrass themselves by posting the same old stale talking points?

You'll have to ask Kondor3.

 

[9aces]

Why do liberals constantly bring up the south?
Personally I dont give a crap one way or another about the north other than the fact that they keep moving south in droves.
I mean really,whats with the obsession?

Southern States are the biggest welfare queens in America.

Is that why New York has almost as many people on Food Stamps than Alabama has people?

Is that why New York has almost as many people on Food Stamps than Alabama has people?

Why don't you do a per capita comparison and get back with us.

Because it's a meaningless comparison. Here's why.

Median household Income in NY. $55,246 for 2014.
Median household Income in AL. $41,415 for 2014.

Sounds like NY is better right? Till you factor in the 40% higher cost of living in NY.

$41.415 x 1.4 = $57,981.

Which is higher, $58k? or 55k? That's the differential in your buying power.

Because it's a meaningless comparison. Here's why.

Median household Income in NY. $55,246 for 2014.
Median household Income in AL. $41,415 for 2014.

Sounds like NY is better right? Till you factor in the 40% higher cost of living in NY.

$41.415 x 1.4 = $57,981.

Which is higher, $58k? or 55k? That's the differential in your buying power.

It's meaningless for you because it blows your bloviating

In Alabama, 29% of the population is on food stamps.

In New York State, 14% of the population is on food stamps.
.
PLUS!

Alabama receives 2.46:1 in returned federal taxes.

New York receives 0.58:1 in returned federal taxes.

Alabama IS a welfare whore.

FYI: The only reason we have people on food stamps......corporate America promoted by Republicans.

Aw....math got you down? Cost of living is higher, pushing wages higher in order just to survive, which results in more taxes paid....which further reduces someone's ability to live a decent life. I'm building a new house that for a similar size and location, you couldn't begin to afford in NY. You may like paying more for the same thing, but we don't.

The reason we have so many people on food stamps, is.....Barrack Hussein Obama. He's not only presided over, he's encouraged more of it. The threshold is set not through buying power, it's on income. Liberals LOVE people taking government handouts, makes reliable Democrat party voters.

We have a lot of people, that through their buying power don't need it, but they'll certainly take it. We should absolutely reduce the threshold....but that whole buying power thing will bite you in the ass, us...not so much.

This is exactly the way you wanted it.....why don't you like it?

 

[Kondor3]

Incorrect. When the south seceded, said property ceased being Federal property. They were ordered to leave, and instead of leaving Lincoln reinforced and resupplied it.

War began because that's exactly what Lincoln wanted.

The Southern states offered to buy those properties, but Lincoln refused. He wanted war.

Incorrect. He wanted a United States, and had a sworn duty to preserve that very thing; "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

He had no such duty, and saying "he wanted a United States" is the same as saying he wanted war. A state doesn't become an enemy simply because it secedes.

Did too... did not... am too... am not... were too... were not... automatic gainsay is pointless.

The matter was settled on the battlefield by force of arms, 150 years ago.

You lost.

We won.

End of story.

Next contestant, please.

All you said is "did too." I, however, included logic that you can't refute.

For example, how does secession justify invasion by the federal government?

By preventing the laws of the United States from being executed and by preventing commerce (social, economic, etc.) between the States and their Peoples.

You brought the forcible enforcement of the Constitution down upon your heads.

That wasn't an invasion.

That was a four-year-long police action on a vast scale.

 

[9aces]

The Southern states offered to buy those properties, but Lincoln refused. He wanted war.

Incorrect. He wanted a United States, and had a sworn duty to preserve that very thing; "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

He had no such duty, and saying "he wanted a United States" is the same as saying he wanted war. A state doesn't become an enemy simply because it secedes.

Did too... did not... am too... am not... were too... were not... automatic gainsay is pointless.

The matter was settled on the battlefield by force of arms, 150 years ago.

You lost.

We won.

End of story.

Next contestant, please.

All you said is "did too." I, however, included logic that you can't refute.

For example, how does secession justify invasion by the federal government?

By preventing the laws of the United States from being executed and by preventing commerce (social, economic, etc.) between the States and their Peoples.

You brought the forcible enforcement of the Constitution down upon your heads.

That wasn't an invasion.

That was a four-year-long police action on a vast scale.

No commerce was being prevented. Police actions don't kill a million people.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Incorrect.

The South started the Civil War by (1) attempting to secede from the Union, then (2) attacking and seizing Federal property in pursuit of that secession.

War began the moment that (1) was accomplished.

Incorrect. When the south seceded, said property ceased being Federal property. They were ordered to leave, and instead of leaving Lincoln reinforced and resupplied it.

War began because that's exactly what Lincoln wanted.

Secession was unconstitutional. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;" The fort remained US Territory.

Lincoln would have left the Souths slavery system intact if it meant keeping the union together. Southern slave holders didn't believe him. They could have won their independence, but they chose the wrong General to lead them.

Secession was as valid as the colonies seceding from England.

Nope, it would have been valid had the South won the War for Independence. We lost because of General Lee's strategy.

So it's right if you win but wrong if you lose? Do you actually not see the flaw in that logic?

To libtards 'Might makes right' when it comes to wars of independence one might think.

 

[JimBowie1958]

By preventing the laws of the United States from being executed and by preventing commerce (social, economic, etc.) between the States and their Peoples.

You brought the forcible enforcement of the Constitution down upon your heads.

That wasn't an invasion.

That was a four-year-long police action on a vast scale.

The mental and conceptual contortions that liberals go through to justify their genocides would be amusing were it also not to horrendous.

From the Reign of Terror in the french Revolution to the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rogue, libtards always justify their barbarity with the thought that they are on the right side of history.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Did too... did not... am too... am not... were too... were not... automatic gainsay is pointless.

The matter was settled on the battlefield by force of arms, 150 years ago.

You lost.

We won.

End of story.

Next contestant, please.

lol, it is not the end of the story, dude, not by a long shot.

 

[9aces]

Incorrect. When the south seceded, said property ceased being Federal property. They were ordered to leave, and instead of leaving Lincoln reinforced and resupplied it.

War began because that's exactly what Lincoln wanted.

Secession was unconstitutional. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;" The fort remained US Territory.

Lincoln would have left the Souths slavery system intact if it meant keeping the union together. Southern slave holders didn't believe him. They could have won their independence, but they chose the wrong General to lead them.

Secession was as valid as the colonies seceding from England.

Nope, it would have been valid had the South won the War for Independence. We lost because of General Lee's strategy.

So it's right if you win but wrong if you lose? Do you actually not see the flaw in that logic?

To libtards 'Might makes right' when it comes to wars of independence one might think.

Well that's pretty much the liberal way. Shut them up, if they won't shut up, imprison or kill them.

 

[Kondor3]

...Police actions don't kill a million people.

This one did.

 

[Kondor3]

By preventing the laws of the United States from being executed and by preventing commerce (social, economic, etc.) between the States and their Peoples.

You brought the forcible enforcement of the Constitution down upon your heads.

That wasn't an invasion.

That was a four-year-long police action on a vast scale.

The mental and conceptual contortions that liberals go through to justify their genocides would be amusing were it also not to horrendous...

Liberal?

Me.

You're hallucinating, home-boy.

...From the Reign of Terror in the french Revolution to the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rogue, libtards always justify their barbarity with the thought that they are on the right side of history.

Wake me up when you come back down to earth.

 

[Kondor3]

...lol, it is not the end of the story, dude, not by a long shot.

Oh, puh-leeze...

 

[bripat9643]

The Southern states offered to buy those properties, but Lincoln refused. He wanted war.

Incorrect. He wanted a United States, and had a sworn duty to preserve that very thing; "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

He had no such duty, and saying "he wanted a United States" is the same as saying he wanted war. A state doesn't become an enemy simply because it secedes.

Did too... did not... am too... am not... were too... were not... automatic gainsay is pointless.

The matter was settled on the battlefield by force of arms, 150 years ago.

You lost.

We won.

End of story.

Next contestant, please.

All you said is "did too." I, however, included logic that you can't refute.

For example, how does secession justify invasion by the federal government?

By preventing the laws of the United States from being executed and by preventing commerce (social, economic, etc.) between the States and their Peoples.

You brought the forcible enforcement of the Constitution down upon your heads.

That wasn't an invasion.

That was a four-year-long police action on a vast scale.

If a state secedes, it is no longer a part of the United States. It's laws are no longer relevant.

Your excuses couldn't be any lamer. And, yes, it was an invasion.

It's astounding how pathetic the excuses of the Lincoln cult are for slaughter on an industrial scale. "Preventing commerce?" Are you joking? How did it prevent anything going on in the remaining states?