Civil War Facts

[Syriusly]

You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong. However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory. They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. That is beyond any doubt.

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

Well lets see.
You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.

Pure horseshit. I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact: The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves. This was true in the North as well as the South.

You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.

You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans.

Only a bonehead would believe it was. Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it. The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test..

I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves.

You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves.

And no one is surprised by this.

 

[bripat9643]

How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?

There is an actual provision with the European Union that specifically identifies the process for leaving the EU.

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, enacted by the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, introduced for the first time a procedure for a member state to withdraw voluntarily from the EU.[11] The article states that:[13]

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[14] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

But I hope that the Brits don't end up shelling some Danish patrol boat tomorrow just to show that they are no longer part of the EU

That's illegitimate. They can't impose terms after the fact. The UK just gave them the middle finger salute. If the UK did fire on some Danish patrol boat, what could the EU do about it? That's the main difference between the Union and the EU, the later is entirely toothless.

How is it illegitimate?

It is exactly the provision the UK cited when it notified the EU it was leaving the EU.

Because it was adopted after the fact. Any conditions for leaving have to be in place before joining.

 

[bripat9643]

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong. However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory. They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. That is beyond any doubt.

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

Well lets see.
You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.

Pure horseshit. I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact: The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves. This was true in the North as well as the South.

You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.

You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans.

Only a bonehead would believe it was. Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it. The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test..

I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves.

You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves.

And no one is surprised by this.

It wasn't necessary to lose a single life to free the slaves. How many lives did Brazil lose when it freed its slaves?

 

[bripat9643]

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong. However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory. They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. That is beyond any doubt.

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

Well lets see.
You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.

Pure horseshit. I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact: The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves. This was true in the North as well as the South.
.

Do you support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves
Its a yes or no question.

Meaningless bullshit. The Constitution gave them the right to own slaves. Whether I approve or you approve is irrelevant.

 

[Flash]

How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?

There is an actual provision with the European Union that specifically identifies the process for leaving the EU.

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, enacted by the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, introduced for the first time a procedure for a member state to withdraw voluntarily from the EU.[11] The article states that:[13]

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[14] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

But I hope that the Brits don't end up shelling some Danish patrol boat tomorrow just to show that they are no longer part of the EU

That's illegitimate. They can't impose terms after the fact. The UK just gave them the middle finger salute. If the UK did fire on some Danish patrol boat, what could the EU do about it? That's the main difference between the Union and the EU, the later is entirely toothless.

How is it illegitimate?

It is exactly the provision the UK cited when it notified the EU it was leaving the EU.

Because it was adopted after the fact. Any conditions for leaving have to be in place before joining.

The main reasons Jefferson Davis was released from prison rather than having a trial was the asshole Unionist didn't want to to litigate secession in the courts. He was preparing a defense that secession was legal and the Union pukes didn't want get a ruling on it because Davis's argument was pretty solid.

 

[Unkotare]

No, they don’t.

Only a moron would say something that stupid.

Only someone who understands what “morality” is.

How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?

How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?

Lincoln started the Civil War, moron.

Wrong, idiot.

 

[Syriusly]

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

Well lets see.
You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.

Pure horseshit. I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact: The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves. This was true in the North as well as the South.
.

Do you support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves
Its a yes or no question.

Meaningless bullshit. The Constitution gave them the right to own slaves. Whether I approve or you approve is irrelevant.

So to repeat- you support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.

Which is what I had said before.

 

[Syriusly]

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

Well lets see.
You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.

Pure horseshit. I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact: The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves. This was true in the North as well as the South.

You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.

You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans.

Only a bonehead would believe it was. Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it. The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test..

I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves.

You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves.

And no one is surprised by this.

It wasn't necessary to lose a single life to free the slaves. How many lives did Brazil lose when it freed its slaves?

So if the Civil War had not been fought- and the Confederacy had actually managed to rebel and become an independent nation- what year would they have freed their slaves?
After specifically leaving the United States and enshrining in explicit language in the Confederate Constitution the right to own slaves.

But thanks for confirming what I had already pointed out- a single life lost to free 3,000,000 slaves from torture and rape would be one life too many.

 

[anynameyouwish]

That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

Wrong, as always. Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong. That's obvious horseshit.

You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong. However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory. They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. That is beyond any doubt.

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

you support the RIGHT of STATES to allow WHITES to own blacks.

THAT is the same thing.


to contrast:


you say you don't support slavery but you have no objection to others owning slaves.


now compare THAT to....

"I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and I AM WILLING to start a CIVIL WAR TO KILL MY LIBERAL ENEMIES"......


Slavery doesn't drive you to civil war.

but homosexuality does!

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, as always. Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong. That's obvious horseshit.

You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong. However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory. They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. That is beyond any doubt.

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

you support the RIGHT of STATES to allow WHITES to own blacks.

THAT is the same thing.


to contrast:


you say you don't support slavery but you have no objection to others owning slaves.


now compare THAT to....

"I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and I AM WILLING to start a CIVIL WAR TO KILL MY LIBERAL ENEMIES"......


Slavery doesn't drive you to civil war.

but homosexuality does!

Slavery was a historical fact, and the Constitution condoned it. That's all that matters in this discussion. If you claim that it was right for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then you admit you don't give a crap about the Constitution or the law.

 

[bripat9643]

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

Well lets see.
You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.

Pure horseshit. I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact: The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves. This was true in the North as well as the South.

You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.

You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans.

Only a bonehead would believe it was. Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it. The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test..

I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves.

You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves.

And no one is surprised by this.

It wasn't necessary to lose a single life to free the slaves. How many lives did Brazil lose when it freed its slaves?

So if the Civil War had not been fought- and the Confederacy had actually managed to rebel and become an independent nation- what year would they have freed their slaves?
After specifically leaving the United States and enshrining in explicit language in the Confederate Constitution the right to own slaves.

But thanks for confirming what I had already pointed out- a single life lost to free 3,000,000 slaves from torture and rape would be one life too many.

Slaves would have been escaping to the North in a flood, so it would have ended shortly anyways.

 

[bripat9643]

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

Well lets see.
You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.

Pure horseshit. I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact: The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves. This was true in the North as well as the South.
.

Do you support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves
Its a yes or no question.

Meaningless bullshit. The Constitution gave them the right to own slaves. Whether I approve or you approve is irrelevant.

So to repeat- you support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.

Which is what I had said before.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[bripat9643]

Only a moron would say something that stupid.

Only someone who understands what “morality” is.

How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?

How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?

Lincoln started the Civil War, moron.

Wrong, idiot.

It's a fact.

 

[Syriusly]

You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong. However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory. They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. That is beyond any doubt.

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

you support the RIGHT of STATES to allow WHITES to own blacks.

THAT is the same thing.


to contrast:


you say you don't support slavery but you have no objection to others owning slaves.


now compare THAT to....

"I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and I AM WILLING to start a CIVIL WAR TO KILL MY LIBERAL ENEMIES"......


Slavery doesn't drive you to civil war.

but homosexuality does!

Slavery was a historical fact, and the Constitution condoned it. That's all that matters in this discussion. If you claim that it was right for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then you admit you don't give a crap about the Constitution or the law.

If the Confederacy was a separete country, then Lincoln had every right to invade that country for attacking American troops.

 

[Syriusly]

Well lets see.
You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.

Pure horseshit. I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact: The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves. This was true in the North as well as the South.

You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.

You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans.

Only a bonehead would believe it was. Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it. The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test..

I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves.

You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves.

And no one is surprised by this.

It wasn't necessary to lose a single life to free the slaves. How many lives did Brazil lose when it freed its slaves?

So if the Civil War had not been fought- and the Confederacy had actually managed to rebel and become an independent nation- what year would they have freed their slaves?
After specifically leaving the United States and enshrining in explicit language in the Confederate Constitution the right to own slaves.

But thanks for confirming what I had already pointed out- a single life lost to free 3,000,000 slaves from torture and rape would be one life too many.

Slaves would have been escaping to the North in a flood, so it would have ended shortly anyways.

Wasn't happening before the Civil War, don't know why you imagine it would be easier for them afterwards.

 

[bripat9643]

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong. However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory. They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. That is beyond any doubt.

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

you support the RIGHT of STATES to allow WHITES to own blacks.

THAT is the same thing.


to contrast:


you say you don't support slavery but you have no objection to others owning slaves.


now compare THAT to....

"I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and I AM WILLING to start a CIVIL WAR TO KILL MY LIBERAL ENEMIES"......


Slavery doesn't drive you to civil war.

but homosexuality does!

Slavery was a historical fact, and the Constitution condoned it. That's all that matters in this discussion. If you claim that it was right for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then you admit you don't give a crap about the Constitution or the law.

If the Confederacy was a separete country, then Lincoln had every right to invade that country for attacking American troops.

Nope. Those troops were on the soil of South Carolina. Lincoln was obligated to remove them when it was requested.

 

[bripat9643]

Pure horseshit. I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact: The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves. This was true in the North as well as the South.

Only a bonehead would believe it was. Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it. The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test..

I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves.

You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves.

And no one is surprised by this.

It wasn't necessary to lose a single life to free the slaves. How many lives did Brazil lose when it freed its slaves?

So if the Civil War had not been fought- and the Confederacy had actually managed to rebel and become an independent nation- what year would they have freed their slaves?
After specifically leaving the United States and enshrining in explicit language in the Confederate Constitution the right to own slaves.

But thanks for confirming what I had already pointed out- a single life lost to free 3,000,000 slaves from torture and rape would be one life too many.

Slaves would have been escaping to the North in a flood, so it would have ended shortly anyways.

Wasn't happening before the Civil War, don't know why you imagine it would be easier for them afterwards.

Before secession, the North was obligated to enforce slavery. After secession, it wasn't.

 

[Syriusly]

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

you support the RIGHT of STATES to allow WHITES to own blacks.

THAT is the same thing.


to contrast:


you say you don't support slavery but you have no objection to others owning slaves.


now compare THAT to....

"I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and I AM WILLING to start a CIVIL WAR TO KILL MY LIBERAL ENEMIES"......


Slavery doesn't drive you to civil war.

but homosexuality does!

Slavery was a historical fact, and the Constitution condoned it. That's all that matters in this discussion. If you claim that it was right for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then you admit you don't give a crap about the Constitution or the law.

If the Confederacy was a separete country, then Lincoln had every right to invade that country for attacking American troops.

Nope. Those troops were on the soil of South Carolina. Lincoln was obligated to remove them when it was requested.

Obligated how?

 

[bripat9643]

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

you support the RIGHT of STATES to allow WHITES to own blacks.

THAT is the same thing.


to contrast:


you say you don't support slavery but you have no objection to others owning slaves.


now compare THAT to....

"I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and I AM WILLING to start a CIVIL WAR TO KILL MY LIBERAL ENEMIES"......


Slavery doesn't drive you to civil war.

but homosexuality does!

Slavery was a historical fact, and the Constitution condoned it. That's all that matters in this discussion. If you claim that it was right for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then you admit you don't give a crap about the Constitution or the law.

If the Confederacy was a separete country, then Lincoln had every right to invade that country for attacking American troops.

Nope. Those troops were on the soil of South Carolina. Lincoln was obligated to remove them when it was requested.

Obligated how?

Obligated by international law. Occupying foreign territory is an act of war, moron.

 

[Syriusly]

I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves.

You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves.

And no one is surprised by this.

It wasn't necessary to lose a single life to free the slaves. How many lives did Brazil lose when it freed its slaves?

So if the Civil War had not been fought- and the Confederacy had actually managed to rebel and become an independent nation- what year would they have freed their slaves?
After specifically leaving the United States and enshrining in explicit language in the Confederate Constitution the right to own slaves.

But thanks for confirming what I had already pointed out- a single life lost to free 3,000,000 slaves from torture and rape would be one life too many.

Slaves would have been escaping to the North in a flood, so it would have ended shortly anyways.

Wasn't happening before the Civil War, don't know why you imagine it would be easier for them afterwards.

Before secession, the North was obligated to enforce slavery. After secession, it wasn't.

Before secession it would have been illegal for the Confederate States to create an armed border- to protect the Confederacy from the Abolitionists of the North and their slaves escaping.