If you oppose the Confederate flag you oppose the American flag too

[Unkotare]

They don't go into this kind of detail in public school. ....

Yes they do. You were just too busy being stupid to pick it up.

 

[Unkotare]

That's what you rejected ...

No, you dishonest fuck, my words were very clear. You were just too stupid to understand them.

 

[Boss]

It was indeed a dilemma.

The only dilemma was over how Union states would react to declaring the war in large part a mission to end slavery. Indeed, many in the North did not care for this notion at all.

That's true but it's not what I am talking about.

Lincoln understood his own contradiction in Constitutional principle and he spoke about it.

Civil War contemporaries and historians alike have criticized the Emancipation Proclamation. It did not free any slaves on the day it was promulgated; slavery was left undisturbed in the border states and in those portions of the Confederacy in Union hands; only the slaves in areas of rebellion were declared to be free. This semi-abolition approach stemmed not from Lincoln's reluctance to terminate slavery, as some historians imply, but rather from his own doubts about the federal government's lack of authority to touch slavery in the loyal areas. The Emancipation Proclamation itself he regarded as a legitimate weapon of war — an act of confiscation "warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity," and an act that could apply only to areas still engaging in insurrection.

Despite his defense of the proclamation as a military measure, Lincoln retained lingering doubt about its constitutionality. While he felt the courts would sustain it as a war measure, he questioned its force once peace were proclaimed. "A question might be raised," he conceded, "whether the proclamation is legally valid. It might be urged that it only aided those that came into our lines, and that is was inoperative as to those who did not give themselves up." Moreover, the courts might decide that the terms of the proclamation did not extend to the children of slaves freed by it.

Franklin, Emancipation Proclamation, p. 131; James Ford Rhodes, A History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, 7 vols., (New York, 1893–1906)

 

[Boss]

That's what you rejected ...

No, you dishonest fuck, my words were very clear. You were just too stupid to understand them.

Dude, are you trying to boost your number of posts today or something? Is there some kind of prize the pinheads have offered for most denigrating and irritating poster of the day? What's up with flooding the forum with one-line pop offs and insults? OR... are you trying like a cat in her litter box to cover up the awful-smelling cat turd of an argument you made and couldn't support?

 

[Unkotare]

That's what you rejected ...

No, you dishonest fuck, my words were very clear. You were just too stupid to understand them.

Dude, are you trying to boost your number of posts today or something?

My words were very clear, you dishonest fuck.

 

[Faun]

The Emancipation Proclamation was never in question other than by revisionist halfwits like you.

Again, it needs to be pointed out... The EP was an action taken by a president against an enemy of the state in time of war.....

You keep repeating this as if you assume everyone dropped out of Jr High US History like you did. As has been pointed out to you at least three times now, dimwit, a state of war existed at the time despite the illegitimacy of the so-called confederacy.

Well it is impossible the South was BOTH a nation at war with the US and ALSO not a legitimate nation. If they weren't a legitimate nation, the president didn't have authority to seize their property. That was only permissible as an action of the Commander in Chief at a time of war against an enemy of the state. That is why the EP didn't apply to West Virginia and other slave-holding northern states.

Lincoln knew this and spoke about it extensively. It was indeed a dilemma. He realized he could do this under powers of war against an enemy at war with the US. The same way FDR interned Japanese and Bush detained enemy combatants at Gitmo. But in doing so, he also has to acknowledge the South as an enemy at war and not citizens of the US protected by Constitutional rights. Also, we're talking about a period of time when Southern states of the Confederacy had NO representation in Washington. So do believe Southerners were rogue people without a nation?

What property did Lincoln seize?

 

[Faun]

All you have proven is that you're mentally deranged enough that if you take a sentence and cut off the beginning and cut off the ending, you can tailor it to mean something other than what it actually means in toto.

And get this ... while you portray me as the one stamping my feet and whining about it, history recorded the events as I portrayed them -- the south started the was by attacking a federal fort.

You may not like history ... but ... who cares?

Radical northern abolitionist, primarily from New England, helped start the war...but behind the scenes wealthy northern industrialist wanted a tariff and southern agrarian farmers did not. It was all about the $$$$ and the constitutional issue of whether or nor a state could leave the Union.

Sorry, but you don't get to rewrite history. Four of the seceding states wrote why they were seceding. The tariff was not among their reasons. I'm sure you will notice the biggest reason of all...

Where did these idiotic pie charts come from? Do you actually believed the reasons can be quantified in such a manner? That's like assigning a number to the color orange. The fact that you posted this idiocy only shows what a boob and a gullible ignoramus you are.

They represent how much was mentioned by each state in their respective declarations of causes which I linked.

In other words, it's absolutely meaningless.

To brain-dead retards like you, sure. To anyone with a functioning brain, they chart how much the respective states cited cause for secession.

I know you don't like it since it highlights how much they cited slavery as the reason for seceding, but then, who gives a flying fuck what you like?

 

[bripat9643]

Radical northern abolitionist, primarily from New England, helped start the war...but behind the scenes wealthy northern industrialist wanted a tariff and southern agrarian farmers did not. It was all about the $$$$ and the constitutional issue of whether or nor a state could leave the Union.

Sorry, but you don't get to rewrite history. Four of the seceding states wrote why they were seceding. The tariff was not among their reasons. I'm sure you will notice the biggest reason of all...

Where did these idiotic pie charts come from? Do you actually believed the reasons can be quantified in such a manner? That's like assigning a number to the color orange. The fact that you posted this idiocy only shows what a boob and a gullible ignoramus you are.

They represent how much was mentioned by each state in their respective declarations of causes which I linked.

In other words, it's absolutely meaningless.

To brain-dead retards like you, sure. To anyone with a functioning brain, they chart how much the respective states cited cause for secession.

I know you don't like it since it highlights how much they cited slavery as the reason for seceding, but then, who gives a flying fuck what you like?

That's all irrelevant because Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. Lincoln started the war, not the Confederate states. Lincoln invaded Virginia. The Confederacy didn't invade any Union state.

 

[bripat9643]

The Emancipation Proclamation was never in question other than by revisionist halfwits like you.

Again, it needs to be pointed out... The EP was an action taken by a president against an enemy of the state in time of war.....

You keep repeating this as if you assume everyone dropped out of Jr High US History like you did. As has been pointed out to you at least three times now, dimwit, a state of war existed at the time despite the illegitimacy of the so-called confederacy.

Well it is impossible the South was BOTH a nation at war with the US and ALSO not a legitimate nation. If they weren't a legitimate nation, the president didn't have authority to seize their property. That was only permissible as an action of the Commander in Chief at a time of war against an enemy of the state. That is why the EP didn't apply to West Virginia and other slave-holding northern states.

He t
Lincoln knew this and spoke about it extensively. It was indeed a dilemma. He realized he could do this under powers of war against an enemy at war with the US. The same way FDR interned Japanese and Bush detained enemy combatants at Gitmo. But in doing so, he also has to acknowledge the South as an enemy at war and not citizens of the US protected by Constitutional rights. Also, we're talking about a period of time when Southern states of the Confederacy had NO representation in Washington. So do believe Southerners were rogue people without a nation?

What property did Lincoln seize?

Tons of it, but most importantly he tried to seize slaves in Southern states.

 

[bripat9643]

That's what you rejected ...

No, you dishonest fuck, my words were very clear. You were just too stupid to understand them.

Dude, are you trying to boost your number of posts today or something? Is there some kind of prize the pinheads have offered for most denigrating and irritating poster of the day? What's up with flooding the forum with one-line pop offs and insults? OR... are you trying like a cat in her litter box to cover up the awful-smelling cat turd of an argument you made and couldn't support?

That's Unkotare's modus operandi when he's losing badly.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Easily offended pussies will always just be....easily offended pussies.....

No life losers.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, but you don't get to rewrite history. Four of the seceding states wrote why they were seceding. The tariff was not among their reasons. I'm sure you will notice the biggest reason of all...

Where did these idiotic pie charts come from? Do you actually believed the reasons can be quantified in such a manner? That's like assigning a number to the color orange. The fact that you posted this idiocy only shows what a boob and a gullible ignoramus you are.

They represent how much was mentioned by each state in their respective declarations of causes which I linked.

In other words, it's absolutely meaningless.

To brain-dead retards like you, sure. To anyone with a functioning brain, they chart how much the respective states cited cause for secession.

I know you don't like it since it highlights how much they cited slavery as the reason for seceding, but then, who gives a flying fuck what you like?

That's all irrelevant because Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. Lincoln started the war, not the Confederate states. Lincoln invaded Virginia. The Confederacy didn't invade any Union state.

You still have it wrong, the south started the war when they attacked a federal fort. And I never said Lincoln fought the war to free the slaves. I said the south fought the war to keep their slave. A distinction lost a dumbfucks such as yourself.

 

[Boss]

What property did Lincoln seize?

I didn't claim he seized any property. A president can't seize an American citizen's property without due cause and due process under the law. It's the 4th Amendment. This is why I am arguing with Unkrote about the Constitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation.

As a military measure against an enemy of the US, the Commander in Chief can confiscate property and deny many other Constitutional rights. Enemies at war with the US have no Constitutional protections. So IF the Emancipation Proclamation IS Constitutional, it has to be acknowledged the South was an enemy at war with the US and Southern citizens were not US citizens protected by the 4th Amendment.

You can't have it BOTH ways... Unkrote wants to claim the South was never a nation, just a bunch of rednecks rebelling against government. If that is true, then they were always American citizens and should have been afforded 4th Amendment Constitutional rights. The EP was invalid and the president doesn't have the authority to end slavery in the United States. It is ONLY because the South was at war with the US and as such, were enemies of the state which are subject to confiscation of property ordered by the Commander in Chief of the military as a military action.

Again--- and I know it seems like I keep repeating it because I have... The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to slaves held in Union states or areas in the South controlled by the Union.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's face it. Southerners fought against Northern aggression and for their freedom. They were patriotic Americans sick of seeing their country going the wrong way. That's why people typically fly the Stars and Bars.
But we got over that and healed and the descendents of those Confederates went on to serve the American army and win our wars.
But those who want to censor, who want to denigrate the struggle of our Southern ancestors, who want to demonize others for holding opinions contrary to theirs are no better than jihhadis and communists, who want to ban anything contrary to their religion. They are the hater dupes of the public world.

you're ability to paint a war started to guarantee slavery as something noble is sickening.

Lincoln started the war, moron, and it wasn't to free the slaves.

lincoln didn't start a war. secession started the war.

Wrong. Secession didn't require Lincoln to invade Virginia. That was entirely his decision.

 

[bripat9643]

Where did these idiotic pie charts come from? Do you actually believed the reasons can be quantified in such a manner? That's like assigning a number to the color orange. The fact that you posted this idiocy only shows what a boob and a gullible ignoramus you are.

They represent how much was mentioned by each state in their respective declarations of causes which I linked.

In other words, it's absolutely meaningless.

To brain-dead retards like you, sure. To anyone with a functioning brain, they chart how much the respective states cited cause for secession.

I know you don't like it since it highlights how much they cited slavery as the reason for seceding, but then, who gives a flying fuck what you like?

That's all irrelevant because Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. Lincoln started the war, not the Confederate states. Lincoln invaded Virginia. The Confederacy didn't invade any Union state.

You still have it wrong, the south started the war when they attacked a federal fort. And I never said Lincoln fought the war to free the slaves. I said the south fought the war to keep their slave. A distinction lost a dumbfucks such as yourself.

No, they didn't. Attacking a building within your own borders is not an act of war.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's face it. Southerners fought against Northern aggression and for their freedom. They were patriotic Americans sick of seeing their country going the wrong way. That's why people typically fly the Stars and Bars.
But we got over that and healed and the descendents of those Confederates went on to serve the American army and win our wars.
But those who want to censor, who want to denigrate the struggle of our Southern ancestors, who want to demonize others for holding opinions contrary to theirs are no better than jihhadis and communists, who want to ban anything contrary to their religion. They are the hater dupes of the public world.

you're ability to paint a war started to guarantee slavery as something noble is sickening.

And you thinking you can judge people that lived in a different time by todays standards is equally sickening.

so you're a moral relativist now?
those people chose to take up arms against their nation in defense of slavery. that does not make them patriots as the op would like us to believe. it makes them traitors.

Nope. They took up arms to defend themselves from Lincoln and the invading Yankee carpetbaggers. Lincoln is the traitor. Lincoln is the one who made war on states of the union.

 

[Faun]

The Emancipation Proclamation was never in question other than by revisionist halfwits like you.

Again, it needs to be pointed out... The EP was an action taken by a president against an enemy of the state in time of war.....

You keep repeating this as if you assume everyone dropped out of Jr High US History like you did. As has been pointed out to you at least three times now, dimwit, a state of war existed at the time despite the illegitimacy of the so-called confederacy.

Well it is impossible the South was BOTH a nation at war with the US and ALSO not a legitimate nation. If they weren't a legitimate nation, the president didn't have authority to seize their property. That was only permissible as an action of the Commander in Chief at a time of war against an enemy of the state. That is why the EP didn't apply to West Virginia and other slave-holding northern states.

He t
Lincoln knew this and spoke about it extensively. It was indeed a dilemma. He realized he could do this under powers of war against an enemy at war with the US. The same way FDR interned Japanese and Bush detained enemy combatants at Gitmo. But in doing so, he also has to acknowledge the South as an enemy at war and not citizens of the US protected by Constitutional rights. Also, we're talking about a period of time when Southern states of the Confederacy had NO representation in Washington. So do believe Southerners were rogue people without a nation?

What property did Lincoln seize?

Tons of it, but most importantly he tried to seize slaves in Southern states.

You're an imbecile -- he attempted to free the slaves, he didn't attempt to seize them. Words actually do have meaning even though you are too stupid to understand them.

seize

1
a usually seise \ˈsēz\ : to vest ownership of a freehold estate in
b often seise : to put in possession of something <the biographer will be seized of all pertinent papers>
2
a : to take possession of : confiscate
b : to take possession of by legal process
3
a : to possess or take by force : capture
b : to take prisoner : arrest
4
a : to take hold of : clutch
b : to possess oneself of : grasp c : to understand fully and distinctly : apprehend
5
a : to attack or overwhelm physically : afflict <seized with chest pains>
b : to possess (as one's mind) completely or overwhelmingly <seized the popular imagination — Basil Davenport>
6
: to bind or fasten together with a lashing of small stuff (as yarn, marline, or fine wire)

 

[Faun]

Let's face it. Southerners fought against Northern aggression and for their freedom. They were patriotic Americans sick of seeing their country going the wrong way. That's why people typically fly the Stars and Bars.
But we got over that and healed and the descendents of those Confederates went on to serve the American army and win our wars.
But those who want to censor, who want to denigrate the struggle of our Southern ancestors, who want to demonize others for holding opinions contrary to theirs are no better than jihhadis and communists, who want to ban anything contrary to their religion. They are the hater dupes of the public world.

you're ability to paint a war started to guarantee slavery as something noble is sickening.

And you thinking you can judge people that lived in a different time by todays standards is equally sickening.

so you're a moral relativist now?
those people chose to take up arms against their nation in defense of slavery. that does not make them patriots as the op would like us to believe. it makes them traitors.

Nope. They took up arms to defend themselves from Lincoln and the invading Yankee carpetbaggers. Lincoln is the traitor. Lincoln is the one who made war on states of the union.

Repeating your idiocy does not actually alter history -- which is not on your side.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, it needs to be pointed out... The EP was an action taken by a president against an enemy of the state in time of war.....

You keep repeating this as if you assume everyone dropped out of Jr High US History like you did. As has been pointed out to you at least three times now, dimwit, a state of war existed at the time despite the illegitimacy of the so-called confederacy.

Well it is impossible the South was BOTH a nation at war with the US and ALSO not a legitimate nation. If they weren't a legitimate nation, the president didn't have authority to seize their property. That was only permissible as an action of the Commander in Chief at a time of war against an enemy of the state. That is why the EP didn't apply to West Virginia and other slave-holding northern states.

He t
Lincoln knew this and spoke about it extensively. It was indeed a dilemma. He realized he could do this under powers of war against an enemy at war with the US. The same way FDR interned Japanese and Bush detained enemy combatants at Gitmo. But in doing so, he also has to acknowledge the South as an enemy at war and not citizens of the US protected by Constitutional rights. Also, we're talking about a period of time when Southern states of the Confederacy had NO representation in Washington. So do believe Southerners were rogue people without a nation?

What property did Lincoln seize?

Tons of it, but most importantly he tried to seize slaves in Southern states.

You're an imbecile -- he attempted to free the slaves, he didn't attempt to seize them. Words actually do have meaning even though you are too stupid to understand them.

seize

1
a usually seise \ˈsēz\ : to vest ownership of a freehold estate in
b often seise : to put in possession of something <the biographer will be seized of all pertinent papers>
2
a : to take possession of : confiscate
b : to take possession of by legal process
3
a : to possess or take by force : capture
b : to take prisoner : arrest
4
a : to take hold of : clutch
b : to possess oneself of : grasp c : to understand fully and distinctly : apprehend
5
a : to attack or overwhelm physically : afflict <seized with chest pains>
b : to possess (as one's mind) completely or overwhelmingly <seized the popular imagination — Basil Davenport>
6
: to bind or fasten together with a lashing of small stuff (as yarn, marline, or fine wire)

Freeing them was seizing them, moron. They weren't his property to free, were they?

 

[bripat9643]

Let's face it. Southerners fought against Northern aggression and for their freedom. They were patriotic Americans sick of seeing their country going the wrong way. That's why people typically fly the Stars and Bars.
But we got over that and healed and the descendents of those Confederates went on to serve the American army and win our wars.
But those who want to censor, who want to denigrate the struggle of our Southern ancestors, who want to demonize others for holding opinions contrary to theirs are no better than jihhadis and communists, who want to ban anything contrary to their religion. They are the hater dupes of the public world.

you're ability to paint a war started to guarantee slavery as something noble is sickening.

And you thinking you can judge people that lived in a different time by todays standards is equally sickening.

so you're a moral relativist now?
those people chose to take up arms against their nation in defense of slavery. that does not make them patriots as the op would like us to believe. it makes them traitors.

Nope. They took up arms to defend themselves from Lincoln and the invading Yankee carpetbaggers. Lincoln is the traitor. Lincoln is the one who made war on states of the union.

Repeating your idiocy does not actually alter history -- which is not on your side.

What I posted is history, moron.