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

[Unkotare]

. Lincoln started the war, not the Confederate states.

No, wannabe, no. You are beyond pathetic.

 

[Faun]

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.

It is when said building belongs to another sovereign nation and is on their land.

 

[Boss]

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... Some southern states cut a deal with the Federal government to gradually do away with slavery and were part of the Union during the war while still legally enslaving people. The US was okay with that... in fact, they accepted West Virginia as a state in 1863 without ANY provision they give up their slaves. There was never any act of Congress before the Civil War calling for an end to slavery.

So the "dumbfuck" here is you. Even the pie charts posted earlier to show how much of the secession declarations mentioned slavery, only prove that the issue of slavery was but one of several complaints. And the very issue of slavery itself was not about the morality of enslaving people or equal rights, it was about federal power to seize private property without due process.

Very few (if any) Confederate infantrymen who died fighting for the South owned slaves. The wealthy plantation owners sent proxies to fight for them and their sons, as was allowed back then. The few who did serve or who's sons served, were given high ranks and never saw combat. The war was largely fought by poor southerners who had a variety of reasons for fighting that were totally unrelated to slavery. They were fighting for their homelands. They were fighting because their state called on them. They were fighting because it seemed like a good idea at the time... it was an adventure... their friends and family were doing it... LOTS of various reasons.

To myopically pigeonhole everyone in the South who fought the Civil War as being "people fighting to keep slavery" is just a profound ignorance of people and history. It's as bad as claiming every veteran who served in Iraq was fighting for George Bush and right wing Christian fundies.

 

[Faun]

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.

Uh, no ... it's your own demented hallucination. That in no way establishes it as history. The events of the Civil war are engraved in the history books and it doesn't reflect your delusions.

 

[Unkotare]

They took up arms to defend themselves from Lincoln and the invading Yankee carpetbaggers. ....

Wrong again, you ignorant buffoon. And the term "carpetbagger" didn't even come into use until after the Civil War, you fucking moron.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

What you posted, what you always post, is nothing more than the idiotic revisionist fantasies of a dimwitted wannabe traitor SOB.

 

[Boss]

You're an imbecile -- he attempted to free the slaves, he didn't attempt to seize them.

It's semantics really. Freeing the slaves is tantamount to seizing them. It would be like if Obama sent the military to my house and blew up my SUV... he didn't seize it, but he rendered it invalid as a property asset... so it's the same thing. The president has no such authority under the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It is when said building belongs to another sovereign nation and is on their land.

Nope, especially when the scallywags infesting them refuse to leave. Attacking a US government owned warehouse in Mexico is not an act of war. Help, Carter didn't even believe attacking the U.S. embassy in Tehran was an act of war. Did Obama declare war on Libya because they attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi?

 

[Faun]

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... Some southern states cut a deal with the Federal government to gradually do away with slavery and were part of the Union during the war while still legally enslaving people. The US was okay with that... in fact, they accepted West Virginia as a state in 1863 without ANY provision they give up their slaves. There was never any act of Congress before the Civil War calling for an end to slavery.

So the "dumbfuck" here is you. Even the pie charts posted earlier to show how much of the secession declarations mentioned slavery, only prove that the issue of slavery was but one of several complaints. And the very issue of slavery itself was not about the morality of enslaving people or equal rights, it was about federal power to seize private property without due process.

Very few (if any) Confederate infantrymen who died fighting for the South owned slaves. The wealthy plantation owners sent proxies to fight for them and their sons, as was allowed back then. The few who did serve or who's sons served, were given high ranks and never saw combat. The war was largely fought by poor southerners who had a variety of reasons for fighting that were totally unrelated to slavery. They were fighting for their homelands. They were fighting because their state called on them. They were fighting because it seemed like a good idea at the time... it was an adventure... their friends and family were doing it... LOTS of various reasons.

To myopically pigeonhole everyone in the South who fought the Civil War as being "people fighting to keep slavery" is just a profound ignorance of people and history. It's as bad as claiming every veteran who served in Iraq was fighting for George Bush and right wing Christian fundies.

We've been over this and established you're fucking insane. I never said Congress passed legislation to free the slaves. That is a strawman of your own creation because you lose the argument. There was a movement for decades to end slavery. The northern states had already outlawed it and Congress passed a law outlawing slavery in northern states yet to be admitted into the union; part of a compromise with the south which made newly added states in the south, slave states. That law was effectively repealed by Democrats in 1854 in an effort to spread slavery into new states in the north and it backfired as Kansas became a free state. Slavery was absolutely being threatened and the south knew it even if people like you are too retarded to understand.

 

[Faun]

You're an imbecile -- he attempted to free the slaves, he didn't attempt to seize them.

It's semantics really. Freeing the slaves is tantamount to seizing them. It would be like if Obama sent the military to my house and blew up my SUV... he didn't seize it, but he rendered it invalid as a property asset... so it's the same thing. The president has no such authority under the Constitution.

You're a fucking retard.

"Freeing" is not "seizing." If anything, it's the antithesis of "seizing." And it's not "semantics" ... it's the English language, which is clearly a struggle for you.

 

[Faun]

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.

It is when said building belongs to another sovereign nation and is on their land.

Nope, especially when the scallywags infesting them refuse to leave. Attacking a US government owned warehouse in Mexico is not an act of war. Help, Carter didn't even believe attacking the U.S. embassy in Tehran was an act of war. Did Obama declare war on Libya because they attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi?

They were under no obligation to leave. They were there legally under the full authority and support of the rightful owners.

You really can't change history, no matter how much you shake your fist at the sky.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It is when said building belongs to another sovereign nation and is on their land.

Nope, especially when the scallywags infesting them refuse to leave. Attacking a US government owned warehouse in Mexico is not an act of war. Help, Carter didn't even believe attacking the U.S. embassy in Tehran was an act of war. Did Obama declare war on Libya because they attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi?

They were under no obligation to leave. They were there legally under the full authority and support of the rightful owners.

You really can't change history, no matter how much you shake your fist at the sky.

Yes, they were obligated to leave. They were occupying a foreign country. International law says if the host country doesn't want them there, then they have to go.

 

[Faun]

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.

It is when said building belongs to another sovereign nation and is on their land.

Nope, especially when the scallywags infesting them refuse to leave. Attacking a US government owned warehouse in Mexico is not an act of war. Help, Carter didn't even believe attacking the U.S. embassy in Tehran was an act of war. Did Obama declare war on Libya because they attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi?

They were under no obligation to leave. They were there legally under the full authority and support of the rightful owners.

You really can't change history, no matter how much you shake your fist at the sky.

Yes, they were obligated to leave. They were occupying a foreign country. International law says if the host country doesn't want them there, then they have to go.

Wrong. That was federal territory. It was then, it still is today. It never changed ownership simply because one party wanted to "opt out."

 

[bripat9643]

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

It is when said building belongs to another sovereign nation and is on their land.

Nope, especially when the scallywags infesting them refuse to leave. Attacking a US government owned warehouse in Mexico is not an act of war. Help, Carter didn't even believe attacking the U.S. embassy in Tehran was an act of war. Did Obama declare war on Libya because they attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi?

They were under no obligation to leave. They were there legally under the full authority and support of the rightful owners.

You really can't change history, no matter how much you shake your fist at the sky.

Yes, they were obligated to leave. They were occupying a foreign country. International law says if the host country doesn't want them there, then they have to go.

Wrong. That was federal territory. It was then, it still is today. It never changed ownership simply because one party wanted to "opt out."

Hmmm, nope. SC retain legal jurisdiction over the property. The title was held by the government of South Carolina. You're trying to refute the irrefutable.

Just as owning a warehouse in Mexico doesn't make the ground under it federal territory, owning a fort in SC does not make the ground under it federal territory.

 

[Faun]

It is when said building belongs to another sovereign nation and is on their land.

Nope, especially when the scallywags infesting them refuse to leave. Attacking a US government owned warehouse in Mexico is not an act of war. Help, Carter didn't even believe attacking the U.S. embassy in Tehran was an act of war. Did Obama declare war on Libya because they attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi?

They were under no obligation to leave. They were there legally under the full authority and support of the rightful owners.

You really can't change history, no matter how much you shake your fist at the sky.

Yes, they were obligated to leave. They were occupying a foreign country. International law says if the host country doesn't want them there, then they have to go.

Wrong. That was federal territory. It was then, it still is today. It never changed ownership simply because one party wanted to "opt out."

Hmmm, nope. SC retain legal jurisdiction over the property. The title was held by the government of South Carolina. You're trying to refute the irrefutable.

Just as owning a warehouse in Mexico doesn't make the ground under it federal territory, owning a fort in SC does not make the ground under it federal territory.

You're still wrong. You're wrong because you're a moron who just doesn't know any better. South Carolina ceded the land where the fort was built. Federal land ... federal fort. It doesn't suddenly transfer back to them because they wanted out of the union. It was no longer their territory.

That's why history books are in unison in holding the confederacy responsible for starting the war, which South Carolina started to preserve slavery.

You can deny it all you want but your delusions will never ... I repeat, never ... change history.

 

[Boss]

We've been over this and established you're fucking insane. I never said Congress passed legislation to free the slaves. That is a strawman of your own creation because you lose the argument. There was a movement for decades to end slavery. The northern states had already outlawed it and Congress passed a law outlawing slavery in northern states yet to be admitted into the union; part of a compromise with the south which made newly added states in the south, slave states. That law was effectively repealed by Democrats in 1854 in an effort to spread slavery into new states in the north and it backfired as Kansas became a free state. Slavery was absolutely being threatened and the south knew it even if people like you are too retarded to understand.

Again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and history does not support you. In 1863, the United States accepted a slave state (West Virginia) as a state in the Union. This was in the midst of a Civil War that YOU claim was "over slavery" and it doesn't fit with logic. What is your explanation? How can the nation who is fighting a war to end slavery accept a slave state into the Union?

Lincoln made it clear in his letter to Horace Greeley:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Let me again make a point clear to you that isn't seeming to penetrate your granite-like cranium... I have NEVER stated that slavery wasn't being threatened or that people didn't want to end slavery in America. As I pointed out before, many large plantation owners had already voluntarily began to move away from slave labor in favor of sharecropping and paid labor. We had already outlawed slave markets... you couldn't go to Charleston and look at teeth before purchasing slaves fresh off the ships from Africa... that practice had ended decades before the Civil War.

The Underground Railroad was originated and operated by Southern Abolitionists. Before the Civil War, Lincoln's position on slavery was the idea of gradual emancipation over time. He also wanted to implement a policy of shipping freed slaves off to god knows where so that white people didn't have to tolerate them in white society. Why don't you talk about that? Why is it never mentioned?

 

[Faun]

We've been over this and established you're fucking insane. I never said Congress passed legislation to free the slaves. That is a strawman of your own creation because you lose the argument. There was a movement for decades to end slavery. The northern states had already outlawed it and Congress passed a law outlawing slavery in northern states yet to be admitted into the union; part of a compromise with the south which made newly added states in the south, slave states. That law was effectively repealed by Democrats in 1854 in an effort to spread slavery into new states in the north and it backfired as Kansas became a free state. Slavery was absolutely being threatened and the south knew it even if people like you are too retarded to understand.

Again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and history does not support you. In 1863, the United States accepted a slave state (West Virginia) as a state in the Union. This was in the midst of a Civil War that YOU claim was "over slavery" and it doesn't fit with logic. What is your explanation? How can the nation who is fighting a war to end slavery accept a slave state into the Union?

Lincoln made it clear in his letter to Horace Greeley:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Let me again make a point clear to you that isn't seeming to penetrate your granite-like cranium... I have NEVER stated that slavery wasn't being threatened or that people didn't want to end slavery in America. As I pointed out before, many large plantation owners had already voluntarily began to move away from slave labor in favor of sharecropping and paid labor. We had already outlawed slave markets... you couldn't go to Charleston and look at teeth before purchasing slaves fresh off the ships from Africa... that practice had ended decades before the Civil War.

The Underground Railroad was originated and operated by Southern Abolitionists. Before the Civil War, Lincoln's position on slavery was the idea of gradual emancipation over time. He also wanted to implement a policy of shipping freed slaves off to god knows where so that white people didn't have to tolerate them in white society. Why don't you talk about that? Why is it never mentioned?

Wow, you're really as dumb as they fucking come. No matter how many times I say the north wasn't fighting to free the slaves, you still keep thinking that's what I'm saying.

You're fucking nuts.

 

[Boss]

which South Carolina started to preserve slavery.

How do you "preserve" something that the law already preserves?

Again... there was NO Congressional act to outlaw slavery in America. There was no SCOTUS ruling to outlaw slavery. As far as United States law and policy goes, slavery was already preserved and ensconced into law by Congress, the SCOTUS and every president up to Lincoln and including Lincoln. It was found by SCOTUS to be fully Constitutional to own slaves and they were property according to the court. So this idea that South Carolina was fighting to "preserve" something is just bogus.

 

[Faun]

which South Carolina started to preserve slavery.

How do you "preserve" something that the law already preserves?

Again... there was NO Congressional act to outlaw slavery in America. There was no SCOTUS ruling to outlaw slavery. As far as United States law and policy goes, slavery was already preserved and ensconced into law by Congress, the SCOTUS and every president up to Lincoln and including Lincoln. It was found by SCOTUS to be fully Constitutional to own slaves and they were property according to the court. So this idea that South Carolina was fighting to "preserve" something is just bogus.

For the same reason conservatives feared same-sex marriage would become the law of the land some day. You're not too bright, huh?

 

[Boss]

You're an imbecile -- he attempted to free the slaves, he didn't attempt to seize them.

It's semantics really. Freeing the slaves is tantamount to seizing them. It would be like if Obama sent the military to my house and blew up my SUV... he didn't seize it, but he rendered it invalid as a property asset... so it's the same thing. The president has no such authority under the Constitution.

You're a fucking retard.

"Freeing" is not "seizing." If anything, it's the antithesis of "seizing." And it's not "semantics" ... it's the English language, which is clearly a struggle for you.

From a Constitutional perspective and under the 4th Amendment, freeing slaves was the same as seizing property. This is why the Emancipation Proclamation could not apply to Northern states and didn't free any slaves in Northern slaves states or areas in the South under Union control.

Now, semantics arguments over dictionary definitions which can be applied to all sorts of various context, has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment or Constitution. You can ignorantly believe that, but you are a simple-minded idiot.