The Gettysburg Address

[Rotagilla]

Oh, the topic has been discussed, Roty, and you lost.

Paperview will take her time, show you the documents and analysis, and you will be publicly thanking her for educating you.

You've proven nothing to anyone.You haven't even introduced a relevant fact to this discussion. Distract and derail seems to be your debate tactic.
regardless, at this point it's clear that you have no clue what you're talking about and you're in way over your head...

and..LMFAO....whoever paperview is, it's highly amusing that you're calling for help.

Very revealing, ace.

 

[paperview]

Oh, the topic has been discussed, Roty, and you lost.

Paperview will take her time, show you the documents and analysis, and you will be publicly thanking her for educating you.

Don't oversell me for time I don't have.

He's a neo-confed who isn't worth the time, even if I had it right now, which I don't.

But I thank you.

If "roty" cares to learn a bit, he can do a word search with my name - and he can start with "1836" -- that would be the year South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter.

He can go more global and type in "timeline" or "Star of the West" -- that would be when hostilities really started, in January of 1861 - months before Lincoln even stepped into office.

Here, I'll even get him started: http://www.usmessageboard.com/8749107-post75.html

Off to mow the back 40 for now. cya's ;/

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Roty" is already weaving and backing up.

 

[Rotagilla]

Oh, the topic has been discussed, Roty, and you lost.

Paperview will take her time, show you the documents and analysis, and you will be publicly thanking her for educating you.

Don't oversell me for time I don't have.

He's a neo-confed who isn't worth the time, even if I had it right now, which I don't.

No..I'm an old "confed". You people and your labels...

If "roty" cares to learn a bit, he can do a word search with my name - and he can start with "1836" -- that would be the year South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter.

Legal secession supersedes that but the south still offered to pay for the installation.

He can go more global and type in "timeline" or "Star of the West" -- that would be when hostilities really started, in January of 1861 - months before Lincoln even stepped into office.
Here, I'll even get him started: http://www.usmessageboard.com/8749107-post75.html

Fascinating...but irrelevant to the point.
Interesting that the north continuously and purposely provoked and agitated, hoping for conflict.

Maybe you could explain lincolns meaning here, then? The language is straightforward and unambiguous.


"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


The south tried to peacefully, legally secede from a government that had become overly oppressive.

an oppressive govt can only force people to do things at gunpoint for a certain period of time before they eventually revolt.

 

[Rotagilla]

"Roty" is already weaving and backing up.

That's nice.

Do you have anything relevant to the discussion to add or is this, in fact, your best effort?

 

[Picaro]

Picaro is guilty of false equivalency with the photos suggesting the Union's black units were like the SS adjunct units.

I suggested no such thing; somebody posted a pic of black Union soldiers as if that showed the Union was 'mutli-racial', I provided an excellent example of why that doesn't say much about northern realities and racism in the north, any more than posting pics of blacks in Hitler's armies shows that Nazis were not racist.

New York blacks formed two or three regiments of volunteers in 1861; they were denied the approval to serve in the Union army until later in the war, when the north was too desperate for manpower to fill its lines that they finally allowed blacks to serve as soldiers.

It's not true, it's deliberately a lie, and it reveals a real hatred of people of color.

You're lying here, of course. You just deliberately distort things you don't personally like, like most northern apologists hate anything that tarnishes their self-serving fantasies re the Civil War. Like the historical fact that they were as corrupt and amoral as everybody else on the planet, and nothing noble or 'special'. We have their conduct and actions after the war as yet more shining examples of their pocket stuffing self-interests, the Grant administration and 'Reconstruction', along with a clear record of Republican priorities when they occupied Congress with no opposition and were free to pass all their pet bills. We know for an absolute fact slavery wasn't anywhere near the top of their list. Cherry picking this or that anecdote and all the 'research' digging up confirmation biases and the like can't really erase what they actually did. Hardly anybody is attempting to white wash the South's motivations and atrocities, they're well documented; it's only the northern hypocrites who get all indignant and begin posturing in these threads when their sacred cows are gored; then comes the insults and name calling and lying.

 

[Rotagilla]

Picaro is guilty of false equivalency with the photos suggesting the Union's black units were like the SS adjunct units.

I suggested no such thing; somebody posted a pic of black Union soldiers as if that showed the Union was 'mutli-racial', I provided an excellent example of why that doesn't say much about northern realities and racism in the north, any more than posting pics of blacks in Hitler's armies shows that Nazis were not racist.

New York blacks formed two or three regiments of volunteers in 1861; they were denied the approval to serve in the Union army until later in the war, when the north was too desperate for manpower to fill its lines that they finally allowed blacks to serve as soldiers.

It's not true, it's deliberately a lie, and it reveals a real hatred of people of color.

You're lying here, of course. You just deliberately distort things you don't personally like, like most northern apologists hate anything that tarnishes their self-serving fantasies re the Civil War. Like the historical fact that they were as corrupt and amoral as everybody else on the planet, and nothing noble or 'special'. We have their conduct and actions after the war as yet more shining examples of their pocket stuffing self-interests, the Grant administration and 'Reconstruction', along with a clear record of Republican priorities when they occupied Congress with no opposition and were free to pass all their pet bills. We know for an absolute fact slavery wasn't anywhere near the top of their list.

be careful! or he'll call someone for help...LMAO...

 

[Picaro]

Picaro is guilty of false equivalency with the photos suggesting the Union's black units were like the SS adjunct units.

I suggested no such thing; somebody posted a pic of black Union soldiers as if that showed the Union was 'mutli-racial', I provided an excellent example of why that doesn't say much about northern realities and racism in the north, any more than posting pics of blacks in Hitler's armies shows that Nazis were not racist.

New York blacks formed two or three regiments of volunteers in 1861; they were denied the approval to serve in the Union army until later in the war, when the north was too desperate for manpower to fill its lines that they finally allowed blacks to serve as soldiers.

It's not true, it's deliberately a lie, and it reveals a real hatred of people of color.

You're lying here, of course. You just deliberately distort things you don't personally like, like most northern apologists hate anything that tarnishes their self-serving fantasies re the Civil War. Like the historical fact that they were as corrupt and amoral as everybody else on the planet, and nothing noble or 'special'. We have their conduct and actions after the war as yet more shining examples of their pocket stuffing self-interests, the Grant administration and 'Reconstruction', along with a clear record of Republican priorities when they occupied Congress with no opposition and were free to pass all their pet bills. We know for an absolute fact slavery wasn't anywhere near the top of their list.

be careful! or he'll call someone for help...LMAO...

the only thing that would help their revisionist narratives will be burning the records of Congressional votes and the Constitution, where no one seems able to find where Lincoln had the unilateral power to launch a war on anybody; they chose not to challenge the secession in the legislature and then the Supreme Court, and Lincoln had determined on war no matter what the alternatives, and for the obvious reasons: greed, cronyism, and power. All the rest is just trivia and spin.

you get the same sort of Butt-Hurtedness and diaper wetting when going over Thomas Jefferson's less than stellar life, or when the JFK Camelot Myth is examined with anything less than worshipful adulation and simpering.

 

[Bush92]

Menken is correct. Lincoln had dictatorial powers and suspended writs habeas corpus. He declared martial law in Maryland. If he had not been assassinated the Radical Republicans (liberals of their day) would have impeached him and his place in history would have been very different. The men who died at Gettysburg died to preserve the union of states dominated by federal authority. Not for the government of the people. Before Civil War we were THESE United States of America. After the war we were THE United States of America.

 

[gipper]

I suggested no such thing; somebody posted a pic of black Union soldiers as if that showed the Union was 'mutli-racial', I provided an excellent example of why that doesn't say much about northern realities and racism in the north, any more than posting pics of blacks in Hitler's armies shows that Nazis were not racist.

New York blacks formed two or three regiments of volunteers in 1861; they were denied the approval to serve in the Union army until later in the war, when the north was too desperate for manpower to fill its lines that they finally allowed blacks to serve as soldiers.

You're lying here, of course. You just deliberately distort things you don't personally like, like most northern apologists hate anything that tarnishes their self-serving fantasies re the Civil War. Like the historical fact that they were as corrupt and amoral as everybody else on the planet, and nothing noble or 'special'. We have their conduct and actions after the war as yet more shining examples of their pocket stuffing self-interests, the Grant administration and 'Reconstruction', along with a clear record of Republican priorities when they occupied Congress with no opposition and were free to pass all their pet bills. We know for an absolute fact slavery wasn't anywhere near the top of their list.

be careful! or he'll call someone for help...LMAO...

the only thing that would help their revisionist narratives will be burning the records of Congressional votes and the Constitution, where no one seems able to find where Lincoln had the unilateral power to launch a war on anybody; they chose not to challenge the secession in the legislature and then the Supreme Court, and Lincoln had determined on war no matter what the alternatives, and for the obvious reasons: greed, cronyism, and power. All the rest is just trivia and spin.

you get the same sort of Butt-Hurtedness and diaper wetting when going over Thomas Jefferson's less than stellar life, or when the JFK Camelot Myth is examined with anything less than worshipful adulation and simpering.

Many Americans have been brainwashed to believe our presidents were great and honest men....sadly, nearly all of them were terribly flawed, as we all are, and many were outright liars, cheats, and murderous fools. Lincoln has to be at the top of the list...due to his actions causing so much death and destruction.

The brainwashing is difficult to overcome. The truth does not change these people. That is concerning. When the truth is refused and condemned, you know we as a nation, are in trouble.

 

[gipper]

The south tried to peacefully secede. The south offered to pay for all federal facilities on their soil.

One, the South had no constitutional right to secede.

Two, Lincoln made it quite clear that the South could keep slavery as long as it recognized that it could not go into the territories and that federal property would be preserved and the results of electoral, constitutional process followed.

The South went to war, and Lincoln executed the South.

In your simple mind, you think the South went to war to continue slavery...and you still cling to the lie that secession was illegal. These LIES have has been debunked over and over, yet you continue to believe. Why?

You, who hate today's Rs, love histories most corrupt and traitorous R. Strange.

The southern man, of whom few owned slaves, fought for self determination and to protect his homeland from the invading Union armies. Much like the Americans who fought the Limeys in the Revolution, the southern man fought for independence against a tyrannical government.

You commend Americans who fought the Brits, but condemn the Confederates. This clearly proves you and your kind are fools and hypocrites.