The most evil pres in US history was LBJ

[bripat9643]

Doesn't matter. They were stupid dupes for giving up their lives to defend the rights of slaveholders They were used and had their love of their states used against them

Whether they were smart or not, the fact is Lincoln killed them. He violated the Constitution and committed mass murder on a colossal scale.

 

[francoHFW]

Soldiers dying in a war is not mass murder.

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't matter. They were stupid dupes for giving up their lives to defend the rights of slaveholders They were used and had their love of their states used against them

Whether they were smart or not, the fact is Lincoln killed them. He violated the Constitution and committed mass murder on a colossal scale.

They were traitors who took up arms against their own country. They deserved what they got

There is nothing in the Constitution allowing you to secede, Lincoln swore to uphold the Constitution and defeating traitors is a part of that

 

[bripat9643]

I find that odd, because those people all would have been in Violation of their states laws. Perhaps they owned slaves in Border states, Perhaps had 2 Homes? Don't know, but your Info is the first I have ever seen that suggests Northern States had slaves.

All Slavery Wasn

Although, in the next generation after the War for Independence, slavery started to disappear in most areas of the North, it did not disappear completely. In regard to the state of New Jersey, slavery managed to keep a toe-hold there until the War of Northern Aggression. New Jersey reported 236 slaves in that state as of 1850 and there were still 18 there as late as 1860. Now, admittedly, that may not be all that many, but the thing is you still had at least token slavery in the North until 1860 and how many history books will ever report that? It seems to me that if the North really went to war to emancipate slaves, they should have taken care of their own states first--and where were John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison and all the rest of those fiery Northern abolitionists when the slaves in New Jersey needed them?​

 

[bripat9643]

They were traitors who took up arms against their own country. They deserved what they got

According to the Constitution, Lincoln was the traitor. he was also a war criminal.

There is nothing in the Constitution allowing you to secede, Lincoln swore to uphold the Constitution and defeating traitors is a part of that

There is nothing in the Constitution that disallows secession. Prior to the Civil War, secession was accepted as a legitimate option. Numerous states threated to seceed. Secession is not treason. However, making war on a member state of the United States is treason. Lincoln is the traitor.

Deal with it.

 

[francoHFW]

Bringing slaves from Africa was abolished long before the civil war. Many slaves ran away to and were protected by Indians. Link for slaves in the North until the civil war? I call BS.

 

[bripat9643]

Soldiers dying in a war is not mass murder.

It is when their own government is killing them.

 

[rightwinger]

They were traitors who took up arms against their own country. They deserved what they got

According to the Constitution, Lincoln was the traitor. he was also a war criminal.

There is nothing in the Constitution allowing you to secede, Lincoln swore to uphold the Constitution and defeating traitors is a part of that

There is nothing in the Constitution that disallows secession. Prior to the Civil War, secession was accepted as a legitimate option. Numerous states threated to seceed. Secession is not treason. However, making war on a member state of the United States is treason. Lincoln is the traitor.

Deal with it.

There is no constitutional provision for dissolving the union or seceding from it. As such, bearing arms against your country is treason and Lincoln did what was right to put down a slave holders led attack on our country

 

[francoHFW]

18 pampered slaves in NJ? Who cares.Not very credible either. Exception that proves the rule...

 

[bripat9643]

There is no constitutional provision for disposing the union or seceding from it. As such, bearing arms against your country is treason and Lincoln did what was right to put down a slave holders led attack on our country

The 10th Amendment reserves all powers to the state that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Since preventing secession isn't an enumerated power, it's reserved to the states.

Your theory is that anything that isn't specifically protected by the Constitution is reserved to the federal government. Aside from being utterly absurd, I can't imagine a more fascist notion than that.

Furthermore, Lincoln invaded the South, which he had no authority to do. The South did not attack the North.

 

[francoHFW]

Soldiers dying in a war is not mass murder.

It is when their own government is killing them.

These things happen when you start a rebellion. LOL. Like shelling Ft. Sumter...

 

[bripat9643]

18 pampered slaves in NJ? Who cares.Not very credible either. Exception that proves the rule...

It proves the rule that slavery existed in the North. On the other hand, the claim that Lincoln invaded the South over slavery has been thoroughly discredited. Only members of the Lincoln cult continue to maintain it.

 

[bripat9643]

Soldiers dying in a war is not mass murder.

It is when their own government is killing them.

These things happen when you start a rebellion. LOL. Like shelling Ft. Sumter...

In order to "rebel" you have to attack your own government. After it seceded, the federal government was not the government of South Carolina. Federal Troops were trespassing on the Sovereign territory of South Carolina. Carolina had ever right to evict them.

 

[Charles_Main]

There is no constitutional provision for disposing the union or seceding from it. As such, bearing arms against your country is treason and Lincoln did what was right to put down a slave holders led attack on our country

The 10th Amendment reserves all powers to the state that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Since preventing secession isn't an enumerated power, it's reserved to the states.

Your theory is that anything that isn't specifically protected by the Constitution is reserved to the federal government. Aside from being utterly absurd, I can't imagine a more fascist notion than that.

Furthermore, Lincoln invaded the South, which he had no authority to do. The South did not attack the North.

ROFLMAO, the south attacked Federal Forts in the South, And Killed Federal Troops. Troops that were there before the South left the union. In federal Forts that Legally belonged to the US federal Government. Period.

You are playing games with words.

If Cuba attacked Gitmo would you claim we could do nothing because they are not attacking our Soil? US military bases are us Soil, The Souths attacks on those Forts was an attack on the North, and gave Lincoln the Justification he wanted.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no constitutional provision for disposing the union or seceding from it. As such, bearing arms against your country is treason and Lincoln did what was right to put down a slave holders led attack on our country

The 10th Amendment reserves all powers to the state that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Since preventing secession isn't an enumerated power, it's reserved to the states.

Your theory is that anything that isn't specifically protected by the Constitution is reserved to the federal government. Aside from being utterly absurd, I can't imagine a more fascist notion than that.

Furthermore, Lincoln invaded the South, which he had no authority to do. The South did not attack the North.

The south attacked United States Territory at Ft Sumter. Taking up arms and attacking your country is treason and the gloves came off

Southern Traitors not only have their treasonous attacks against their own country to answer for but their crimes against humanity in actually fighting for the right to enslave their fellow man

 

[Charles_Main]

It is when their own government is killing them.

These things happen when you start a rebellion. LOL. Like shelling Ft. Sumter...

In order to "rebel" you have to attack your own government. After it seceded, the federal government was not the government of South Carolina. Federal Troops were trespassing on the Sovereign territory of South Carolina. Carolina had ever right to evict them.

Wrong, the Forts were the Property legally, of the US government. The South had not right to take them by force. Period.

U do understand that if Leaving the Union when you don't get your way was allowed to stand. That there would not be an America today right. Every time a Minority Political Group did not get their way, they would simply Succeed from the Union. Eventually we would have ended up as 50 nations, or even more if Parts of states were allowed to leave their states and become states of their own. lol

Succession simply can not be allowed, or you might as well dissolve the Union right now. We are always going disagree, If you allow the Minority to pack it in and leave when ever they are not happy, You wont have a country for very long.

 

[rightwinger]

It is when their own government is killing them.

These things happen when you start a rebellion. LOL. Like shelling Ft. Sumter...

In order to "rebel" you have to attack your own government. After it seceded, the federal government was not the government of South Carolina. Federal Troops were trespassing on the Sovereign territory of South Carolina. Carolina had ever right to evict them.

South Carolina had no rights to secede or seize federal territory. Even as a state, Ft Sumter belonged to the United States not South Carolina

Being the treasonous bastards they are, they wantonly took up arms and attacked their own countrymen

Such is the shame of South Carolina

 

[rightwinger]

These things happen when you start a rebellion. LOL. Like shelling Ft. Sumter...

In order to "rebel" you have to attack your own government. After it seceded, the federal government was not the government of South Carolina. Federal Troops were trespassing on the Sovereign territory of South Carolina. Carolina had ever right to evict them.

Wrong, the Forts were the Property legally, of the US government. The South had not right to take them by force. Period.

U do understand that if Leaving the Union when you don't get your way was allowed to stand. That there would not be an America today right. Every time a Minority Political Group did not get their way, they would simply Succeed from the Union. Eventually we would have ended up as 50 nations, or even more if Parts of states were allowed to leave their states and become states of their own. lol

Succession simply can not be allowed, or you might as well dissolve the Union right now. We are always going disagree, If you allow the Minority to pack it in and leave when ever they are not happy, You wont have a country for very long.

The US government owns a base at Guantanamo Bay in Communist Cuba. Any attack on our base would be an act of war

For South Carolina to attack a US fort at Ft Sumter was treason......pure and simple

 

[rightwinger]

18 pampered slaves in NJ? Who cares.Not very credible either. Exception that proves the rule...

It proves the rule that slavery existed in the North. On the other hand, the claim that Lincoln invaded the South over slavery has been thoroughly discredited. Only members of the Lincoln cult continue to maintain it.

The traitorous South took up arms against their own country because they were afraid they would lose the rights to own human beings, rape children and beat and torture their fellow man

Attacking such traitorous actions is not only Constitutional but an act of humanity

 

[francoHFW]

Slavery was the issue that states' rights was all about. Another canard.

But Nixon was the evillest lol...