Why is the South such an embarrassment?

[bripat9643]

By preventing the laws of the United States from being executed and by preventing commerce (social, economic, etc.) between the States and their Peoples.

You brought the forcible enforcement of the Constitution down upon your heads.

That wasn't an invasion.

That was a four-year-long police action on a vast scale.

The mental and conceptual contortions that liberals go through to justify their genocides would be amusing were it also not to horrendous...

Liberal?

Me.

You're hallucinating, home-boy.

...From the Reign of Terror in the french Revolution to the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rogue, libtards always justify their barbarity with the thought that they are on the right side of history.

Wake me up when you come back down to earth.

You're more of a Nazi.

 

[Kondor3]

...If a state secedes, it is no longer a part of the United States. It's laws are no longer relevant...

A State does NOT have the right to secede from the Union.

The Founding Fathers made no provision in the Constitution for its dissolution.

The matter was settled on the battlefield, by force of arms, 150 years ago.

You lost.

We won.

Next slide, please.

...Your excuses couldn't be any lamer. And, yes, it was an invasion...

No excuses.

The United States made no excuses then, and I shall not second-guess them and attempt to make any now.

One cannot invade territory that one already owns.

...It's astounding how pathetic the excuses of the Lincoln cult are for slaughter on an industrial scale...

Next time you get pissy, don't do stupid things like (1) attempting to secede or (2) firing on (a metaphorical) Fort Sumter.

..."Preventing commerce?" Are you joking? How did it prevent anything going on in the remaining states?

You prevented the United States government from discharging its duties in the transmission of mail, collection of customs duties and taxes, managing the waterways, adjudicating disputes in the courts, enforcing its laws, monitoring and safeguarding of its shipping, freedom of movement within its Southern ports, fulfilling trade agreements and treaties, etc.

But commerce is only a sideshow.

Rebellion is the Main Complaint.

By your actions, you became a domestic enemy of the United States; one that all Federal officers are sworn to defend against.

You paid a frightful price for your stupidity and arrogance, and your abuse of your fellow human beings; a.k.a. slavery.

Justly so.

 

[Kondor3]

...You're more of a Nazi.

Calm yourself, Princess, or you'll soil your panties again.

 

[alpine]

...If a state secedes, it is no longer a part of the United States. It's laws are no longer relevant...

A State does NOT have the right to secede from the Union.

The Founding Fathers made no provision in the Constitution for its dissolution.

The matter was settled on the battlefield, by force of arms, 150 years ago.

You lost.

We won.

Next slide, please.

...Your excuses couldn't be any lamer. And, yes, it was an invasion...

No excuses.

The United States made no excuses then, and I shall not second-guess them and attempt to make any now.

One cannot invade territory that one already owns.

...It's astounding how pathetic the excuses of the Lincoln cult are for slaughter on an industrial scale...

Next time, you won't be dumb enough to (1) secede and (2) fire on Fort Sumter.

..."Preventing commerce?" Are you joking? How did it prevent anything going on in the remaining states?

You prevented the United States government from discharging its duties in the transmission of mail, collection of customers duties, collecting taxes, managing the waterways, etc.

But commerce is only a sideshow.

Rebellion is the Main Complaint.

By your actions, you became a domestic enemy of the United States; one that all Federal officers are sworn to defend against.

You paid a frightful price for your stupidity and arrogance, and your abuse of your fellow human beings - slavery.

Justly so.

 

[easyt65]

Any state in the United states can 'secede'. (Notice I did not say 'legally'.) SC was the 1st to officially do so. Of course, they got their ass handed to them and drug back into the union.

 

[Likkmee]

Abe looks tanked

 

[Redfish]

...If a state secedes, it is no longer a part of the United States. It's laws are no longer relevant...

A State does NOT have the right to secede from the Union.

The Founding Fathers made no provision in the Constitution for its dissolution.

The matter was settled on the battlefield, by force of arms, 150 years ago.

You lost.

We won.

Next slide, please.

...Your excuses couldn't be any lamer. And, yes, it was an invasion...

No excuses.

The United States made no excuses then, and I shall not second-guess them and attempt to make any now.

One cannot invade territory that one already owns.

...It's astounding how pathetic the excuses of the Lincoln cult are for slaughter on an industrial scale...

Next time you get pissy, don't do stupid things like (1) attempting to secede or (2) firing on (a metaphorical) Fort Sumter.

..."Preventing commerce?" Are you joking? How did it prevent anything going on in the remaining states?

You prevented the United States government from discharging its duties in the transmission of mail, collection of customs duties and taxes, managing the waterways, adjudicating disputes in the courts, enforcing its laws, monitoring and safeguarding of its shipping, freedom of movement within its Southern ports, fulfilling trade agreements and treaties, etc.

But commerce is only a sideshow.

Rebellion is the Main Complaint.

By your actions, you became a domestic enemy of the United States; one that all Federal officers are sworn to defend against.

You paid a frightful price for your stupidity and arrogance, and your abuse of your fellow human beings; a.k.a. slavery.

Justly so.

I disagree 100%. An act of secession is not constrained by the rules of the country being seceded from. The American revolution was illegal according to British law in the 1700s. Secession is effectively an act of war, would this country engage in another civil war over politics? Or would it peacefully divide as the USSR did? I think the latter, but hopefully we won't have to find out.

However, having said that, if another liberal democrat is put in the whitehouse, there might be enough pissed off people to push a secession or dissolution movement.

 

[paulitician]

The South is still backwards, but it's rapidly moving forward. The recent Rebel Flag controversy is a good example of that. Most Governments in the South are now choosing to remove it. They're no longer proud of a legacy which condoned horrific slavery. I mean, there's still some camo-wearing morons who wanna wave their redneck flag and fuck their sisters. But they're becoming few & far between.

More & more in the South are considering the moron flag-wavers to be painful embarrassments. So the camo-wearing sister-fucking savages of the South are being civilized. It may be taking longer than most want, but it is happening. A bloody Civil War isn't necessary these days. A quiet peaceful pacification is doing the job. They'll be a joining the rest of the civilized world eventually.

 

[Likkmee]

Si. De acuerdo

 

[OnePercenter]

Southern States are the biggest welfare queens in America.

Is that why New York has almost as many people on Food Stamps than Alabama has people?

Is that why New York has almost as many people on Food Stamps than Alabama has people?

Why don't you do a per capita comparison and get back with us.

Because it's a meaningless comparison. Here's why.

Median household Income in NY. $55,246 for 2014.
Median household Income in AL. $41,415 for 2014.

Sounds like NY is better right? Till you factor in the 40% higher cost of living in NY.

$41.415 x 1.4 = $57,981.

Which is higher, $58k? or 55k? That's the differential in your buying power.

Because it's a meaningless comparison. Here's why.

Median household Income in NY. $55,246 for 2014.
Median household Income in AL. $41,415 for 2014.

Sounds like NY is better right? Till you factor in the 40% higher cost of living in NY.

$41.415 x 1.4 = $57,981.

Which is higher, $58k? or 55k? That's the differential in your buying power.

It's meaningless for you because it blows your bloviating

In Alabama, 29% of the population is on food stamps.

In New York State, 14% of the population is on food stamps.
.
PLUS!

Alabama receives 2.46:1 in returned federal taxes.

New York receives 0.58:1 in returned federal taxes.

Alabama IS a welfare whore.

FYI: The only reason we have people on food stamps......corporate America promoted by Republicans.

Aw....math got you down? Cost of living is higher, pushing wages higher in order just to survive, which results in more taxes paid....which further reduces someone's ability to live a decent life. I'm building a new house that for a similar size and location, you couldn't begin to afford in NY. You may like paying more for the same thing, but we don't.

The reason we have so many people on food stamps, is.....Barrack Hussein Obama. He's not only presided over, he's encouraged more of it. The threshold is set not through buying power, it's on income. Liberals LOVE people taking government handouts, makes reliable Democrat party voters.

We have a lot of people, that through their buying power don't need it, but they'll certainly take it. We should absolutely reduce the threshold....but that whole buying power thing will bite you in the ass, us...not so much.

This is exactly the way you wanted it.....why don't you like it?

The issue was food stamps......YOU LOST THE DEBATE.

 

[OnePercenter]

Any state in the United states can 'secede'. (Notice I did not say 'legally'.) SC was the 1st to officially do so. Of course, they got their ass handed to them and drug back into the union.

South Carolina takes 7.8:1 in federal tax monies return. Seems to have worked out well for them.

 

[easyt65]

I'm sick of Liberals / people bringing up the Rebel Flag.

I don't care about it one way or the other, but is part of the tradition in the south. If a state wants to raise their flags on statehouse grounds to honor the brave men of their state who fought in an horrific, tragic war then let them do it. If you're not from that state then it's none of your damn business. If it offends you...then F* off!

A lot of sons of SC, Ga, and elsewhere died in that war. The flag flown over SC, for example, is not a celebration of that war or it's cause. It was a memorial honoring the state's military veterans who fought in that war. The flag was rightfully removed from atop the SC capitol and placed on the grounds as a memorial, along with the statues that also honored famous Civil War generals and soldiers. Then a bunch of people called THAT racist and demanded the flag be completely taken down. The state caved to people who claimed they were offended. (I think it is a good thing they removed it, but...)

People need to understand that You have a lot of 'real' rights in this country, but the right NOT to be offended is NOT one of them.

 

[BlindBoo]

Incorrect.

The South started the Civil War by (1) attempting to secede from the Union, then (2) attacking and seizing Federal property in pursuit of that secession.

War began the moment that (1) was accomplished.

Incorrect. When the south seceded, said property ceased being Federal property. They were ordered to leave, and instead of leaving Lincoln reinforced and resupplied it.

War began because that's exactly what Lincoln wanted.

Secession was unconstitutional. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;" The fort remained US Territory.

Lincoln would have left the Souths slavery system intact if it meant keeping the union together. Southern slave holders didn't believe him. They could have won their independence, but they chose the wrong General to lead them.

Secession was as valid as the colonies seceding from England.

Nope, it would have been valid had the South won the War for Independence. We lost because of General Lee's strategy.

So it's right if you win but wrong if you lose? Do you actually not see the flaw in that logic?

Logical or not, history shows that might makes right. Like the Golden rule.......

 

[Iceweasel]

Any state in the United states can 'secede'. (Notice I did not say 'legally'.) SC was the 1st to officially do so. Of course, they got their ass handed to them and drug back into the union.

South Carolina takes 7.8:1 in federal tax monies return. Seems to have worked out well for them.

You repeat that but don't prove it, so.......

 

[BlindBoo]

,,,The South did not start the Civil War, the North did. Read up on the Norths refusal to transfer their military bases over to the south and the one at Pensecola firing on a civilian delegation to emphasize their 'NO!'

Incorrect.

The South started the Civil War by (1) attempting to secede from the Union, then (2) attacking and seizing Federal property in pursuit of that secession.

War began the moment that (1) was accomplished.

Seceding isn't a justification for war. The Yankees were trespassing in Southern territory.

Each Southern State began or joined the war the split second that they passed an Ordinance of Secession.

Secession is, indeed, a casus belli, and the matter was settled by force of arms 150 years ago.

There is no such thing as a Federal force, trespassing, anywhere on American soil, in order to enforce the laws of the Nation.

That, too, was settled 150 years ago.

Let it go.

Total bullshit. Where does the Constitution grant the federal government the authority to make war on any of the states?

If a state secedes, then it's no longer part of the United States. Any federal troops who refuse to leave are trespassing.

Secession is unconstitutional. Secession is a violation of Section 10 of the Constitution. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; .."

 

[BlindBoo]

Incorrect. When the south seceded, said property ceased being Federal property. They were ordered to leave, and instead of leaving Lincoln reinforced and resupplied it.

War began because that's exactly what Lincoln wanted.

Secession was unconstitutional. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;" The fort remained US Territory.

Lincoln would have left the Souths slavery system intact if it meant keeping the union together. Southern slave holders didn't believe him. They could have won their independence, but they chose the wrong General to lead them.

Secession was as valid as the colonies seceding from England.

Nope, it would have been valid had the South won the War for Independence. We lost because of General Lee's strategy.

So it's right if you win but wrong if you lose? Do you actually not see the flaw in that logic?

To libtards 'Might makes right' when it comes to wars of independence one might think.

The observation is neither left nor right. Just ask the people of Saigon oh wait that's Ho-Chi Min City isn't it?

You could also ask the people of Constantinople opps, I mean Istanbul!

 

[JimBowie1958]

By preventing the laws of the United States from being executed and by preventing commerce (social, economic, etc.) between the States and their Peoples.

You brought the forcible enforcement of the Constitution down upon your heads.

That wasn't an invasion.

That was a four-year-long police action on a vast scale.

The mental and conceptual contortions that liberals go through to justify their genocides would be amusing were it also not to horrendous...

Liberal?

Me.

You're hallucinating, home-boy.

...From the Reign of Terror in the french Revolution to the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rogue, libtards always justify their barbarity with the thought that they are on the right side of history.

Wake me up when you come back down to earth.

The word 'liberal' that I used is as malleable as the word 'conservative' is. It is the fact that you are taking a position on the Civil War that is the core of every Marxist interpretation ever written on the topic that causes me to call you, not only a liberal, but a bleeding cultural Marxist worthy of any fucking commie Coffee shop, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

...lol, it is not the end of the story, dude, not by a long shot.

Oh, puh-leeze...

Laugh all you want, dear.

 

[Unkotare]

Did too... did not... am too... am not... were too... were not... automatic gainsay is pointless.

The matter was settled on the battlefield by force of arms, 150 years ago.

You lost.

We won.

End of story.

Next contestant, please.

lol, it is not the end of the story, dude, not by a long shot.

Um, yeah, it is.

 

[9aces]

,,,The South did not start the Civil War, the North did. Read up on the Norths refusal to transfer their military bases over to the south and the one at Pensecola firing on a civilian delegation to emphasize their 'NO!'

Incorrect.

The South started the Civil War by (1) attempting to secede from the Union, then (2) attacking and seizing Federal property in pursuit of that secession.

War began the moment that (1) was accomplished.

Seceding isn't a justification for war. The Yankees were trespassing in Southern territory.

Each Southern State began or joined the war the split second that they passed an Ordinance of Secession.

Secession is, indeed, a casus belli, and the matter was settled by force of arms 150 years ago.

There is no such thing as a Federal force, trespassing, anywhere on American soil, in order to enforce the laws of the Nation.

That, too, was settled 150 years ago.

Let it go.

Total bullshit. Where does the Constitution grant the federal government the authority to make war on any of the states?

If a state secedes, then it's no longer part of the United States. Any federal troops who refuse to leave are trespassing.

Secession is unconstitutional. Secession is a violation of Section 10 of the Constitution. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; .."

So it's your position that people are not able to select the form of government they'll live under. That they must submit to the rule of the country where they're born, or be killed.

We're no more than slaves. Nice philosophy you have there.