Civil War Facts

[Syriusly]

No, they don’t.

Only a moron would say something that stupid.

Only someone who understands what “morality” is.

How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?

How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?

Lincoln started the Civil War, moron.

Nope- despite what you slavery apologists say- it was the men who rebelled against the United States to protect their 'rights' to own human property that started the war when they fired on the U.S. Army.

 

[Flash]

Interesting

 

[bripat9643]

Morals change over time. Your opinions are irrelevant.

The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.

Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?

How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War? ....?

There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

Wrong, as always. Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong. That's obvious horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

The US army was trespassing on their territory. They were legally entitled to attack them.

It doesn't matter what reason the Confederate states stated, there was no law saying they couldn't secede, and the bottom line is that Lincoln stated quite plainly that he didn't invade Virginia to end slavery. He didn't give a damn about slavery.

Your claim that South Carolina started the war is therefore absurd.

I have never apologized for slavery, so that means you're a sleazy lying douchebag.

On December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States.[7]- so no- the U.S. Army was not trespassing.
The rebel slave states fired on the troops of the U.S. Army- officially starting the war.
Of course to you slavery apologists it doesn't matter that the Confederate States rebelled to preserve their rights to own humans.

And of course Lincoln, after the troops of the United States were attacked, did not invade to free the slaves.
But it is a lie that Lincoln didn't care about slaves or slavery- Lincoln himself was a life long abolitionist- but he was a pragmatic abolitionist- he was willing to endure slavery in order to preserve the Union- unlike the Confederacy who tried to destroy the Union in order to preserve slavery.

The North didn't go to war to end slavery, but the South went to war to protect their slave rights.

You apologize for the Confederate slave states every time your defend the Confederate actions.

South Carolina ceded the property to the Federal government, but it legal jurisdiction over the property. Ft Sumter was still part of South Carolina, and federal troops were trespassing. They got what they deserved: eviction.

Lincoln was a white supremacist. He certainly was no abolitionist:

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...."

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."​

Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist. LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.
Most abolitionists were racists too.

But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies.

Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..

You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."

Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.'

You can be opposed to slavery and still be a white supremacist. There's no doubt that Lincoln was the later:

“Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of them” (CW, Vol. II, p. 256).


“What I would most desire,” Abraham Lincoln also declared, “would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 521). And, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold [political] office, nor to intermarry with white people,”​

CW - Lincoln's collected work.

However, Lincoln made it plain time and time again that he was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery. He was even willing to enshrine it permanently into the Constitution.

Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist. LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.
Most abolitionists were racists too.

But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies.

Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..

You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."

Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.

Lincoln stated in plain terms that he believed the white race to be superior to the black race. That's the textbook definition of a white supremacist. He also was definitely not an abolitionist.

You just can't stop lying.

 

[Syriusly]

Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?

How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War? ....?

There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

Wrong, as always. Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong. That's obvious horseshit.

You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

 

[bripat9643]

How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War? ....?

There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

Wrong, as always. Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong. That's obvious horseshit.

You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong. However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory. They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. That is beyond any doubt.

 

[Syriusly]

Speaking of white supremacists

Georgia Governor Joseph E. Brown concurred:

Among us the poor white laborer is respected as an equal. His family is treated with kindness, consideration and respect. He does not belong to the menial class. The negro is in no sense of the term his equal. He feels and knows this. He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men. He black no masters boots, and bows the knee to no one save God alone. He receives higher wages for his labor than does the laborer of any other portion of the world, and he raises up his children with the knowledge, that they belong to no inferior cast, but that the highest members of the society in which he lives, will, if their conduct is good, respect and treat them as equals.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

Wrong, as always. Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong. That's obvious horseshit.

You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong. However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory. They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. That is beyond any doubt.

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

 

[bripat9643]

South Carolina ceded the property to the Federal government, but it legal jurisdiction over the property. Ft Sumter was still part of South Carolina, and federal troops were trespassing. They got what they deserved: eviction.

Lincoln was a white supremacist. He certainly was no abolitionist:

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...."

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."​

Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist. LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.
Most abolitionists were racists too.

But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies.

Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..

You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."

Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.'

You can be opposed to slavery and still be a white supremacist. There's no doubt that Lincoln was the later:

“Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of them” (CW, Vol. II, p. 256).


“What I would most desire,” Abraham Lincoln also declared, “would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 521). And, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold [political] office, nor to intermarry with white people,”​

CW - Lincoln's collected work.

However, Lincoln made it plain time and time again that he was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery. He was even willing to enshrine it permanently into the Constitution.

Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist. LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.
Most abolitionists were racists too.

But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies.

Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..

You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."

Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.

Lincoln stated in plain terms that he believed the white race to be superior to the black race. That's the textbook definition of a white supremacist. He also was definitely not an abolitionist.

You just can't stop lying.

Lincoln was a racist- like virtually every abolitionist at the time.

Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist. LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.
Most abolitionists were racists too.

But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies.

Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..

You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."

Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted

It doesn't matter how many times you post that quote of Lincoln disingenuously complaining about how he feels when he sees slaves. He stated many times that he was perfectly content to allow slavery if that was required to keep the Confederate states from seceding.

He wasn't an abolitionist.

 

[bripat9643]

Speaking of white supremacists

Georgia Governor Joseph E. Brown concurred:

Among us the poor white laborer is respected as an equal. His family is treated with kindness, consideration and respect. He does not belong to the menial class. The negro is in no sense of the term his equal. He feels and knows this. He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men. He black no masters boots, and bows the knee to no one save God alone. He receives higher wages for his labor than does the laborer of any other portion of the world, and he raises up his children with the knowledge, that they belong to no inferior cast, but that the highest members of the society in which he lives, will, if their conduct is good, respect and treat them as equals.

So? Lincoln felt the same way, exactly.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

Wrong, as always. Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong. That's obvious horseshit.

You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong. However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory. They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. That is beyond any doubt.

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

 

[Flash]

How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?

 

[Syriusly]

More of the statements of South about why secession was about slavery
South Carolina
..A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

 

[bripat9643]

How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?

American liberals would be making war on them if they were in charge of the EU.

 

[Syriusly]

That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

Wrong, as always. Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong. That's obvious horseshit.

You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong. However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory. They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. That is beyond any doubt.

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

Well lets see.
You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.
You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.
You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans.

What exactly is the difference between 'supporting slavery' and 'apologizing for those who did support slavery'?

 

[Syriusly]

How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?

There is an actual provision with the European Union that specifically identifies the process for leaving the EU.

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, enacted by the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, introduced for the first time a procedure for a member state to withdraw voluntarily from the EU.[11] The article states that:[13]

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[14] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

But I hope that the Brits don't end up shelling some Danish patrol boat tomorrow just to show that they are no longer part of the EU

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, as always. Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong. That's obvious horseshit.

You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong. However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory. They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. That is beyond any doubt.

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

Well lets see.
You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.

Pure horseshit. I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact: The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves. This was true in the North as well as the South.

You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.

Again, I simply state an historical fact. The right of a state to secede was well accepted and documented before the Civil War. It doesn't matter what the reason was. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the authority for the federal government to make war on any state.

You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans.

Only a bonehead would believe it was. Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it. The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test.

What exactly is the difference between 'supporting slavery' and 'apologizing for those who did support slavery'?

I haven't done either, you lying bucket of pig semen.

 

[bripat9643]

How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?

There is an actual provision with the European Union that specifically identifies the process for leaving the EU.

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, enacted by the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, introduced for the first time a procedure for a member state to withdraw voluntarily from the EU.[11] The article states that:[13]

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[14] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

But I hope that the Brits don't end up shelling some Danish patrol boat tomorrow just to show that they are no longer part of the EU

That's illegitimate. They can't impose terms after the fact. The UK just gave them the middle finger salute. If the UK did fire on some Danish patrol boat, what could the EU do about it? That's the main difference between the Union and the EU, the later is entirely toothless.

 

[Syriusly]

How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?

There is an actual provision with the European Union that specifically identifies the process for leaving the EU.

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, enacted by the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, introduced for the first time a procedure for a member state to withdraw voluntarily from the EU.[11] The article states that:[13]

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[14] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

But I hope that the Brits don't end up shelling some Danish patrol boat tomorrow just to show that they are no longer part of the EU

That's illegitimate. They can't impose terms after the fact. The UK just gave them the middle finger salute. If the UK did fire on some Danish patrol boat, what could the EU do about it? That's the main difference between the Union and the EU, the later is entirely toothless.

How is it illegitimate?

It is exactly the provision the UK cited when it notified the EU it was leaving the EU.

 

[Syriusly]

You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong. However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory. They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia. That is beyond any doubt.

You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag. Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery. Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.

Well lets see.
You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.

Pure horseshit. I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact: The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves. This was true in the North as well as the South.
.

Do you support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves
Its a yes or no question.