Confederate constitution legalized slavery

[Asclepias]

Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?

Yeah and the civil war was fought to keep the south from getting away. So you have flunked again.

Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.

Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.

The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it. BTW my family is from the south.

So you fought in the civil war to retain your slaves and you speak for the entire south?

So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah and the civil war was fought to keep the south from getting away. So you have flunked again.

Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.

Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.

The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it. BTW my family is from the south.

So you fought in the civil war to retain your slaves and you speak for the entire south?

So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?

Defending oneself is only done by infants? WTF kind of drugs are you on?

 

[James Everett]

Ya kinda blew that moral high ground with the next 40 or more years of exterminating the Native American Indian.
Now is the time to allow us to move forward restoring our government since this slavery and fort issue has been resolved.
What's your excuse this time around with slavery ended and all???

Not really. There was no moral high ground to begin with. The north supported slavery until they tried to correct it. The south fought a losing fight to up hold it. The south also participated in the extermination of the NA's which you seem to forget. Your last sentence doesnt make any sense.

The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.

The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.

But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain these things to this idiot.

Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?

You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.

 

[Asclepias]

Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.

Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.

The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it. BTW my family is from the south.

So you fought in the civil war to retain your slaves and you speak for the entire south?

So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?

Defending oneself is only done by infants? WTF kind of drugs are you on?

Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.

 

[Asclepias]

Not really. There was no moral high ground to begin with. The north supported slavery until they tried to correct it. The south fought a losing fight to up hold it. The south also participated in the extermination of the NA's which you seem to forget. Your last sentence doesnt make any sense.

The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.

The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.

But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain these things to this idiot.

Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?

You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.

They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.

The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.

The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it. BTW my family is from the south.

So you fought in the civil war to retain your slaves and you speak for the entire south?

So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?

Defending oneself is only done by infants? WTF kind of drugs are you on?

Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.

Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.

 

[Asclepias]

The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it. BTW my family is from the south.

So you fought in the civil war to retain your slaves and you speak for the entire south?

So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?

Defending oneself is only done by infants? WTF kind of drugs are you on?

Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.

Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.

So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take you seriously?

 

[paperview]

Not really. There was no moral high ground to begin with. The north supported slavery until they tried to correct it. The south fought a losing fight to up hold it. The south also participated in the extermination of the NA's which you seem to forget. Your last sentence doesnt make any sense.

The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.

The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.

But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain these things to this idiot.

Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?

You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.

You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.

Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you fought in the civil war to retain your slaves and you speak for the entire south?

So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?

Defending oneself is only done by infants? WTF kind of drugs are you on?

Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.

Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.

So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take you seriously?

You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war. I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim. Or are you now admitting that you were lying?

 

[Asclepias]

So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?

Defending oneself is only done by infants? WTF kind of drugs are you on?

Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.

Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.

So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take you seriously?

You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war. I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim. Or are you now admitting that you were lying?

More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.

 

[RKMBrown]

Defending oneself is only done by infants? WTF kind of drugs are you on?

Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.

Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.

So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take you seriously?

You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war. I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim. Or are you now admitting that you were lying?

More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.

Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.

 

[Asclepias]

Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.

Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.

So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take you seriously?

You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war. I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim. Or are you now admitting that you were lying?

More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.

Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.

Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.

 

[James Everett]

So, you sa

Yeah and the civil war was fought to keep the south from getting away. So you have flunked again.

Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.

Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.

The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it. BTW my family is from the south.

I don't care where your family is from, you are a Yankee.
The war was not over Slavery, secession was.
You cannot seem to distinguish between the two, is there some problem with your ability to understand this?

I wasnt talking to you so not interested in what you care about.
The war was over the south wanting to keep slavery. You cant seem to grasp this. Is there a problem with your ability to think?

So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery?
Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
Do you see how ignorant you appear?
When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well?
Why?
If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade?
Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.

 

[Asclepias]

So, you sa

Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.

Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.

The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it. BTW my family is from the south.

I don't care where your family is from, you are a Yankee.
The war was not over Slavery, secession was.
You cannot seem to distinguish between the two, is there some problem with your ability to understand this?

I wasnt talking to you so not interested in what you care about.
The war was over the south wanting to keep slavery. You cant seem to grasp this. Is there a problem with your ability to think?

So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery?
Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
Do you see how ignorant you appear?
When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well?
Why?
If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade?
Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.

Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, STFU, then go read 9th paragraph of the Cornerstone speech by the CSA vice-president, think about it, then report to us what the veep had to say about the cause of the war as "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History

 

[James Everett]

The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.

The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.

But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain these things to this idiot.

Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?

You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.

They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.

The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.

The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.

The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.

But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain these things to this idiot.

Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?

You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.

You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.

Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.

Well, there actually is no need to secede as that would be an exercise in redundancy, as clearly the Southern States already accomplished secession.
You state that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?
Yet they went to war with the CSA?
What makes you think that the U.S. is the authority on which State relationships are legitimate and which are not?
Is it written somewhere in international law that in order for foreign State relationships to be legitimate, they must first petition the U.S. for recognition?
Surely the States that were united in the Southern Confederacy recognized their relationship with the other States.
The CSA is in History books as existing and legitimate.

 

[Asclepias]

The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.

But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain these things to this idiot.

Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?

You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.

They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.

The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.

The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.

But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain these things to this idiot.

Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?

You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.

You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.

Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.

Well, there actually is no need to secede as that would be an exercise in redundancy, as clearly the Southern States already accomplished secession.
You state that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?
Yet they went to war with the CSA?
What makes you think that the U.S. is the authority on which State relationships are legitimate and which are not?
Is it written somewhere in international law that in order for foreign State relationships to be legitimate, they must first petition the U.S. for recognition?
Surely the States that were united in the Southern Confederacy recognized their relationship with the other States.
The CSA is in History books as existing and legitimate.

Sorry bub. The CSA ranks as one of the worst ideas in the history of mankind. The CSA exists in the history books only to put a name to the losers. You were a joke with no recognition and got your asses kicked for your petulance. Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait.

 

[James Everett]

James, STFU, then go read 9th paragraph of the Cornerstone speech by the CSA vice-president, think about it, then report to us what the veep had to say about the cause of the war as "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History

JAKE,
Perhaps you should just post the wording wherein the statement is made that the War was over slavery. The closest that I find is the mention of revolution, yet revolution is not war, there are many forms of revolution, as in a revolutionary idea, the industrial revolution, a momentous change in a situation, such as the relationship between the States via secession, etc....
Please post his exact reference to the causes of the war.
Think about it Jake....Why would the Southern States go to war after they exited the union to "Preserve Slavery" why would they go to war when secession already accomplished the preservation of Slavery if left alone and not attacked by the U.S. Slavery would have been preserved: don't you think?

 

[Asclepias]

James, STFU, then go read 9th paragraph of the Cornerstone speech by the CSA vice-president, think about it, then report to us what the veep had to say about the cause of the war as "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History

JAKE,
Perhaps you should just post the wording wherein the statement is made that the War was over slavery. The closest that I find is the mention of revolution, yet revolution is not war, there are many forms of revolution, as in a revolutionary idea, the industrial revolution, a momentous change in a situation, such as the relationship between the States via secession, etc....
Please post his exact reference to the causes of the war.
Think about it Jake....Why would the Southern States go to war after they exited the union to "Preserve Slavery" why would they go to war when secession already accomplished the preservation of Slavery if left alone and not attacked by the U.S. Slavery would have been preserved: don't you think?

When you play semantics everyone knows you just lost the debate.

 

[James Everett]

But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain these things to this idiot.

Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?

You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.

They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.

The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.

But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain these things to this idiot.

Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?

You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.

You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.

Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.

Well, there actually is no need to secede as that would be an exercise in redundancy, as clearly the Southern States already accomplished secession.
You state that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?
Yet they went to war with the CSA?
What makes you think that the U.S. is the authority on which State relationships are legitimate and which are not?
Is it written somewhere in international law that in order for foreign State relationships to be legitimate, they must first petition the U.S. for recognition?
Surely the States that were united in the Southern Confederacy recognized their relationship with the other States.
The CSA is in History books as existing and legitimate.

Sorry bub. The CSA exists in the history books only to put a name to the losers. You were a joke with no recognition and got your asses kicked for your petulance. Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait.

You asked.....
Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait
The CSA was NOT a nation, it was a Confederacy of nation States. This is what YOUR union was intended to be, as Alexander Hamilton stated in the "federalist" #32....
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty."
So by 1861 the States no longer were considered as retaining any vestige of sovereignty?
Now as each State was a nation itself united in a confederacy with other nation/States, they each recognized one another as legitimate.
Are not governments instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?