...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[jillian]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.

No they weren't. But I'm not going to re-litigate the issue with you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not caring and deliberately attempting to destroy are two very different things, though I doubt he was truly guilty of either. I'd say that you more aptly described Sherman.

Sherman and Sheridan certainly wanted to wipe out the southern population, but Lincoln gave Sherman the "thanks of the nation" for his work in the south. Hard to say he didn't want to wipe out the south when he thanked Sherman for doing exactly that.

War is hell! People, including civilians die. Its a fact of life. Too much Ron Paul on the brain, huh KKK? I would say the Civil War was our must just war!

Yes, civilians die in war. It's why we should oppose war, especially an unnecessary war. However, the difference between the deaths of civilians in the Civil War and other American wars is that southern civilians, and slaves, were specifically targeted by the Union.

It's also ironic that you call me "KKK" when it was you who just insulted someone based on their religion.

 

[Kalam]

Not to mention the original thirteenth amendment, which was supported by Lincoln, would have made slavery a permanent institution.

Even in the current version, the government reserves the right to enslave you (without discussing the nature of the forced servitude) as long as you're convicted of a crime.

 

[Liberty]

He just freed the slaves (which was America's worst injustice in its short history), kept the nation together and got the 13th and 14th amendments passed. Yea he is a real bad guy.

Where do you people come from? Mars?

And there was NO OTHER WAY to do this than allow over 600,000 people to be killed in a pointless war? On top of that, Lincoln himself even said he didnt give a shit about freeing slaves, his goal was to reunite the union, THAT WAS IT.

 

[Liberty]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.

No they weren't. But I'm not going to re-litigate the issue with you.

im sorry can you perhaps show where in the constitution it says states are not allowed to leave the union. thanks.

 

[Kalam]

Is that your Islamic thinking in work?

I'd call it common sense, but don't let that stop you from obsessing over my religion even when it's irrelevant to the discussion.

States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.

Is that your Islamic thinking in work? States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!

That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.

Is that your Islamic thinking in work? States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!

That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?

The war didn't change the Constitution. So if it was true before the war it remains true now.

 

[Liberty]

kalam, ive never seen you post before, i dont know why, maybe because i only show up on this site once or twice a month when i feel like makin an ass outa myself...

but with that said you seem like an educated dude, something rare in these parts, good stuff.

 

[jillian]

Is that your Islamic thinking in work? States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!

That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?

The war didn't change the Constitution. So if it was true before the war it remains true now.

the fact was they had no right to secede then and no right to secede now.

 

[Kalam]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.

No they weren't. But I'm not going to re-litigate the issue with you.

It all seems pretty clear-cut to me. However, I'm sure that the history of the War of Northern Aggression is taught differently down here than it is in New York.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?

The war didn't change the Constitution. So if it was true before the war it remains true now.

the fact was they had no right to secede then and no right to secede now.

Where does the Constitution say that a state that joins the Union can't leave?

 

[Liberty]

That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?

The war didn't change the Constitution. So if it was true before the war it remains true now.

the fact was they had no right to secede then and no right to secede now.

why dont you prove that? Oh, maybe because youre just spouting bullshit? Hm?

 

[jillian]

The war didn't change the Constitution. So if it was true before the war it remains true now.

the fact was they had no right to secede then and no right to secede now.

why dont you prove that? Oh, maybe because youre just spouting bullshit? Hm?

argue it with the supreme court.

that was their holding.

sorry i was more polite to you than you deserved.

i should have just said you're a nutbar.

 

[Kalam]

kalam, ive never seen you post before, i dont know why, maybe because i only show up on this site once or twice a month when i feel like makin an ass outa myself...

but with that said you seem like an educated dude, something rare in these parts, good stuff.

Thanks man, the feeling is mutual. You may not feel the same way if we ever argue religion or foreign policy, though.

 

[syrenn]

And here I thought everyone was likening obama to Lincon.

 

[Liberty]

the fact was they had no right to secede then and no right to secede now.

why dont you prove that? Oh, maybe because youre just spouting bullshit? Hm?

argue it with the supreme court.

that was their holding.

sorry i was more polite to you than you deserved.

i should have just said you're a nutbar.

wow, nice dodge. I gave you a chance, but an idiot will always be an idiot I guess. The constitution was written at an easy to read level for the 1700s, an idiot could understand it. You don't need a supreme ******* court to tell you what it says, so if you CAN in fact read, please point out where it says succession will result in conflict. Or, please show us a court case where the court rules that succession is illegal and will result in instant war. Thanks.

 

[jillian]

why dont you prove that? Oh, maybe because youre just spouting bullshit? Hm?

argue it with the supreme court.

that was their holding.

sorry i was more polite to you than you deserved.

i should have just said you're a nutbar.

wow, nice dodge. I gave you a chance, but an idiot will always be an idiot I guess. The constitution was written at an easy to read level for the 1700s, an idiot could understand it. You don't need a supreme ******* court to tell you what it says, so if you CAN in fact read, please point out where it says succession will result in conflict. Or, please show us a court case where the court rules that succession is illegal and will result in instant war. Thanks.

if that were the case, the 9 justices would always agree, nutbar.

 

[Liberty]

kalam, ive never seen you post before, i dont know why, maybe because i only show up on this site once or twice a month when i feel like makin an ass outa myself...

but with that said you seem like an educated dude, something rare in these parts, good stuff.

Thanks man, the feeling is mutual. You may not feel the same way if we ever argue religion or foreign policy, though.

listen, if you make sense and use logic, i respect differing views in debate. My whole reason for visiting sites like this is trying to learn something but it turns out I always feel like the one educating... anyway, its all good.

 

[Liberty]

argue it with the supreme court.

that was their holding.

sorry i was more polite to you than you deserved.

i should have just said you're a nutbar.

wow, nice dodge. I gave you a chance, but an idiot will always be an idiot I guess. The constitution was written at an easy to read level for the 1700s, an idiot could understand it. You don't need a supreme ******* court to tell you what it says, so if you CAN in fact read, please point out where it says succession will result in conflict. Or, please show us a court case where the court rules that succession is illegal and will result in instant war. Thanks.

if that were the case, the 9 justices would always agree, nutbar.

the idiot again, dodges the question.