Lincoln was a great leader exclusive of the war, darn him

[natstew]

The libertarians and anarcho-commies continue to be silly on this issue.

The South had no legal right to leave the Union, for the Constitution does not give it.

The Poland-CSA comparison is the funniest I have seen on the Board in several weeks.

why so? The same thing happened in poland as what England and France were trying to do what Austria and Russia accomplished in poland. Divide and then gobble up the weaker state. France made the first move in Mexico. The south wasn't tenable as a state too long anyway, because of divisions between the confederate states.

had the south managed to achieve independence, they would have been colonies again in short order. Colonies badly managed by france and England, And England would have obliged them to give up their slaves anyway.

What might have happened had the South succeeded in seceding has no bearing on whether it was legal or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are right; it was not legal.

 

[natstew]

Of course secession was not legal. The South was a failure at law and at arms. Its defenders today are failures at argumentation in its defense.

Jake, you need to go back to the first grade and start all over. To say secession was not legal is proof of your inability to comprehend written material, or you haven't really read the Declaration Of Independence and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
I'm not arguing that I would have prefered the South winning and splitting the Union, I'm stating the same fact that even Abraham Lincoln accepted prior to the War.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Natstew clearly does not understand the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. In neither document will anyone find justification for secession from the national union.

 

[jwoodie]

The libertarians and anarcho-commies continue to be silly on this issue.

The South had no legal right to leave the Union, for the Constitution does not give it.

According to your insane analysis, the States had no legal right to do anything not specifically granted to them by the Constitution. Do you really believe that, or are you just a tiresome provocateur?

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. They weren't traitors and Lincoln started the war.

Who fired the first shots? That is traditionally how we decide who started a conflict.

Since SC fired on Ft Sumter, in which no one was killed, Dishonest Abe was fully justified in launching total war on all the seceding states, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, terrible suffering, total destruction of half the nation...leading to the imperial government we have today...not logical, but statists love it.

As I have already stated, the bombardment of fort Sumter was but the last straw in a long line of provocative actions stretching all the way back to the slaver's actions in the Kansas-Missouri border skirmishes. The need for new places to sell excess slaves made the south brutally expansionist and dangerous.

So then, the entire South must be destroyed. Makes sense to the statist...I guess.

It makes total sense if your southern neighbor intends to fight you for all of the unsettled western territories and perhaps invade you at some future point. You also have to remember that Britain had ideologically allied with the south and everyone was worried that they might use the south as a base to take back their former colonies.

You are positively delusional. When the Confederate states were still in the union they wanted to spread slavery to the new territories, but when the seceded they also gave up all claim to those territories. They also never planned to invade the union. That's a fiction you whipped out of your own ass.

 

[bripat9643]

[It is perfectly okay for the North to expand into west, but the South can't.

Not with slaves.

But it was OK for the USA to do it with slaves before the Civil War?

You're a moron.

 

[bripat9643]

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln was the worse thing that could have happened to the South.

Not if it was done earlier, like 1861.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The libertarians and anarcho-commies continue to be silly on this issue.

The South had no legal right to leave the Union, for the Constitution does not give it.

According to your insane analysis, the States had no legal right to do anything not specifically granted to them by the Constitution. Do you really believe that, or are you just a tiresome provocateur?

I am using the tired old hard right conservative pattern of analysis.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[It is perfectly okay for the North to expand into west, but the South can't.

Not with slaves.

But it was OK for the USA to do it with slaves before the Civil War?

You're a moron.

You have always a 100% failure at deflection, little buddy, and you are still batting zero for forever.

The issues is not slaves, but the South's unconstitutional attempt to dismember the Union. It failed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That would have led to the slaughtering of millions of southerners.

 

[Contumacious]

Of course secession was not legal. The South was a failure at law and at arms. Its defenders today are failures at argumentation in its defense.

Jake, you need to go back to the first grade and start all over. To say secession was not legal is proof of your inability to comprehend written material, or you haven't really read the Declaration Of Independence and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
I'm not arguing that I would have prefered the South winning and splitting the Union, I'm stating the same fact that even Abraham Lincoln accepted prior to the War.

The problem is that going back to first grade is not going to remedy the problem.

Comrade Starkiev's mind was ruined in a government brainwashing Center:


Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.


–Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

.

 

[jwoodie]

That would have led to the slaughtering of millions of southerners.

OK Jake, you are now IGNORED. Good luck with your therapy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conty's increaded and bolded print does not make his wrong beliefs right.

 

[bripat9643]

The libertarians and anarcho-commies continue to be silly on this issue.

The South had no legal right to leave the Union, for the Constitution does not give it.

According to your insane analysis, the States had no legal right to do anything not specifically granted to them by the Constitution. Do you really believe that, or are you just a tiresome provocateur?

I am using the tired old hard right conservative pattern of analysis.

Hmmm, no, that's the tired old left liberal pattern of analysis. No one on the right ever claimed that anything not expressly allowed is prohibited. However, you just made that claim.

 

[bripat9643]

That would have led to the slaughtering of millions of southerners.

OK Jake, you are now IGNORED. Good luck with your therapy.

I feel your pain. Arguing with Fakey is like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a 5-year-old.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The libertarians and anarcho-commies continue to be silly on this issue.

The South had no legal right to leave the Union, for the Constitution does not give it.

According to your insane analysis, the States had no legal right to do anything not specifically granted to them by the Constitution. Do you really believe that, or are you just a tiresome provocateur?

I am using the tired old hard right conservative pattern of analysis.

Hmmm, no, that's the tired old left liberal pattern of analysis. No one on the right ever claimed that anything not expressly allowed is prohibited. However, you just made that claim.

You are a liar, brother to Koshergrl, bub.

Yes, "the tired old hard right conservative pattern of analysis" argues that if it is not specified it can't be done.

Horse crap.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, I have no trouble dealing with concrete learners like bripat or jwoodie.

 

[bripat9643]

The libertarians and anarcho-commies continue to be silly on this issue.

The South had no legal right to leave the Union, for the Constitution does not give it.

According to your insane analysis, the States had no legal right to do anything not specifically granted to them by the Constitution. Do you really believe that, or are you just a tiresome provocateur?

I am using the tired old hard right conservative pattern of analysis.

Hmmm, no, that's the tired old left liberal pattern of analysis. No one on the right ever claimed that anything not expressly allowed is prohibited. However, you just made that claim.

You are a liar, brother to Koshergrl, bub.

Yes, "the tired old hard right conservative pattern of analysis" argues that if it is not specified it can't be done.

Horse crap.

Perhaps you could quote someone on my side making such a claim.

Just a rhetorical question. I know you can't.

 

[bripat9643]

Yup, I have no trouble dealing with concrete learners like bripat or jwoodie.

Then when are you going to do it?