Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.Who fired the first shots? That is traditionally how we decide who started a conflict.Wrong. They weren't traitors and Lincoln started the war.You are the one taking the side of traitors who started a bloody civil war rather than give up their slaves like decent human beings.The one who was violent and bent on using force was your beloved god like figure, Dishonest Abe...a confirmed white supremest.I didn't read it because I have heard it all before. Secession might have been allowed had the South not acted so hostile and provocative. From Nov. 1860 up to Ft Sumter in April 1861 the South went on a rampage of seizing federal property and private property belonging to Northerners. They seized forts and imprisoned union troops as well as engaging in a campaign of espionage against the north. They made it clear from day one that they intended to be expansionist and had no interest in being good neighbors. They wanted the West and they ultimately wanted South America as possessions and a place to sell excess slaves and were willing to fight the North to have their way. No union troops were called up until after the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the federal government pretty much did nothing until then.
The South could have possibly kept their independence but they had to be boastful, violent hillbillies bent on taking what they coveted by force. In short, they became a rogue state and therefore could not be allowed to exist.
Yes...a very old tactic. Used by tyrants numerous times throughout history and yet many people still can't see it.The weirds here put the casualties totally on lincolns head. I would argue they are totally Davis'. Davis insisted on the firing at Sumter, contrary to the advice of some of his generals, who argued this would stir up a hornets nest. Prior to Sumter, there were people arguing for peace. Large numbers of northeners were saying, in Greely's formulation, "erring daughters, depart in peace." It was Davis who insisted on bloodshed. It falls on Davis the whole of the war.
That's precisely why Lincoln engineered South Carolina into firing on the Fort. It was sucker bait so Lincoln could blame the war on the South and inflame the public.
So then, the entire South must be destroyed. Makes sense to the statist...I guess.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.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.Who fired the first shots? That is traditionally how we decide who started a conflict.Wrong. They weren't traitors and Lincoln started the war.You are the one taking the side of traitors who started a bloody civil war rather than give up their slaves like decent human beings.The one who was violent and bent on using force was your beloved god like figure, Dishonest Abe...a confirmed white supremest.
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.So then, the entire South must be destroyed. Makes sense to the statist...I guess.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.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.Who fired the first shots? That is traditionally how we decide who started a conflict.Wrong. They weren't traitors and Lincoln started the war.You are the one taking the side of traitors who started a bloody civil war rather than give up their slaves like decent human beings.
So it is your belief that allowing the South to secede and become a separate nation, would have lead to fighting over new territories in the west and Britain aligning with the South leading to Britain retaking it's former colonies. Are these the new reasons used by the Lincoln cult to justify aggressive total war against fellow Americans?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.So then, the entire South must be destroyed. Makes sense to the statist...I guess.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.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.Who fired the first shots? That is traditionally how we decide who started a conflict.Wrong. They weren't traitors and Lincoln started the war.
Quit being a fucking drama queen, the fact that the South intended to expand into the west is not in dispute and neither is Britain nearly getting openly involved. Usually when someone decides to argue the South's case in the civil war they at least know something about the civil war.So it is your belief that allowing the South to secede and become a separate nation, would have lead to fighting over new territories in the west and Britain aligning with the South leading to Britain retaking it's former colonies. Are these the new reasons used by the Lincoln cult to justify aggressive total war against fellow Americans?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.So then, the entire South must be destroyed. Makes sense to the statist...I guess.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.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.Who fired the first shots? That is traditionally how we decide who started a conflict.
It is perfectly okay for the North to expand into west, but the South can't.Quit being a fucking drama queen, the fact that the South intended to expand into the west is not in dispute and neither is Britain nearly getting openly involved. Usually when someone decides to argue the South's case in the civil war they at least know something about the civil war.So it is your belief that allowing the South to secede and become a separate nation, would have lead to fighting over new territories in the west and Britain aligning with the South leading to Britain retaking it's former colonies. Are these the new reasons used by the Lincoln cult to justify aggressive total war against fellow Americans?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.So then, the entire South must be destroyed. Makes sense to the statist...I guess.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.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.
Not with slaves.[It is perfectly okay for the North to expand into west, but the South can't.
Yeah the mass killing and destruction of the South is nothing to get upset about.Quit being a fucking drama queen, the fact that the South intended to expand into the west is not in dispute and neither is Britain nearly getting openly involved. Usually when someone decides to argue the South's case in the civil war they at least know something about the civil war.So it is your belief that allowing the South to secede and become a separate nation, would have lead to fighting over new territories in the west and Britain aligning with the South leading to Britain retaking it's former colonies. Are these the new reasons used by the Lincoln cult to justify aggressive total war against fellow Americans?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.So then, the entire South must be destroyed. Makes sense to the statist...I guess.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.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.
Almost all of the center and a solid majority of the right think AL is the greatest.
Fuck the far right or the loonies of the far left. Don't even consider anarchists or libertarians, because they are even loonier.
Comrade , do you get sexually aroused when you think about 650,000 fellow American corpses laying on the countryside?
.
The figure for the total number of people killed during the Civil War was recently revised upward to 850,000.
The South had no legal right to leave the Union, for the Constitution does not give it.
You are wrong! Read the 10th amendment. Now read the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration demands it and the 10th amendment leaves that power with the States or the People, respectively. The duly elected representatives of the People of the Seceding States voted to secede. It was all done within the designated powers of the Constitution.
I have ancestors in the 16th Maine Infantry and the 5th Florida Infantry, respect and honor them all.
Abraham Lincoln knew secession was Constitutional, that's why he had to create his, "Gulf of Tonkin" incident.
Of course, secession was legal. Nearly all thought so prior and during Lincoln's War. However since then, the Lincoln cult has confused many Americans into believing no state had that right, which is absurd on its face.The South had no legal right to leave the Union, for the Constitution does not give it.
You are wrong! Read the 10th amendment. Now read the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration demands it and the 10th amendment leaves that power with the States or the People, respectively. The duly elected representatives of the People of the Seceding States voted to secede. It was all done within the designated powers of the Constitution.
I have ancestors in the 16th Maine Infantry and the 5th Florida Infantry, respect and honor them all.
Abraham Lincoln knew secession was Constitutional, that's why he had to create his, "Gulf of Tonkin" incident.
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.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.
