PC Fascists To Remove Lee and Jackson from War College Memorials

[paperview]

Who?

got a link jack ass?

Short memory? Or selective memory?

Obama’s Re-Election Inspires Southern Secessionists

Obama?s Re-Election Inspires Southern Secessionists | TIME.com

You thought that serious?

you are an idiot.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7839989-post82.html

 

[Sallow]

Pretty much why the South went to war -- they lost an election.

Sore losers, still.

Look at the secessionist that raised their ugly heads when Oblama was elected.

Who?

got a link jack ass?

Got a mirror, Jack Ass?

 

[rightwinger]

I guess extreme oversimplification is easier for the average person, uneducated in history and cultural anthropology, to grasp..........
The seeds of the Civil War were planted with the colonization of the Americas and following a series of complex events over the following decades came to fruition with the secession of the South and the start of open warfare.

The seeds which started with a Southern aristocracy that refused to join the Union initially unless their precious peculiar institution was allowed to thrive.

Which let to compromises like granting 3/5ths population count to property, as a horse is property, and that was not represented.

Which led to Southern domination in Congress, by virtue of counting that which is property and could not vote - to nearly 4 million of the 9 million Southerners, which, until that time of the 1860 election (where they did not even allow Lincoln on the ballot in those Southern states) -- they had maintained enough power to satisfy.

Then! Lincoln's election/ Boom. They lost an election. See ya's -- We're taking our marbles and going home now.

Bullshit. The NORTH wanted blacks to not be represented and argued blacks shouldn't be, and it was the SOUTH that argued for full representation of blacks, you liar.

Once again you completely missed the point

The representation was for determining how many Congressmesn each state was allotted. The South wanted each slave to count as a full person in assigning Congressmen......even though they had zero rights as citizens

The South wanted slaves looked at as property legally but as people when it came to assigning Congressmen

 

[JimBowie1958]

Short memory? Or selective memory?

Obama?s Re-Election Inspires Southern Secessionists | TIME.com

You thought that serious?

you are an idiot.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7839989-post82.html

Link wont come up, but I heartily endorse those counties seceding from Maryland just like West Virginia did from Virginia.

 

[Dot Com]

Look at the secessionist that raised their ugly heads when Oblama was elected.

Who?

got a link jack ass?

Got a mirror, Jack Ass?

upside down flag boi is a butt hurt, moron not to mention a sore loser.

 

[Meathead]

Pretty much why the South went to war -- they lost an election.

Sore losers, still.

I guess extreme oversimplification is easier for the average person, uneducated in history and cultural anthropology, to grasp..........
The seeds of the Civil War were planted with the colonization of the Americas and following a series of complex events over the following decades came to fruition with the secession of the South and the start of open warfare.

You have to keep things simple for the publicly educated. Anything more complex than Civil War = Slavery befuddles them.

 

[paperview]

I guess extreme oversimplification is easier for the average person, uneducated in history and cultural anthropology, to grasp..........
The seeds of the Civil War were planted with the colonization of the Americas and following a series of complex events over the following decades came to fruition with the secession of the South and the start of open warfare.

The seeds which started with a Southern aristocracy that refused to join the Union initially unless their precious peculiar institution was allowed to thrive.

Which let to compromises like granting 3/5ths population count to property, as a horse is property, and that was not represented.

Which led to Southern domination in Congress, by virtue of counting that which is property and could not vote - to nearly 4 million of the 9 million Southerners, which, until that time of the 1860 election (where they did not even allow Lincoln on the ballot in those Southern states) -- they had maintained enough power to satisfy.

Then! Lincoln's election/ Boom. They lost an election. See ya's -- We're taking our marbles and going home now.

Bullshit. The NORTH wanted blacks to not be represented and argued blacks shouldn't be, and it was the SOUTH that argued for full representation of blacks, you liar.

Full representation? Sure. We'll count you for our apportionment in the Congress --- ya's just can't vote, y'all.

That's what the upsidedown flag guy thinks is "representation."

The North did not want the slaves counted, because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did, even at the 3/5ths mark -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

 

[Meathead]

The seeds which started with a Southern aristocracy that refused to join the Union initially unless their precious peculiar institution was allowed to thrive.

Which let to compromises like granting 3/5ths population count to property, as a horse is property, and that was not represented.

Which led to Southern domination in Congress, by virtue of counting that which is property and could not vote - to nearly 4 million of the 9 million Southerners, which, until that time of the 1860 election (where they did not even allow Lincoln on the ballot in those Southern states) -- they had maintained enough power to satisfy.

Then! Lincoln's election/ Boom. They lost an election. See ya's -- We're taking our marbles and going home now.

Bullshit. The NORTH wanted blacks to not be represented and argued blacks shouldn't be, and it was the SOUTH that argued for full representation of blacks, you liar.

Full representation? Sure. We'll count you for our apportionment in the Congress --- ya's just can't vote, y'all.

That's what the upsidedown flag guy thinks is "representation."

The North did not want the slaves counted, because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did, even at the 3/5ths mark -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

As I said, keep it simple or they'll get confused

 

[paperview]

Bullshit. The NORTH wanted blacks to not be represented and argued blacks shouldn't be, and it was the SOUTH that argued for full representation of blacks, you liar.

Full representation? Sure. We'll count you for our apportionment in the Congress --- ya's just can't vote, y'all.

That's what the upsidedown flag guy thinks is "representation."

The North did not want the slaves counted, because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did, even at the 3/5ths mark -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

As I said, keep it simple or they'll get confused

Was it simple enough for you, Meathead?

 

[JakeStarkey]

And does not apply to the South which left the union freely as it had joined.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the United States is a loose federation of states that can come and go as they wish

If it were so, they would have provided a Constitutional means for states to join and leave the country

Real Americans understand that

They did and Jefferson said it well....

No such thing was said at all in the framing of the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

And does not apply to the South which left the union freely as it had joined.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the United States is a loose federation of states that can come and go as they wish

If it were so, they would have provided a Constitutional means for states to join and leave the country

Real Americans understand that

They did and Jefferson said it well....

Show me in the Constitution where it talks about secession

 

[Dot Com]

any other source besides the Mooney newspaper (Washington Times AKA- GOP Times)?

 

[rightwinger]

The seeds which started with a Southern aristocracy that refused to join the Union initially unless their precious peculiar institution was allowed to thrive.

Which let to compromises like granting 3/5ths population count to property, as a horse is property, and that was not represented.

Which led to Southern domination in Congress, by virtue of counting that which is property and could not vote - to nearly 4 million of the 9 million Southerners, which, until that time of the 1860 election (where they did not even allow Lincoln on the ballot in those Southern states) -- they had maintained enough power to satisfy.

Then! Lincoln's election/ Boom. They lost an election. See ya's -- We're taking our marbles and going home now.

Bullshit. The NORTH wanted blacks to not be represented and argued blacks shouldn't be, and it was the SOUTH that argued for full representation of blacks, you liar.

Full representation? Sure. We'll count you for our apportionment in the Congress --- ya's just can't vote, y'all.

That's what the upsidedown flag guy thinks is "representation."

The North did not want the slaves counted, because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did, even at the 3/5ths mark -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

What did slaves get out of being declared 3/5 a person?

They got states with more political power to ensure they remained slaves

 

[paperview]

Bullshit. The NORTH wanted blacks to not be represented and argued blacks shouldn't be, and it was the SOUTH that argued for full representation of blacks, you liar.

Full representation? Sure. We'll count you for our apportionment in the Congress --- ya's just can't vote, y'all.

That's what the upsidedown flag guy thinks is "representation."

The North did not want the slaves counted, because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did, even at the 3/5ths mark -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

What did slaves get out of being declared 3/5 a person?

They got states with more political power to ensure they remained slaves

Yup.

Nearly four million of them. Not even classed as citizens. This includes Free Blacks who needed passes just to travel, prevented them from owning arms, and a whole arrays of Codes that denied them rights.

Just shy of 4 million owned, traded and sold as a farmer does a cow or a horse.

Never mind their wholesale stomping on First Amendment rights / Freedom of the press / Freedom of Speech for decades before the war - for the majority of those they did allow citizenship.

They were more authoritarian by all measures than the "tyrants" they rebelled against.

 

[Meathead]

Bullshit. The NORTH wanted blacks to not be represented and argued blacks shouldn't be, and it was the SOUTH that argued for full representation of blacks, you liar.

Full representation? Sure. We'll count you for our apportionment in the Congress --- ya's just can't vote, y'all.

That's what the upsidedown flag guy thinks is "representation."

The North did not want the slaves counted, because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did, even at the 3/5ths mark -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

What did slaves get out of being declared 3/5 a person?

It was probably based on IQ, and stunningly correct before tests were formulated. Still, the 3/5ths formula is weird.

 

[rightwinger]

Full representation? Sure. We'll count you for our apportionment in the Congress --- ya's just can't vote, y'all.

That's what the upsidedown flag guy thinks is "representation."

The North did not want the slaves counted, because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did, even at the 3/5ths mark -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

What did slaves get out of being declared 3/5 a person?

They got states with more political power to ensure they remained slaves

Yup.

Nearly four million of them. Not even classed as citizens. This includes Free Blacks who needed passes just to travel, prevented them from owning arms, and a whole arrays of Codes that denied them rights.

Just shy of 4 million owned, traded and sold as a farmer does a cow or a horse.

Never mind their wholesale stomping on First Amendment rights / Freedom of the press / Freedom of Speech for decades before the war - for the majority of those they did allow citizenship.

They were more authoritarian by all measures than the "tyrants" they rebelled against.

Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson fought to keep them that way

 

[NoNukes]

You deny he was a part of an organization of incompetent terrorists who bombed US government buildings and accidently killed several of their OWN members?

That is still terrorism, that is still criminal murder as he was part of the organization whose actions resulted in the deaths of American citizens, even if they were themselves terrorists at the time.

The charges were dropped due to technicalities, and unlike George Zimmerman, that does not clear Ayers of guilt or later execution of justice.

That is so typical of leftwing fascist hypocrisy, harass an innocent man cleared by a jury like GZ, and yet embrace an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers and ignore those that befriend him.

Just try being a man. Admit that you were wrong and forget the Tourrette's ranting.

Except that I am not wrong.

Demonstrate I was wrong, dumbass, or just shut the **** up, you shameless whore.

You said that Ayers killed someone, you are a ******* liar, and not man enough to admit when you are wrong.

 

[NoNukes]

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the United States is a loose federation of states that can come and go as they wish

If it were so, they would have provided a Constitutional means for states to join and leave the country

Real Americans understand that

They did and Jefferson said it well....

Show me in the Constitution where it talks about secession

Forget it, he has been beaten senseless.

 

[rightwinger]

They did and Jefferson said it well....

Show me in the Constitution where it talks about secession

Forget it, he has been beaten senseless.

He started out senseless

 

[Pennywise]

Robert E. Lee was a despicable traitor to this nation. Far worse than Benedict Arnold.

He deserves nothing but scorn.

He was a traitor, but he was rehabilitated. His speech at Appomatox, where he told his soldiers the war was over, and they should accept that they lost, probably prevented massive gurrilla warfare from spouting up throughout the South.

There were those who were calling for it, but once thier top General made clear the fighting was over, those calling for it were outweighed by those who just wanted an end to the war.

He wasn't a traitor you ******* idiot, he was a Patriot to his home, VIRGINIA, back in a time when states were still truly sovereign.

Lee was a ******* hero and a badass and a gentleman, through and through.

Holy shit, I can't believe how our education system has royally fucked the memories of great men. Jesus H Christ.