Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[bendog]

no obscenity boy, I just pointed out the reality that the North would have accepted slavery in the theretofore identified slave states.

Moron, slavery wasn't a "south" thing. Every state participated in it one way or another. Every ship was built in New York and Boston harbors, and they ran the slave trade from those states. Moreover, the Fugitive Slave act could not have been passed without Northern acquiescence. How ignorant are you people in not reading history and seeing that slavery was promoted everywhere?

Dear spermface, calling someone a name is not generally the way to engage in constructive conversation. The point is, Lincoln explicitly promised the federal govt would not make a move to declare slavery illegal. What individual states would do, was not a matter for federalism.

 

[bripat9643]

Defending someone accused of a crime is different than defending someone that has been proven to be guilty and convicted. No other excuse is needed.
Throwing around the insults, as you do, makes you still seem so childish and ignorant.
Insulting does, by no means, help your argument.
You are to easy to mess with, it's time to move on.

See how your ignorance precedes you.
One more time. ....
Defending someone that fights to preserve an injustice, advocates ones belief in the injustice.

When you have no idea what you are trying to say and then you try to defend yourself with name calling, it only demonstrates
your childish and ignorant ways.
Defending someone that fights to preserve an injustice, advocates ones belief in the injustice.

No it doesn't, you prehensile poltroon. That claim is the hail marry pass of the Lincoln cult members who are unable to defend the crimes of their patron saint.

ROLF! The list of names the Lincoln has called me in this thread would be quite long. What does that tell you about them?

I understand perfectly what I'm saying. That's what really bugs you.

No it doesn't, moron. If a lawyer defends a murderer, does that mean he approves of murder? How about if a child molester gets a DUI. Does a lawyer who defends him on the DUI charge approve of molesting children?

You and the rest of the Lincoln cult use this argument because all your other arguments have been shot down. Lincoln was a vicious blood-thirsty tyrant. You can't have the public becoming aware of that fact, so you slander anyone who dares to mention it.

It's hilarious to watch a jackass like you complain about insults when you're accusing me of supporting slavery.

No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.

 

[boilermaker55]

Supporting a moral outrage and supporting those who defend the right to continue to practice the outrage, constitutes supporting the moral outrage.
Name calling is your only real strong suit, but that shows immaturity to the Nth degree.
Nice try one more time.

Defending someone accused of a crime is different than defending someone that has been proven to be guilty and convicted. No other excuse is needed.
Throwing around the insults, as you do, makes you still seem so childish and ignorant.
Insulting does, by no means, help your argument.
You are to easy to mess with, it's time to move on.

See how your ignorance precedes you.
One more time. ....
Defending someone that fights to preserve an injustice, advocates ones belief in the injustice.

When you have no idea what you are trying to say and then you try to defend yourself with name calling, it only demonstrates
your childish and ignorant ways.
Defending someone that fights to preserve an injustice, advocates ones belief in the injustice.

ROLF! The list of names the Lincoln has called me in this thread would be quite long. What does that tell you about them?

I understand perfectly what I'm saying. That's what really bugs you.

No it doesn't, moron. If a lawyer defends a murderer, does that mean he approves of murder? How about if a child molester gets a DUI. Does a lawyer who defends him on the DUI charge approve of molesting children?

You and the rest of the Lincoln cult use this argument because all your other arguments have been shot down. Lincoln was a vicious blood-thirsty tyrant. You can't have the public becoming aware of that fact, so you slander anyone who dares to mention it.

It's hilarious to watch a jackass like you complain about insults when you're accusing me of supporting slavery.

No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.

 

[Nosmo King]

Defending someone accused of a crime is different than defending someone that has been proven to be guilty and convicted. No other excuse is needed.
Throwing around the insults, as you do, makes you still seem so childish and ignorant.
Insulting does, by no means, help your argument.
You are to easy to mess with, it's time to move on.

See how your ignorance precedes you.
One more time. ....
Defending someone that fights to preserve an injustice, advocates ones belief in the injustice.

When you have no idea what you are trying to say and then you try to defend yourself with name calling, it only demonstrates
your childish and ignorant ways.
Defending someone that fights to preserve an injustice, advocates ones belief in the injustice.

ROLF! The list of names the Lincoln has called me in this thread would be quite long. What does that tell you about them?

I understand perfectly what I'm saying. That's what really bugs you.

No it doesn't, moron. If a lawyer defends a murderer, does that mean he approves of murder? How about if a child molester gets a DUI. Does a lawyer who defends him on the DUI charge approve of molesting children?

You and the rest of the Lincoln cult use this argument because all your other arguments have been shot down. Lincoln was a vicious blood-thirsty tyrant. You can't have the public becoming aware of that fact, so you slander anyone who dares to mention it.

It's hilarious to watch a jackass like you complain about insults when you're accusing me of supporting slavery.

No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.

You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Defending someone accused of a crime is different than defending someone that has been proven to be guilty and convicted. No other excuse is needed.
Throwing around the insults, as you do, makes you still seem so childish and ignorant.
Insulting does, by no means, help your argument.
You are to easy to mess with, it's time to move on.

See how your ignorance precedes you.
One more time. ....
Defending someone that fights to preserve an injustice, advocates ones belief in the injustice.

ROLF! The list of names the Lincoln has called me in this thread would be quite long. What does that tell you about them?

I understand perfectly what I'm saying. That's what really bugs you.

No it doesn't, moron. If a lawyer defends a murderer, does that mean he approves of murder? How about if a child molester gets a DUI. Does a lawyer who defends him on the DUI charge approve of molesting children?

You and the rest of the Lincoln cult use this argument because all your other arguments have been shot down. Lincoln was a vicious blood-thirsty tyrant. You can't have the public becoming aware of that fact, so you slander anyone who dares to mention it.

It's hilarious to watch a jackass like you complain about insults when you're accusing me of supporting slavery.

No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.

You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

 

[bendog]

Defending someone accused of a crime is different than defending someone that has been proven to be guilty and convicted. No other excuse is needed.
Throwing around the insults, as you do, makes you still seem so childish and ignorant.
Insulting does, by no means, help your argument.
You are to easy to mess with, it's time to move on.

See how your ignorance precedes you.
One more time. ....
Defending someone that fights to preserve an injustice, advocates ones belief in the injustice.

No it doesn't, moron. If a lawyer defends a murderer, does that mean he approves of murder? How about if a child molester gets a DUI. Does a lawyer who defends him on the DUI charge approve of molesting children?

You and the rest of the Lincoln cult use this argument because all your other arguments have been shot down. Lincoln was a vicious blood-thirsty tyrant. You can't have the public becoming aware of that fact, so you slander anyone who dares to mention it.

It's hilarious to watch a jackass like you complain about insults when you're accusing me of supporting slavery.

No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.

You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

Presidential assassination joke ... sweeeet. The question of whether the federal branch could/would use force in response to secession had been around since before Jackson and the nullification crisis, and was at the heart of 1861 election. Buchanan opined secession was illegal, but so was federal force. Curiously, Lincoln and Lee agreed that secession was illegal and military force would be the response, legal niceties aside. The South knew very well that secession would result in a war, but they thought they'd win it early and decisively. I believe Lee viewed it a bit more realistically, and gave the South very little chance of success.

 

[Nosmo King]

Defending someone accused of a crime is different than defending someone that has been proven to be guilty and convicted. No other excuse is needed.
Throwing around the insults, as you do, makes you still seem so childish and ignorant.
Insulting does, by no means, help your argument.
You are to easy to mess with, it's time to move on.

See how your ignorance precedes you.
One more time. ....
Defending someone that fights to preserve an injustice, advocates ones belief in the injustice.

No it doesn't, moron. If a lawyer defends a murderer, does that mean he approves of murder? How about if a child molester gets a DUI. Does a lawyer who defends him on the DUI charge approve of molesting children?

You and the rest of the Lincoln cult use this argument because all your other arguments have been shot down. Lincoln was a vicious blood-thirsty tyrant. You can't have the public becoming aware of that fact, so you slander anyone who dares to mention it.

It's hilarious to watch a jackass like you complain about insults when you're accusing me of supporting slavery.

No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.

You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

Raising a standing army and firing on Fort Sumpter starts a war sure enough.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Defending someone accused of a crime is different than defending someone that has been proven to be guilty and convicted. No other excuse is needed.
Throwing around the insults, as you do, makes you still seem so childish and ignorant.
Insulting does, by no means, help your argument.
You are to easy to mess with, it's time to move on.

No it doesn't, moron. If a lawyer defends a murderer, does that mean he approves of murder? How about if a child molester gets a DUI. Does a lawyer who defends him on the DUI charge approve of molesting children?

You and the rest of the Lincoln cult use this argument because all your other arguments have been shot down. Lincoln was a vicious blood-thirsty tyrant. You can't have the public becoming aware of that fact, so you slander anyone who dares to mention it.

It's hilarious to watch a jackass like you complain about insults when you're accusing me of supporting slavery.

No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.

You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

Raising a standing army and firing on Fort Sumpter starts a war sure enough.

I seem to remember your name somewhere, a sign:

No Smo-
king.

King Nosmo was a parody on the no smoking sign where smoking is broken up into two lines. I remember it from Beverly Cleary's "Ramona" books. I was a boy, but loved these books, go figure. Read my sister's books, played with her toys...what was going on there?

Oh, what were we talking about? Yes, who started the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln did when he drew up 75,000 troops and invaded Virginia. Everything short of that could have been worked out in peace negotiations if forcing the seceding states were not a an intransigent demand by Lincoln. No attempt at peaceful resolution was attempted because the South absolutely wanted to secede and Lincoln absolutely wanted to force them back into the union.

Unless you're going to make the insanely STUPID argument that had Fort Sumter not been fired upon, the WNA would never have happened.

King Nosmo.

 

[bendog]

Lincoln over reacted and SC had no idea they were starting a war. Really.

Never let facts get in the way of a rant. The North did not invade the south prior to Ft. Sumter being fired upon. Really.

The Battle of Fort Sumter Summary Facts Civilwar.org

 

[Nosmo King]

Defending someone accused of a crime is different than defending someone that has been proven to be guilty and convicted. No other excuse is needed.
Throwing around the insults, as you do, makes you still seem so childish and ignorant.
Insulting does, by no means, help your argument.
You are to easy to mess with, it's time to move on.

No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.

You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

Raising a standing army and firing on Fort Sumpter starts a war sure enough.

I seem to remember your name somewhere, a sign:

No Smo-
king.

King Nosmo was a parody on the no smoking sign where smoking is broken up into two lines. I remember it from Beverly Cleary's "Ramona" books. I was a boy, but loved these books, go figure. Read my sister's books, played with her toys...what was going on there?

Oh, what were we talking about? Yes, who started the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln did when he drew up 75,000 troops and invaded Virginia. Everything short of that could have been worked out in peace negotiations if forcing the seceding states were not a an intransigent demand by Lincoln. No attempt at peaceful resolution was attempted because the South absolutely wanted to secede and Lincoln absolutely wanted to force them back into the union.

Unless you're going to make the insanely STUPID argument that had Fort Sumter not been fired upon, the WNA would never have happened.

King Nosmo.

Nosmo King was a running character on a locally produced children's show here in Pittsburgh back in the early 1960s.

And secession does not fly. Break the pact, suffer the consequences. Fire on federal troops, suffer the consequences. Hold human beings as slaves for life, suffer the consequences.

 

[bripat9643]

Defending someone accused of a crime is different than defending someone that has been proven to be guilty and convicted. No other excuse is needed.
Throwing around the insults, as you do, makes you still seem so childish and ignorant.
Insulting does, by no means, help your argument.
You are to easy to mess with, it's time to move on.

No it doesn't, moron. If a lawyer defends a murderer, does that mean he approves of murder? How about if a child molester gets a DUI. Does a lawyer who defends him on the DUI charge approve of molesting children?

You and the rest of the Lincoln cult use this argument because all your other arguments have been shot down. Lincoln was a vicious blood-thirsty tyrant. You can't have the public becoming aware of that fact, so you slander anyone who dares to mention it.

It's hilarious to watch a jackass like you complain about insults when you're accusing me of supporting slavery.

No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.

You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

Raising a standing army and firing on Fort Sumpter starts a war sure enough.

No it doesn't. Every nation in the world has a standing army. Firing on foreign troops trespassing on your territory is self defence.

I know all you Lincoln cult turds will fail to get the point until your last breath. That's why it's useless to discuss the issue with you. It's much more productive just to call you names.

 

[nodoginnafight]

britpat:
You've already been informed that Fort Sumter was federal land - S.C. gave it to the feds. (Obviously because they wanted their harbor defended, but they didn't want to actually do it themselves.)

Your lackluster historical education may have overlooked that - but posters here have already corrected your misconception on that.

So repeating an argument (defending S.C. soil) that has been so thoroughly disproven is just an act of willful stupidity.

 

[boilermaker55]

Do you seriously expect someone like britpat to not ignore facts. That is their modus operandi

britpat:
You've already been informed that Fort Sumter was federal land - S.C. gave it to the feds. (Obviously because they wanted their harbor defended, but they didn't want to actually do it themselves.)

Your lackluster historical education may have overlooked that - but posters here have already corrected your misconception on that.

So repeating an argument (defending S.C. soil) that has been so thoroughly disproven is just an act of willful stupidity.

 

[Nosmo King]

Defending someone accused of a crime is different than defending someone that has been proven to be guilty and convicted. No other excuse is needed.
Throwing around the insults, as you do, makes you still seem so childish and ignorant.
Insulting does, by no means, help your argument.
You are to easy to mess with, it's time to move on.

No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.

You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

Raising a standing army and firing on Fort Sumpter starts a war sure enough.

No it doesn't. Every nation in the world has a standing army. Firing on foreign troops trespassing on your territory is self defence.

I know all you Lincoln cult turds will fail to get the point until your last breath. That's why it's useless to discuss the issue with you. It's much more productive just to call you names.

I can understand how a person with a stunted understanding of history and an extremely poor education would think that.

 

[Conservative65]

No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.

You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

Raising a standing army and firing on Fort Sumpter starts a war sure enough.

No it doesn't. Every nation in the world has a standing army. Firing on foreign troops trespassing on your territory is self defence.

I know all you Lincoln cult turds will fail to get the point until your last breath. That's why it's useless to discuss the issue with you. It's much more productive just to call you names.

I can understand how a person with a stunted understanding of history and an extremely poor education would think that.

Bet you think Lincoln freed the slaves.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Do you seriously expect someone like britpat to not ignore facts. That is their modus operandi

britpat:
You've already been informed that Fort Sumter was federal land - S.C. gave it to the feds. (Obviously because they wanted their harbor defended, but they didn't want to actually do it themselves.)

Your lackluster historical education may have overlooked that - but posters here have already corrected your misconception on that.

So repeating an argument (defending S.C. soil) that has been so thoroughly disproven is just an act of willful stupidity.

Nah, I just like underlining willful stupidity to make sure no one else misses it.

 

[bendog]

Well he did sort of free the slaves, not that imo that was his primary goal, and he certainly had no plan for either educating them to be citizens or shipping them back somewhere.

 

[paperview]

Abe did end up by freeing the slaves. His signature rested not only on the Emancipation Proclamation (which freed thousands immediately), but on the 13th Amendment Resolution.

He fought hard for its passage.

He was not even required to place his signature there, yet he did.

It's a rarity for a president to sign Amendments.

It was passed by Congress in January of 1865.

See that signature to the right? :::::::::::: > Abraham Lincoln.

 

[paperview]

You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

Raising a standing army and firing on Fort Sumpter starts a war sure enough.

No it doesn't. Every nation in the world has a standing army. Firing on foreign troops trespassing on your territory is self defence.

I know all you Lincoln cult turds will fail to get the point until your last breath. That's why it's useless to discuss the issue with you. It's much more productive just to call you names.

I can understand how a person with a stunted understanding of history and an extremely poor education would think that.

Bet you think Lincoln freed the slaves.

Bet you think the South didn't start the War.

 

[Conservative65]

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

Raising a standing army and firing on Fort Sumpter starts a war sure enough.

No it doesn't. Every nation in the world has a standing army. Firing on foreign troops trespassing on your territory is self defence.

I know all you Lincoln cult turds will fail to get the point until your last breath. That's why it's useless to discuss the issue with you. It's much more productive just to call you names.

I can understand how a person with a stunted understanding of history and an extremely poor education would think that.

Bet you think Lincoln freed the slaves.[/QUOT

Bet you think the South didn't start the War.

I've stood on the spot where it started and embarrassed those giving the tour for providing politically correct information about the battle. Still think Lincoln freed the slaves?