She’s Right About Civil War

[RetiredGySgt]

If the South wanted to be left alone, why did they start the war by firing on a U.S. Federal installation that was doing nothing to them?

That "federal installation" was within the boundaries of South Carolina. The troops there were trespassing on Carolina territory. Shooting trespassers has always been acknowledge by international law as perfectly legal and legitimate.

WRONG when South Carolina JOINED the UNION they ceded the property to the FEDERAL Government it no longer belonged to South Carolina. If the South were not bent on STARTING the war they would have negotiated the forts return rather then attack the troops in the fort. At that time Lincoln had NOT even raised the Militia he was trying to talk to the South.

They donated the property. They did not give up legal jurisdiction.

LOL

They ceded “all the right, title and claim” to that territory, ya ******* moron. South Carolina couldn’t even legally set foot on it other than to serve civil or criminal processes so that fugitives couldn’t hide there. That you still can’t understand that after getting thoroughly bitchslapped on this subject proves you’re fucked in the head beyond all repair.

You just admitted that SC retained legal jurisdiction, dumb ****. And the government of SC cannot set foot on anyone's private property in SC without a warrant. How was Ft Sumter any different? The bottom line is that it wasn't. Ft Sumter was just another piece of property within the borders of SC that happened to be owned by the federal government.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."

States have NO jurisdiction over Federal property you moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Why are you putting words in my mouth that I did not say?

You told him to learn history when he stated a historical fact the South started the war when they fired on the fort. Lincoln hadn't even called up the Militia at that point.

The problem with your post is that it's not a fact. Lincoln started the war. Lincoln invaded Virginia.

Wrong as usual the unprovoked attack on Federal troops at Fort Sumter started the war at that point Lincoln had not even called up the Militia. He was still trying to TALK to the States leaving the Union.

It was definitely provoked. Trespassing is provocation. Intruding on SC territorial waters in an attempt to resupply the Fort is even more egregious provocation. You're spewing Lincoln cult horseshit.

Nope.....you know nothing about this topic. And it's funny watching you struggle so much to come up with excuses for the Con-federacy starting a war they couldn't finish.....

I've proved at least 1000 times that I know far more than you, dingbat.

The Confederacy didn't start the war.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You told him to learn history when he stated a historical fact the South started the war when they fired on the fort. Lincoln hadn't even called up the Militia at that point.

The problem with your post is that it's not a fact. Lincoln started the war. Lincoln invaded Virginia.

Wrong as usual the unprovoked attack on Federal troops at Fort Sumter started the war at that point Lincoln had not even called up the Militia. He was still trying to TALK to the States leaving the Union.

It was definitely provoked. Trespassing is provocation. Intruding on SC territorial waters in an attempt to resupply the Fort is even more egregious provocation. You're spewing Lincoln cult horseshit.

Nope.....you know nothing about this topic. And it's funny watching you struggle so much to come up with excuses for the Con-federacy starting a war they couldn't finish.....

I've proved at least 1000 times that I know far more than you, dingbat.

The Confederacy didn't start the war.

The South DID start the war they FIRED ON the Federal troops BEFORE Lincoln called up the Militia, they shot first.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lincoln as president of all of the United states of America was aware that the south had constitutional protection for its use of slavery.
Lincoln said" that slavery was a moral a social & a political wrong.
as the south was using there slaves to keep the home front going while the army was fighting,& using slaves in other ways to assist the war,
freeing the slaves would give the union forces an advantage.
Lincoln figured that constitutional protection of slavery could be overridden by sanctioned war powers of the presidency.
Lincolns main goal was to preserve the union of the UNITED states.

Constitutional protection of slavery? Perhaps in the sense that the Constitution didn't address it and left it up to the states to decide on an individual basis. Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about.

The Emancipation Proclamation had NO effect on the Southern war effort, since it had no real ability to free anyone in territory not actually controlled by the Union . . . and it only applied to slaves in territories not controlled by the Union.

It was propaganda to make fighting the war a moral issue, because a big chunk of his troops were about to run out their terms of enlistment and go home.

 

[Faun]

If the South wanted to be left alone, why did they start the war by firing on a U.S. Federal installation that was doing nothing to them?

That "federal installation" was within the boundaries of South Carolina. The troops there were trespassing on Carolina territory. Shooting trespassers has always been acknowledge by international law as perfectly legal and legitimate.

WRONG when South Carolina JOINED the UNION they ceded the property to the FEDERAL Government it no longer belonged to South Carolina. If the South were not bent on STARTING the war they would have negotiated the forts return rather then attack the troops in the fort. At that time Lincoln had NOT even raised the Militia he was trying to talk to the South.

They donated the property. They did not give up legal jurisdiction.

LOL

They ceded “all the right, title and claim” to that territory, ya ******* moron. South Carolina couldn’t even legally set foot on it other than to serve civil or criminal processes so that fugitives couldn’t hide there. That you still can’t understand that after getting thoroughly bitchslapped on this subject proves you’re fucked in the head beyond all repair.

You just admitted that SC retained legal jurisdiction, dumb ****. And the government of SC cannot set foot on anyone's private property in SC without a warrant. How was Ft Sumter any different? The bottom line is that it wasn't. Ft Sumter was just another piece of property within the borders of SC that happened to be owned by the federal government.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."

******* moron, that's not legal jurisdiction.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."​

Jones had no evidence to prove damages. That's why her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.

 

[DJT for Life]

Lincoln as president of all of the United states of America was aware that the south had constitutional protection for its use of slavery.
Lincoln said" that slavery was a moral a social & a political wrong.
as the south was using there slaves to keep the home front going while the army was fighting,& using slaves in other ways to assist the war,
freeing the slaves would give the union forces an advantage.
Lincoln figured that constitutional protection of slavery could be overridden by sanctioned war powers of the presidency.
Lincolns main goal was to preserve the union of the UNITED states.

Constitutional protection of slavery? Perhaps in the sense that the Constitution didn't address it and left it up to the states to decide on an individual basis. Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about.

The Emancipation Proclamation had NO effect on the Southern war effort, since it had no real ability to free anyone in territory not actually controlled by the Union . . . and it only applied to slaves in territories not controlled by the Union.

It was propaganda to make fighting the war a moral issue, because a big chunk of his troops were about to run out their terms of enlistment and go home.

The EP was also written to appease both the Brits and the Frogs. Keep them
from allying with the South...IF the South freed their slaves.

Antietam ended the "Preserve the Union" bullshit. The bloodiest day
in American History turned the North against the War. The Northerners,
at that point, were of the opinion that if the Southern States wanted to
break away, let them go. It wasn't worth the death toll that was mounting

 

[Faun]

You told him to learn history when he stated a historical fact the South started the war when they fired on the fort. Lincoln hadn't even called up the Militia at that point.

The problem with your post is that it's not a fact. Lincoln started the war. Lincoln invaded Virginia.

Wrong as usual the unprovoked attack on Federal troops at Fort Sumter started the war at that point Lincoln had not even called up the Militia. He was still trying to TALK to the States leaving the Union.

It was definitely provoked. Trespassing is provocation. Intruding on SC territorial waters in an attempt to resupply the Fort is even more egregious provocation. You're spewing Lincoln cult horseshit.

Nope.....you know nothing about this topic. And it's funny watching you struggle so much to come up with excuses for the Con-federacy starting a war they couldn't finish.....

I've proved at least 1000 times that I know far more than you, dingbat.

The Confederacy didn't start the war.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Well there's the Encyclopædia Britannica....

Fort Sumter National Monument, historic site preserving Fort Sumter, location of the first engagement of the American Civil War (April 12, 1861).​

…. and then there's the opinion of the USMB's ******* moron...

bripat9643: "Nuh-uh!!!!"​

 

[bripat9643]

That "federal installation" was within the boundaries of South Carolina. The troops there were trespassing on Carolina territory. Shooting trespassers has always been acknowledge by international law as perfectly legal and legitimate.

WRONG when South Carolina JOINED the UNION they ceded the property to the FEDERAL Government it no longer belonged to South Carolina. If the South were not bent on STARTING the war they would have negotiated the forts return rather then attack the troops in the fort. At that time Lincoln had NOT even raised the Militia he was trying to talk to the South.

They donated the property. They did not give up legal jurisdiction.

LOL

They ceded “all the right, title and claim” to that territory, ya ******* moron. South Carolina couldn’t even legally set foot on it other than to serve civil or criminal processes so that fugitives couldn’t hide there. That you still can’t understand that after getting thoroughly bitchslapped on this subject proves you’re fucked in the head beyond all repair.

You just admitted that SC retained legal jurisdiction, dumb ****. And the government of SC cannot set foot on anyone's private property in SC without a warrant. How was Ft Sumter any different? The bottom line is that it wasn't. Ft Sumter was just another piece of property within the borders of SC that happened to be owned by the federal government.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."

States have NO jurisdiction over Federal property you moron.

Of, right, so if someone murders someone else in a federal building in Virginia, the state of Virginia can't prosecute?

You know what you said is beyond stupid, don't you? When you are on the same side as Faux, then you should reconsider your assumptions.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem with your post is that it's not a fact. Lincoln started the war. Lincoln invaded Virginia.

Wrong as usual the unprovoked attack on Federal troops at Fort Sumter started the war at that point Lincoln had not even called up the Militia. He was still trying to TALK to the States leaving the Union.

It was definitely provoked. Trespassing is provocation. Intruding on SC territorial waters in an attempt to resupply the Fort is even more egregious provocation. You're spewing Lincoln cult horseshit.

Nope.....you know nothing about this topic. And it's funny watching you struggle so much to come up with excuses for the Con-federacy starting a war they couldn't finish.....

I've proved at least 1000 times that I know far more than you, dingbat.

The Confederacy didn't start the war.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Well there's the Encyclopædia Britannica....

Fort Sumter National Monument, historic site preserving Fort Sumter, location of the first engagement of the American Civil War (April 12, 1861).​

…. and then there's the opinion of the USMB's ******* moron...

bripat9643: "Nuh-uh!!!!"​

You realize you proved exactly nothing, don't you, dumbfuck?

 

[bripat9643]

The problem with your post is that it's not a fact. Lincoln started the war. Lincoln invaded Virginia.

Wrong as usual the unprovoked attack on Federal troops at Fort Sumter started the war at that point Lincoln had not even called up the Militia. He was still trying to TALK to the States leaving the Union.

It was definitely provoked. Trespassing is provocation. Intruding on SC territorial waters in an attempt to resupply the Fort is even more egregious provocation. You're spewing Lincoln cult horseshit.

Nope.....you know nothing about this topic. And it's funny watching you struggle so much to come up with excuses for the Con-federacy starting a war they couldn't finish.....

I've proved at least 1000 times that I know far more than you, dingbat.

The Confederacy didn't start the war.

The South DID start the war they FIRED ON the Federal troops BEFORE Lincoln called up the Militia, they shot first.

Who shoots first doesn't determine who started the war. Hitler ordered his tanks into the Danzig corrider (Polish territory). The Polish army fired on them. Who started the war?

 

[bripat9643]

That "federal installation" was within the boundaries of South Carolina. The troops there were trespassing on Carolina territory. Shooting trespassers has always been acknowledge by international law as perfectly legal and legitimate.

WRONG when South Carolina JOINED the UNION they ceded the property to the FEDERAL Government it no longer belonged to South Carolina. If the South were not bent on STARTING the war they would have negotiated the forts return rather then attack the troops in the fort. At that time Lincoln had NOT even raised the Militia he was trying to talk to the South.

They donated the property. They did not give up legal jurisdiction.

LOL

They ceded “all the right, title and claim” to that territory, ya ******* moron. South Carolina couldn’t even legally set foot on it other than to serve civil or criminal processes so that fugitives couldn’t hide there. That you still can’t understand that after getting thoroughly bitchslapped on this subject proves you’re fucked in the head beyond all repair.

You just admitted that SC retained legal jurisdiction, dumb ****. And the government of SC cannot set foot on anyone's private property in SC without a warrant. How was Ft Sumter any different? The bottom line is that it wasn't. Ft Sumter was just another piece of property within the borders of SC that happened to be owned by the federal government.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."

******* moron, that's not legal jurisdiction.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."​

Jones had no evidence to prove damages. That's why her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.

That is exactly what legal jurisdiction is: SC can enforce its laws on the property. End of story.

You said it was because of lack of evidence. Now you're trying another weasel.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

WRONG when South Carolina JOINED the UNION they ceded the property to the FEDERAL Government it no longer belonged to South Carolina. If the South were not bent on STARTING the war they would have negotiated the forts return rather then attack the troops in the fort. At that time Lincoln had NOT even raised the Militia he was trying to talk to the South.

They donated the property. They did not give up legal jurisdiction.

LOL

They ceded “all the right, title and claim” to that territory, ya ******* moron. South Carolina couldn’t even legally set foot on it other than to serve civil or criminal processes so that fugitives couldn’t hide there. That you still can’t understand that after getting thoroughly bitchslapped on this subject proves you’re fucked in the head beyond all repair.

You just admitted that SC retained legal jurisdiction, dumb ****. And the government of SC cannot set foot on anyone's private property in SC without a warrant. How was Ft Sumter any different? The bottom line is that it wasn't. Ft Sumter was just another piece of property within the borders of SC that happened to be owned by the federal government.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."

******* moron, that's not legal jurisdiction.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."​

Jones had no evidence to prove damages. That's why her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.

That is exactly what legal jurisdiction is: SC can enforce its laws on the property. End of story.

You said it was because of lack of evidence. Now you're trying another weasel.

Moron if someone is murdered on federal property the Fedeal Government prosecutes retard. Remind me how if a Marine murders another Marine or civilain on a Military base the State prosecutes? No stupid the Federal Government does it is THEIR jurisdiction.

 

[Faun]

WRONG when South Carolina JOINED the UNION they ceded the property to the FEDERAL Government it no longer belonged to South Carolina. If the South were not bent on STARTING the war they would have negotiated the forts return rather then attack the troops in the fort. At that time Lincoln had NOT even raised the Militia he was trying to talk to the South.

They donated the property. They did not give up legal jurisdiction.

LOL

They ceded “all the right, title and claim” to that territory, ya ******* moron. South Carolina couldn’t even legally set foot on it other than to serve civil or criminal processes so that fugitives couldn’t hide there. That you still can’t understand that after getting thoroughly bitchslapped on this subject proves you’re fucked in the head beyond all repair.

You just admitted that SC retained legal jurisdiction, dumb ****. And the government of SC cannot set foot on anyone's private property in SC without a warrant. How was Ft Sumter any different? The bottom line is that it wasn't. Ft Sumter was just another piece of property within the borders of SC that happened to be owned by the federal government.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."

******* moron, that's not legal jurisdiction.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."​

Jones had no evidence to prove damages. That's why her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.

That is exactly what legal jurisdiction is: SC can enforce its laws on the property. End of story.

You said it was because of lack of evidence. Now you're trying another weasel.

LOLOL

******* moron, South Carolina can enforce no laws on Federal territory. Dayum! As unbelievable as it is … you're actually getting dumber.

 

[bripat9643]

They donated the property. They did not give up legal jurisdiction.

LOL

They ceded “all the right, title and claim” to that territory, ya ******* moron. South Carolina couldn’t even legally set foot on it other than to serve civil or criminal processes so that fugitives couldn’t hide there. That you still can’t understand that after getting thoroughly bitchslapped on this subject proves you’re fucked in the head beyond all repair.

You just admitted that SC retained legal jurisdiction, dumb ****. And the government of SC cannot set foot on anyone's private property in SC without a warrant. How was Ft Sumter any different? The bottom line is that it wasn't. Ft Sumter was just another piece of property within the borders of SC that happened to be owned by the federal government.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."

******* moron, that's not legal jurisdiction.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."​

Jones had no evidence to prove damages. That's why her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.

That is exactly what legal jurisdiction is: SC can enforce its laws on the property. End of story.

You said it was because of lack of evidence. Now you're trying another weasel.

Moron if someone is murdered on federal property the Fedeal Government prosecutes retard. Remind me how if a Marine murders another Marine or civilain on a Military base the State prosecutes? No stupid the Federal Government does it is THEIR jurisdiction.

If a marine murders a civilian on a military base, the state government prosecutes. If a civilian murders another civilian in a federal building, like a federal courthouse, the state prosecutes. Owning property doesn't give the federal government legal jurisdiction.

 

[bripat9643]

They donated the property. They did not give up legal jurisdiction.

LOL

They ceded “all the right, title and claim” to that territory, ya ******* moron. South Carolina couldn’t even legally set foot on it other than to serve civil or criminal processes so that fugitives couldn’t hide there. That you still can’t understand that after getting thoroughly bitchslapped on this subject proves you’re fucked in the head beyond all repair.

You just admitted that SC retained legal jurisdiction, dumb ****. And the government of SC cannot set foot on anyone's private property in SC without a warrant. How was Ft Sumter any different? The bottom line is that it wasn't. Ft Sumter was just another piece of property within the borders of SC that happened to be owned by the federal government.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."

******* moron, that's not legal jurisdiction.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."​

Jones had no evidence to prove damages. That's why her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.

That is exactly what legal jurisdiction is: SC can enforce its laws on the property. End of story.

You said it was because of lack of evidence. Now you're trying another weasel.

LOLOL

******* moron, South Carolina can enforce no laws on Federal territory. Dayum! As unbelievable as it is … you're actually getting dumber.

I said federal "property," moron. All the laws of SC are enforceable on federal property within the borders of SC.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL

They ceded “all the right, title and claim” to that territory, ya ******* moron. South Carolina couldn’t even legally set foot on it other than to serve civil or criminal processes so that fugitives couldn’t hide there. That you still can’t understand that after getting thoroughly bitchslapped on this subject proves you’re fucked in the head beyond all repair.

You just admitted that SC retained legal jurisdiction, dumb ****. And the government of SC cannot set foot on anyone's private property in SC without a warrant. How was Ft Sumter any different? The bottom line is that it wasn't. Ft Sumter was just another piece of property within the borders of SC that happened to be owned by the federal government.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."

******* moron, that's not legal jurisdiction.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."​

Jones had no evidence to prove damages. That's why her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.

That is exactly what legal jurisdiction is: SC can enforce its laws on the property. End of story.

You said it was because of lack of evidence. Now you're trying another weasel.

LOLOL

******* moron, South Carolina can enforce no laws on Federal territory. Dayum! As unbelievable as it is … you're actually getting dumber.

I said federal "property," moron. All the laws of SC are enforceable on federal property within the borders of SC.

Federal Property Like a fort IS Federal Territory you moron and no civilian authorities do not prosecute Military members that commit crimes on military installations as to federal buildings those are not necessarily federal property. BUT the seized armories WERE Federal TERRITORY as is Federal bases.

 

[bripat9643]

You just admitted that SC retained legal jurisdiction, dumb ****. And the government of SC cannot set foot on anyone's private property in SC without a warrant. How was Ft Sumter any different? The bottom line is that it wasn't. Ft Sumter was just another piece of property within the borders of SC that happened to be owned by the federal government.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."

******* moron, that's not legal jurisdiction.

For your next trick you will claim there no difference between "no evidence" and "no damages."​

Jones had no evidence to prove damages. That's why her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.

That is exactly what legal jurisdiction is: SC can enforce its laws on the property. End of story.

You said it was because of lack of evidence. Now you're trying another weasel.

LOLOL

******* moron, South Carolina can enforce no laws on Federal territory. Dayum! As unbelievable as it is … you're actually getting dumber.

I said federal "property," moron. All the laws of SC are enforceable on federal property within the borders of SC.

Federal Property Like a fort IS Federal Territory you moron and no civilian authorities do not prosecute Military members that commit crimes on military installations as to federal buildings those are not necessarily federal property. BUT the seized armories WERE Federal TERRITORY as is Federal bases.

A federal building is not federal property? Now you've really jumped the shark. And you actually think the civilian government isn't allowed to prosecute someone who committed murder on a military base? Now you're confirming that you are a fruit loop. Do you recall some soldiers who committed murder in Okinawa that the military turned over for prosecution to the local government?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Th comments were 100% true about how Confederate soldiers felt about the war. Why else would they be involved if they did not have a dog in that fight?

I received my history degree from a university well-known for professors with extensive research and writings on the Civil War. I am sorry that you went with the high school version.

Who the **** asked you how the traitorous rebels felt? It is irrelevant to their illegal, immoral, idiotic actions. Kinda like your posts.

**** you and the horse you rode in on! You don't get to decide the truth.

You’re no historian, and a disgrace of an American.

...

I think I have asked before, but is English your second language? .....

I think I told you before that I have a greater facility with, and knowledge of, English than you ever will. This is also likely true of any other language.

Then why is it that many of your posts need translation to make any sense whatsoever?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So you are intent on proving that your knowledge of history is at an elementary school level?

Still waiting for you to explain how claiming South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter and started the war is wrong.

You should already know, but being a Marine, I guess you expect the Navy to deliver you wherever you need to go!

Sorry! I retired from teaching. I suggest you enroll in a good history of the Civil War and Reconstruction at your local university.

In other words you are a bald faced liar. South Carolina fired the first shot and did so BEFORE Lincoln even called up the Militia, in fact Fort Sumter was the reason he called up the Militia.

Why did we need a militia when we had a standing Army?

Trying to discuss history with your level of understanding is like trying to teach nuclear physics to a three year-old.

the standing army was only 16000 men dumb ass.

To defend one fort? That would seem more than sufficient.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You told him to learn history when he stated a historical fact the South started the war when they fired on the fort. Lincoln hadn't even called up the Militia at that point.

The problem with your post is that it's not a fact. Lincoln started the war. Lincoln invaded Virginia.

Wrong as usual the unprovoked attack on Federal troops at Fort Sumter started the war at that point Lincoln had not even called up the Militia. He was still trying to TALK to the States leaving the Union.

The simple fact of the matter is, the north wanted to free the slaves and the south didn't. The civil war was inevitable at that point.

Well, except for that little fact that Lincoln didn't even want to free the slaves, and when he did, he was powerless to do so in the South. The Emancipation Proclamation was a major disappointment to abolitionists everywhere.

Why was the Emancipation Proclamation a major disappointment to abolitionists?

It didn't free slaves in the border states, did it?