- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,097
- 24,171
- 2,180
YOU proved it, idiot.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Civil War
- Thread starter TrumpSucks
- Start date
YOU proved it, idiot.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 20,100
- 4,957
- 280
Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
[/QUOTE]
Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
[/QUOTE]
As invading one's own country is an oxymoron, so also is secession from a permanent attachment. The Union all the states joined was thought of as forever, which is why it was called "Perpetual". When the effort to perfect the Union resulted in a reformed Constitution, no language or statement changed the permanent status of that Union. That is the linguistic and spiritual continuity that makes "secession" something one may attempt, but that would be illegal and only possible after the fact; that is, if such a rebellion were to succeed. Secession in 1861 did not succeed and the generosity of the Nation spared the rebels from widespread executions, unlike most civil conflicts. The war itself had cost enough lives. That collective payment for the errors of the founders in continuing slavery should serve as sufficient sacrifice for all Americans to give up the past and shoulder a better future together.
[/QUOTE]
Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
[/QUOTE]
As invading one's own country is an oxymoron, so also is secession from a permanent attachment. The Union all the states joined was thought of as forever, which is why it was called "Perpetual". When the effort to perfect the Union resulted in a reformed Constitution, no language or statement changed the permanent status of that Union. That is the linguistic and spiritual continuity that makes "secession" something one may attempt, but that would be illegal and only possible after the fact; that is, if such a rebellion were to succeed. Secession in 1861 did not succeed and the generosity of the Nation spared the rebels from widespread executions, unlike most civil conflicts. The war itself had cost enough lives. That collective payment for the errors of the founders in continuing slavery should serve as sufficient sacrifice for all Americans to give up the past and shoulder a better future together.
You sure about that, chief???The Confederate States of America did(CSA).....
Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
.....
That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
Greg
You claim I don't understand what it means? Prove it. Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.How am I misusing it?Appeal to authority....
I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
Next!
You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
Have you ever studied logic at any level?
Greg
Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
[/QUOTE]
As invading one's own country is an oxymoron, so also is secession from a permanent attachment. The Union all the states joined was thought of as forever, which is why it was called "Perpetual". When the effort to perfect the Union resulted in a reformed Constitution, no language or statement changed the permanent status of that Union. That is the linguistic and spiritual continuity that makes "secession" something one may attempt, but that would be illegal and only possible after the fact; that is, if such a rebellion were to succeed. Secession in 1861 did not succeed and the generosity of the Nation spared the rebels from widespread executions, unlike most civil conflicts. The war itself had cost enough lives. That collective payment for the errors of the founders in continuing slavery should serve as sufficient sacrifice for all Americans to give up the past and shoulder a better future together.
[/QUOTE]
Greg
Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
[/QUOTE]
As invading one's own country is an oxymoron, so also is secession from a permanent attachment. The Union all the states joined was thought of as forever, which is why it was called "Perpetual". When the effort to perfect the Union resulted in a reformed Constitution, no language or statement changed the permanent status of that Union. That is the linguistic and spiritual continuity that makes "secession" something one may attempt, but that would be illegal and only possible after the fact; that is, if such a rebellion were to succeed. Secession in 1861 did not succeed and the generosity of the Nation spared the rebels from widespread executions, unlike most civil conflicts. The war itself had cost enough lives. That collective payment for the errors of the founders in continuing slavery should serve as sufficient sacrifice for all Americans to give up the past and shoulder a better future together.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure the North wanted to invade Texas, the Everglades, Alabama, the Bayous etc etc etc.......Grant knew that he could NOT overextend his supply lines imo.
Greg
- Jul 5, 2012
- 20,100
- 4,957
- 280
As invading one's own country is an oxymoron, so also is secession from a permanent attachment. The Union all the states joined was thought of as forever, which is why it was called "Perpetual". When the effort to perfect the Union resulted in a reformed Constitution, no language or statement changed the permanent status of that Union. That is the linguistic and spiritual continuity that makes "secession" something one may attempt, but that would be illegal and only possible after the fact; that is, if such a rebellion were to succeed. Secession in 1861 did not succeed and the generosity of the Nation spared the rebels from widespread executions, unlike most civil conflicts. The war itself had cost enough lives. That collective payment for the errors of the founders in continuing slavery should serve as sufficient sacrifice for all Americans to give up the past and shoulder a better future together.Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure the North wanted to invade Texas, the Everglades, Alabama, the Bayous etc etc etc.......Grant knew that he could NOT overextend his supply lines imo.
Greg
[/QUOTE]
Any commander knows that.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 20,100
- 4,957
- 280
History is.You sure about that, chief???The Confederate States of America did(CSA).....
Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
.....
That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
Greg
Whose History?? I've heard some good debates about this issue......back in the 70s. I don't think anyone is stupid for taking either view quite frankly; a tad firm in opinions perhaps. lolHistory is.You sure about that, chief???The Confederate States of America did(CSA).....
Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
.....
That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
Greg
Greg
Last edited:
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,997
- 47,201
- 2,180
What "crime" did it commit?The Confederate States of America did(CSA).....
Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
.....
That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,997
- 47,201
- 2,180
Wrong.History is.You sure about that, chief???The Confederate States of America did(CSA).....
Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
.....
That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
Greg
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,997
- 47,201
- 2,180
If you claim 'A' is true because authority 'B' says it's true, then you have committed a fallacy, and that's exactly what you're doing.You claim I don't understand what it means? Prove it. Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.How am I misusing it?Appeal to authority....
I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
Next!
You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
Have you ever studied logic at any level?
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,997
- 47,201
- 2,180
Nope.Yup.Nope.Yup.Nope.By every legal and historical measure it was, douche.It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself "The Confederate States of America."
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,997
- 47,201
- 2,180
I have studied it, moron. Insulting me won't make your argument any less wrong. It's a logical fallacy.The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.You claim I don't understand what it means? Prove it. Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.How am I misusing it?Appeal to authority....
I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
Next!
You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
Have you ever studied logic at any level?
Look brainless, if you really want to talk about logic, why not take the time to actually study it at least a little?
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,997
- 47,201
- 2,180
Irrelevant. According to you, the USSR was not a country before 1924. Then after that it was a country. Only a brain damaged imbecile swallows that kind of logic. So tell us, moron, is Taiwan a country? The USA doesn't recognize it as a country, and neither does the U.N.Completely relevant, wannabe.Irrelevant.....
Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
- Jul 5, 2012
- 20,100
- 4,957
- 280
Whose History?? I've heard some good debates about this issue......back in the 70s. I don't think anyone is stupid for taking either view quite frankly; a tad firm in opinions perhaps. lolHistory is.You sure about that, chief???The Confederate States of America did(CSA).....
Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
.....
That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
Greg
Greg
Greg
The details may be debated, but no one (seriously) disputes the American Civil War ended the secession effort. Opinion has nothing to do with it.
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,997
- 47,201
- 2,180
Whose History?? I've heard some good debates about this issue......back in the 70s. I don't think anyone is stupid for taking either view quite frankly; a tad firm in opinions perhaps. lolHistory is.You sure about that, chief???The Confederate States of America did(CSA).....
Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
.....
That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
Greg
Greg
Greg
The details may be debated, but no one (seriously) disputes the American Civil War ended the secession effort. Opinion has nothing to do with it.
Genghis Khan wiped out the national ambitions of a lot of people. That's what you're supporting.
Whose History?? I've heard some good debates about this issue......back in the 70s. I don't think anyone is stupid for taking either view quite frankly; a tad firm in opinions perhaps. lolHistory is.You sure about that, chief???The Confederate States of America did(CSA).....
Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
.....
That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
Greg
Greg
Greg
The details may be debated, but no one (seriously) disputes the American Civil War ended the secession effort. Opinion has nothing to do with it.
Lee may have just not wanted the "Hillbillies" to take over the South when they defeated the overextended armies of the North. The North knew what happened in the Retreat from Moscow. Hence a cessation /surrender that was mutually agreeable with Pardons. How could a Union army march to Houston???
Greg
- Banned
- #459
The South Was Right!
A couple of facts about the Civil War that aren't usually covered in the typical Jr High School History books.
First of all slavery was legal in the US on the Federal level. It was up to the individual states to have it. It was legal long before the Civil War, during the Civil War and for almost a year after the war.
The great debates that the nation had about slavery prior to the Civil War had nothing to do with real slavery. It had to do with political control in the new Western states. If a new state was going to come in as slave then it was going to be dominated by the Democrats. If non slave then it will be controlled by the Republicans. That would control Congress and political power. Being in controlled of Congress meant having control over the treasury. Follow the money.
Second was the silly crap that the South started hostilities. Secession was a political move, not war.
When the states seceded President Buchanan knew that the issue of Federal facilities could be an issue that could cause hostilities. He established a truce that said he would not reinforce the facilities and the South would not attack. That truce was in effect at Ft Sumter.
However, as soon as that asshole Lincoln took over he broke the truce. He sent a ship to Ft Sumter breaking the truce. He is the one that instigated hostilities. He did it without consulting with Congress or even his Cabinet.
Of course the war really didn't start at ft Sumter. It started when the filthy Yankees sent an army across the Potomac River to kill Southerns, destroy their cities and farms and take away the right to keep and bear arms.
One third of the Southern states first chose not to join the Confederacy. However, after that asshole Lincoln decided to kill Southerners then they changed their mind and joined the Confederacy.
A couple of facts about the Civil War that aren't usually covered in the typical Jr High School History books.
First of all slavery was legal in the US on the Federal level. It was up to the individual states to have it. It was legal long before the Civil War, during the Civil War and for almost a year after the war.
The great debates that the nation had about slavery prior to the Civil War had nothing to do with real slavery. It had to do with political control in the new Western states. If a new state was going to come in as slave then it was going to be dominated by the Democrats. If non slave then it will be controlled by the Republicans. That would control Congress and political power. Being in controlled of Congress meant having control over the treasury. Follow the money.
Second was the silly crap that the South started hostilities. Secession was a political move, not war.
When the states seceded President Buchanan knew that the issue of Federal facilities could be an issue that could cause hostilities. He established a truce that said he would not reinforce the facilities and the South would not attack. That truce was in effect at Ft Sumter.
However, as soon as that asshole Lincoln took over he broke the truce. He sent a ship to Ft Sumter breaking the truce. He is the one that instigated hostilities. He did it without consulting with Congress or even his Cabinet.
Of course the war really didn't start at ft Sumter. It started when the filthy Yankees sent an army across the Potomac River to kill Southerns, destroy their cities and farms and take away the right to keep and bear arms.
One third of the Southern states first chose not to join the Confederacy. However, after that asshole Lincoln decided to kill Southerners then they changed their mind and joined the Confederacy.
schmidlap
Platinum Member
- Oct 30, 2020
- 9,926
- 6,526
- 938
Indeed!^^^^^^^^
In summation,
In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States - of all 33 United States.
Lincoln deployed United States troops on United States soil to suppress a regional rebellion within the United States, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office. The rebellious states cited their determination to perpetuate slavery as their excuse, the demand of special interests within them.
No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself "The Confederate States of America" that was an attempt to deprive Americans within their state borders of their United States citizenship.
Those who attacked the United States from within exacted an enormous price upon the nation, but were defeated and the Union was preserved.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 91
- Views
- 655
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 237
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
- Replies
- 51
- Views
- 362
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 109
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-