The Civil War

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,574
Reaction score
28,793
Points
2,180
" On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that the Confederate government had no legal existence "

Instead of posting your ignorant Jr High school shit you need to go do the homework assignment that I gave you.
I posted historical fact and direct quotes from primary sources. Who are you again?
Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources.
...
:lmao:

A direct quote from the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court about a case on which he wrote the majority opinion, a case directly related to the topic at hand, and you - some ignorant nobody on the internet - declares it "Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources"? That's hilarious. :lol:

If you're trying to make a fool of yourself, you couldn't be doing a better job.
Do the continents move?
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,356
Reaction score
12,481
Points
2,180
"Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.
Debunked.
NO, it's still right there in the records of the Supreme Court. On the books. Look it up in the Library of Congress if someone will teach you how.
There's lots of totally debunked horseshit in the Library of Congress.

:lol:
Who are you again?
Is this another appeal to authority?
Still don't know what it means, huh?
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,356
Reaction score
12,481
Points
2,180
" On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that the Confederate government had no legal existence "

Instead of posting your ignorant Jr High school shit you need to go do the homework assignment that I gave you.
I posted historical fact and direct quotes from primary sources. Who are you again?
Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources.
...
:lmao:

A direct quote from the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court about a case on which he wrote the majority opinion, a case directly related to the topic at hand, and you - some ignorant nobody on the internet - declares it "Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources"? That's hilarious. :lol:

If you're trying to make a fool of yourself, you couldn't be doing a better job.
Do the continents move?
1614736305445.png
 

Bezukhov

Anarcho-Capitalist
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
508
Reaction score
116
Points
90
Location
Providence, R.I.
Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.

Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.

He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South. So, what can we conclude from this? There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.
"Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War I have a homework assignment for you so that you won't come across as being so ignorant.

There are lots of good historical books about the war but since you only have a Jr High School history text knowledge we need to start with something basic.

Go read "The South Was Right" by Kennedy and Kennedy.

After you finish report back to me so I can quiz you to see if you learned anything.

View attachment 463380
The South was right because slavery was a good thing?
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
42,128
Reaction score
21,428
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.

Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.

He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South. So, what can we conclude from this? There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.
"Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War I have a homework assignment for you so that you won't come across as being so ignorant.

There are lots of good historical books about the war but since you only have a Jr High School history text knowledge we need to start with something basic.

Go read "The South Was Right" by Kennedy and Kennedy.

After you finish report back to me so I can quiz you to see if you learned anything.

View attachment 463380
The South was right because slavery was a good thing?

The South was right to fight against an invading force of assholes that had the mission to kill Americans.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,574
Reaction score
28,793
Points
2,180
"Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.
Debunked.
NO, it's still right there in the records of the Supreme Court. On the books. Look it up in the Library of Congress if someone will teach you how.
There's lots of totally debunked horseshit in the Library of Congress.

:lol:
Who are you again?
Is this another appeal to authority?
Still don't know what it means, huh?
who do you think you're fooling, moron?
 

Bezukhov

Anarcho-Capitalist
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
508
Reaction score
116
Points
90
Location
Providence, R.I.
Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.

Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.

He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South. So, what can we conclude from this? There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.
"Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War I have a homework assignment for you so that you won't come across as being so ignorant.

There are lots of good historical books about the war but since you only have a Jr High School history text knowledge we need to start with something basic.

Go read "The South Was Right" by Kennedy and Kennedy.

After you finish report back to me so I can quiz you to see if you learned anything.

View attachment 463380
The South was right because slavery was a good thing?

The South was right to fight against an invading force of assholes that had the mission to kill Americans.
The South was fighting an army they believed was going to free their slaves. Slavery was the reason they seceded in the first place.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,574
Reaction score
28,793
Points
2,180
Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.

Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.

He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South. So, what can we conclude from this? There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.
"Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War I have a homework assignment for you so that you won't come across as being so ignorant.

There are lots of good historical books about the war but since you only have a Jr High School history text knowledge we need to start with something basic.

Go read "The South Was Right" by Kennedy and Kennedy.

After you finish report back to me so I can quiz you to see if you learned anything.

View attachment 463380
The South was right because slavery was a good thing?

The South was right to fight against an invading force of assholes that had the mission to kill Americans.
The South was fighting an army they believed was going to free their slaves. Slavery was the reason they seceded in the first place.
It doesn't matter why they seceded. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,356
Reaction score
12,481
Points
2,180
"Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.
Debunked.
NO, it's still right there in the records of the Supreme Court. On the books. Look it up in the Library of Congress if someone will teach you how.
There's lots of totally debunked horseshit in the Library of Congress.

:lol:
Who are you again?
Is this another appeal to authority?
Still don't know what it means, huh?
who do you think you're fooling, moron?
Do you need me to help you find a link to information on ad verecundiam? Maybe you could learn something for a change.
 

Bezukhov

Anarcho-Capitalist
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
508
Reaction score
116
Points
90
Location
Providence, R.I.
Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.

Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.

He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South. So, what can we conclude from this? There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.
"Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War I have a homework assignment for you so that you won't come across as being so ignorant.

There are lots of good historical books about the war but since you only have a Jr High School history text knowledge we need to start with something basic.

Go read "The South Was Right" by Kennedy and Kennedy.

After you finish report back to me so I can quiz you to see if you learned anything.

View attachment 463380
The South was right because slavery was a good thing?

The South was right to fight against an invading force of assholes that had the mission to kill Americans.
The South was fighting an army they believed was going to free their slaves. Slavery was the reason they seceded in the first place.
It doesn't matter why they seceded. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.
The South thought the "invading" army was there to free the slaves.
 

rac123

Active Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
117
Reaction score
47
Points
31
Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
The Confederacy was just as legal as the United States was. Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia, moron.
I don’t know wasn’t the attack at Fort Sumpter the first hostilities of the war?
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
40,706
Reaction score
12,368
Points
2,250
Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
The Confederacy was just as legal as the United States was. Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia, moron.
I don’t know wasn’t the attack at Fort Sumpter the first hostilities of the war?
Do you think that attack that killed no one warranted a war on the South, that caused 850,000 deaths and destruction of half the nation?
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.

No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.

Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.

Greg
The Civil War being about "$... as usual" (which is very accurate), does not somehow eliminate the Slavery angle behind it. They're in no way mutually exclusive. Slavery was employed to create and maximize those "$"s, and the threat that they might lose that peculiar institution, was going to mean a decline of those "$s".

You're not wrong about the "$s". You're just misstating that that somehow means it wasn't about Slavery --- which every seceding state specifically pointed out in its articles of secession, as did its Vice President in his infamous "Cornerstone Speech".

The American Civil War was, as usual (correct on that bit), a case of the Haves sending the Have Nots to do their dirty work, i.e. to fight a war to let them, the Haves, stay fat and rich. It was by NO means the popular sentiment of the states that would become the Confederacy. Not on the street level.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?



Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.
 

rac123

Active Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
117
Reaction score
47
Points
31
....
Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
The Confederate States of America did(CSA).
.....
That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
I think that’s a fair characterization. Don’t we view human traffickers as criminals? States rights is a smoke screen. The honor of the south is the same. Both are just rhetorical tools to get poor people who have nothing to gain to do the fighting for the ones who reap to profits of their immoral criminal enterprise.
 

Thoth001

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
3,368
Reaction score
3,023
Points
1,893
The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?



Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.
I take it you don't know history.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?



Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.
I take it you don't know history.
I seem to remember you stepped in this particular bucket before.

Go ahead. It amuses me.
 

Thoth001

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
3,368
Reaction score
3,023
Points
1,893
The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?



Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.
I take it you don't know history.
I seem to remember you stepped in this particular bucket before.

Go ahead. It amuses me.
You make absolutely no sense.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top