Do the continents move?Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources.I posted historical fact and direct quotes from primary sources. Who are you again?" 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.
...
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.
If you're trying to make a fool of yourself, you couldn't be doing a better job.
Still don't know what it means, huh?Is this another appeal to authority?There's lots of totally debunked horseshit in the Library of Congress.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.Debunked."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.
Who are you again?
Do the continents move?Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources.I posted historical fact and direct quotes from primary sources. Who are you again?" 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.
...
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.
If you're trying to make a fool of yourself, you couldn't be doing a better job.
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.Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.
Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
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.
The South was right because slavery was a good thing?"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
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.Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.
Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
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.The South was right because slavery was a good thing?"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
who do you think you're fooling, moron?Still don't know what it means, huh?Is this another appeal to authority?There's lots of totally debunked horseshit in the Library of Congress.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.Debunked."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.
Who are you again?
The South was fighting an army they believed was going to free their slaves. Slavery was the reason they seceded in the first place.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.Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.
Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
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.The South was right because slavery was a good thing?"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 to fight against an invading force of assholes that had the mission to kill Americans.
It doesn't matter why they seceded. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.The South was fighting an army they believed was going to free their slaves. Slavery was the reason they seceded in the first place.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.Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.
Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
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.The South was right because slavery was a good thing?"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 to fight against an invading force of assholes that had the mission to kill Americans.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.www.battlefields.org
Do you need me to help you find a link to information on ad verecundiam? Maybe you could learn something for a change.who do you think you're fooling, moron?Still don't know what it means, huh?Is this another appeal to authority?There's lots of totally debunked horseshit in the Library of Congress.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.Debunked."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.
Who are you again?
The South thought the "invading" army was there to free the slaves.It doesn't matter why they seceded. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.The South was fighting an army they believed was going to free their slaves. Slavery was the reason they seceded in the first place.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.Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.
Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
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.The South was right because slavery was a good thing?"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 to fight against an invading force of assholes that had the mission to kill Americans.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.
I don’t know wasn’t the attack at Fort Sumpter the first hostilities of the war?The Confederacy was just as legal as the United States was. Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia, moron.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.
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?I don’t know wasn’t the attack at Fort Sumpter the first hostilities of the war?The Confederacy was just as legal as the United States was. Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia, moron.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 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".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.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?
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
Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.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?
Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell
From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and...www.lewrockwell.com
Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
www.abbevilleinstitute.org
How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery Paul Craig Roberts When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article (www.paulcraigroberts.org
Yes, it was......
I don’t know wasn’t the attack at Fort Sumpter the first hostilities of the war?
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.That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.The Confederate States of America did(CSA).What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?....
Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
.....
Not one nation on earth ever agreed with that.....
The Confederacy was just as legal as the United States was. ......
I take it you don't know history.Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.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?Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell
From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and...
Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery Paul Craig Roberts When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article (
I seem to remember you stepped in this particular bucket before.I take it you don't know history.Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.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?Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell
From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and...
Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery Paul Craig Roberts When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article (
You make absolutely no sense.I seem to remember you stepped in this particular bucket before.I take it you don't know history.Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.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?Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell
From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and...
Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery Paul Craig Roberts When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article (
Go ahead. It amuses me.
