The Civil War

[bripat9643]

......and started a war....

The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.

Who invaded Virginia?

The British, in 1814.

Lincoln in 1861, moron. Are you denying that?

 

[bripat9643]

There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.

And if pigs had wings they could fly. Every country in the world had slaver [sic] when the USA was born. Why do you imagine we could have avoided it somehow?

Wrong, Fingerfuck. I'll give you an example real close --- the Vermont Republic, which never had slavery.

It joined the USA which did have slavery, douchebag.

 

[bripat9643]

You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.

You mean you object to people not answering your questions?

Really?

Unkotare didn't know what his own question was. He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.

He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me. Pass

Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things. With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.

He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him. That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.

I thought he said one time that he was a teacher. If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth. I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.

If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.

But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.

He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre

In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.

It was the War of Northern Aggression.

No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.

Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.

Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.

Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.

But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.

Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw

Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com

supreme.findlaw.com

So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.

Government wins, yeah team!

I'm for the people though, and we lost

The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world. When the bad guys won the world lost.

Yeah, Liberty

July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned

July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned - Zinn Education Project

Late night raid on the Charleston post office by a mob of white supremacists and the burning of abolitionist mail.

www.zinnedproject.org

That was 185 years ago, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

...Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery. ....

More accurate to say the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war to preserve slavery.

Only they didn't start the war.....

The war began when the 'confederate' criminals fired on Ft. Sumter, stupid.

Nope.

 

[Bezukhov]

You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.

You mean you object to people not answering your questions?

Really?

Unkotare didn't know what his own question was. He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.

He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me. Pass

Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things. With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.

He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him. That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.

I thought he said one time that he was a teacher. If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth. I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.

If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.

But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.

He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre

In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.

It was the War of Northern Aggression.

No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.

Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.

Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.

Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.

But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.

Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw

Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com

supreme.findlaw.com

So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.

Government wins, yeah team!

I'm for the people though, and we lost

The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world. When the bad guys won the world lost.

Yeah, Liberty

July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned

July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned - Zinn Education Project

Late night raid on the Charleston post office by a mob of white supremacists and the burning of abolitionist mail.

www.zinnedproject.org

That was 185 years ago, moron.

Reading that story made you pine for the good old days. Bet you would have had a torch in each hands.

 

[Unkotare]

......and started a war....

The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.

Who invaded Virginia?

The British, in 1814.

Lincoln in 1861, moron. Are you denying that?

You can't "invade" your own country. This has been explained to you many times, idiot.

 

[Pogo]

There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.

And if pigs had wings they could fly. Every country in the world had slaver [sic] when the USA was born. Why do you imagine we could have avoided it somehow?

Wrong, Fingerfuck. I'll give you an example real close --- the Vermont Republic, which never had slavery.

It joined the USA which did have slavery, douchebag.

Not "when the USA was born", which is exactly what your post says, Fingerfuck.

Hey maybe you can still find some "newly discovered photos" though.

 

[gtopa1]

You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma. ......

Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.

State your degree in English. You don't have one, do you?

I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?

You mean; that gives you some sort of expertise on EVERYTHING like Noam??

Greg

 

[bripat9643]

You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.

You mean you object to people not answering your questions?

Really?

Unkotare didn't know what his own question was. He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.

He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me. Pass

Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things. With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.

He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him. That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.

I thought he said one time that he was a teacher. If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth. I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.

If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.

But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.

He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre

In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.

It was the War of Northern Aggression.

No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.

Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.

Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.

Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.

But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.

Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw

Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com

supreme.findlaw.com

So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.

Government wins, yeah team!

I'm for the people though, and we lost

The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world. When the bad guys won the world lost.

Yeah, Liberty

July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned

July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned - Zinn Education Project

Late night raid on the Charleston post office by a mob of white supremacists and the burning of abolitionist mail.

www.zinnedproject.org

That was 185 years ago, moron.

Reading that story made you pine for the good old days. Bet you would have had a torch in each hands.

You're just another SJW A-hole. Baseless smears are all you have.

 

[bripat9643]

......and started a war....

The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.

Who invaded Virginia?

The British, in 1814.

Lincoln in 1861, moron. Are you denying that?

You can't "invade" your own country. This has been explained to you many times, idiot.

It wasn't country.

Do the continents move?

 

[bripat9643]

There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.

And if pigs had wings they could fly. Every country in the world had slaver [sic] when the USA was born. Why do you imagine we could have avoided it somehow?

Wrong, Fingerfuck. I'll give you an example real close --- the Vermont Republic, which never had slavery.

It joined the USA which did have slavery, douchebag.

Not "when the USA was born", which is exactly what your post says, Fingerfuck.

Hey maybe you can still find some "newly discovered photos" though.

Yes, the USA did have slavery when it was born, you NAZI asshole.

Note: Wikipedia says the Vermont Republic existed "without diplomatic recognition from any foreign power." Unkotare says that means it wasn't a country.

 

[Unkotare]

You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma. ......

Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.

State your degree in English. You don't have one, do you?

I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?

You mean; that gives you some sort of expertise on EVERYTHING ...

Certainly not.

 

[there4eyeM]

......and started a war....

The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.

Who invaded Virginia?

The English.

Lincoln did

So far, no British officer with the family name of Lincoln has been found in the English invasion force.

 

[schmidlap]

The nation is split on racial and social lines.

The nation aspires to overcome those devisions - as well as ethnic, religious, and gender disparities - by the ongoing resolve to fulfill its founding principle that all men are created equal. Despite resistance, progress has been made. The Democratic Party abandoned its segregationist faction when empowering it no longer served its appeal to voters. Consequently, it attracted a diversity of voters in an increasingly diverse nation as the residue of segregationists absconded.

I presume after Republicans realize that due to demographic changes they have lost any chances forever to ever control any branch of power on the federal level - they will revolt.

I presume that the Republican Party will do as political parties have done in the past to insure survival, adapt by enhancing its representational viability: Reflect the will of the People.

 

[Siberian]

The nation is split on racial and social lines.

The nation aspires to overcome those devisions - as well as ethnic, religious, and gender disparities - by the ongoing resolve to fulfill its founding principle that all men are created equal. Despite resistance, progress has been made. The Democratic Party abandoned its segregationist faction when empowering it no longer served its appeal to voters. Consequently, it attracted a diversity of voters in an increasingly diverse nation as the residue of segregationists absconded.

I presume after Republicans realize that due to demographic changes they have lost any chances forever to ever control any branch of power on the federal level - they will revolt.

I presume that the Republican Party will do as political parties have done in the past to insure survival, adapt by enhancing its representational viability: Reflect the will of the People.

not really, in reality American sociery for the 1st time gets really racially diverse and it leads to Democratic party becoming a party of racial manorities, White liberals and Socialists.
These 3 components are temporarily united until Republican party steps down as a real rival - and it will along with numerous White baby boomers naturally die off.

So, splits will multiply, get bigger and will lead to political divide.

To deny it means to deny diversity of the US and reality

 

[schmidlap]

in reality American sociery for the 1st time gets really racially diverse and it leads to Democratic party becoming a party of racial manorities, White liberals and Socialists.

Democratic representation demands that the nation's diversity be reflected in self-governance.

These 3 components are temporarily united until Republican party steps down as a real rival - and it will along with numerous White baby boomers naturally die off.

The Republican Party will increasingly shift to better represent the nation's diversity. It will not be able to successfully suppress the increasingly diverse vote, and appealing to a broader range of American voters is an existential imperative.

Impeding that inclusivity is an increasingly undesirable, radical faction:

GOP grapples with extremist episodes among its own

GOP grapples with extremist episodes among its own

Some fear that if the conference doesn’t stomp out those political brush fires now, there’s a risk they will spread.

www.politico.com

 

[there4eyeM]

We need a much better situation than the dictatorship of the duopoly.

 

[Siberian]

the split between Republican and Democratic parties become not only ideological, but mostly racial.
the next split will be also Socialist/Capitalist - within Democratic party.

this means compromise can hardly be achieved, it means economic crisis which is gradually growing - will aggrevate all splits.

 

[kaz]

...And yet I am more educated than he is. ......

Well, don't keep it a secret, genius.

This has nothing to do with us personally. You know very well that it's dangerous with the Democrats going into serious fascism to provide any specific information on the internet

In other words, you're full of shit.

In other words, you're not paying attention to what's going on around you

 

[kaz]

.... Just like Christian schools emphasize love of Christianity .....

Not so much.

Christian schools are great at education. I went to them and so did my kids. But if you don't think Christianity is #1 to a Christian then we've found yet another topic you know nothing about.
......

I've taught at Christian schools. Have you?

You went to government schools because you were fired .....

Wrong again. You haven't answered my question.

I reject your premise that having taught in a Christian school makes you an expert in public schools while my and my kids attending them is irrelevant. You really suck at making arguments.

This is why you work for the government and I don't. If I argued like you that everyone needs to STFU unless they have the right degree and that's my argument, I'd be fired like you were when you worked for Christian schools.

Being an expert in my field means I CAN explain my points to people without the right degree, not like you believe it means you can't. That you can't explain your points means you don't really understand them.

The Christian schools, which are accountable to parents, clearly saw you for what you were. Incompetent