The Flag of Treason

[DukeU]

It wasn't an act of war, nimrod. Ft Sumter was SC territory. Firing on your own territory is not an act of war, period.

Title had passed to the US government.

"Title" means it's just a piece of property. Walmart is not a separate country. It's part of the state where I live. It has the same exact kind of "title" to the property it sits on as the federal government had with respect to Ft Sumter. It's part of South Carolina. Of course you will idiotically continue to post this already debunked claim because otherwise you will have to admit that the federal government made war on the State of South Carolina.

Actually RETARD the US Government is different then the State and while it may allow some state laws to be enforced reserves the right to make it that FEDERAL law applies to that property, go ahead and go to a US Base and READ the sign posted before you enter.

Wrong, turd, the federal government cannot treat the property of Ft Sumter differnt than it can treat the property of any other state. The federal government cannot just nullify state laws.

Your claim is 100% bullshit.

LOL a State has NO authority on Federal land EXCEPT what the Federal Government cedes to it. Try this dumb ass if a Military member commits a crime on federal property Federal NOT state authorities have jurisdiction and a Military Court determines the punishment.

That was a Federal claim at the time and one of the things that was thought to be a violation of States' rights. After secession the CSA was the federal government of SC.

Wrong the Constitution is clear the President and Congress CAN declare martial law and order troops to put down insurrection. If as you claim anyone at any time can simply declare they are no longer part of the US then there would be NO such clause as it would be meaningless.

Secession is not insurrection.

Nothing in the Constitution says that states cannot secede from the Union.

That ass whooping said you couldnt secede. Give it a rest. The south will never rise again.

Maybe so but you took a very serious ass-whooping of your own to make it stick.

if you havent found something worth dying to gain then you havent lived. My ancestors killed up some racist honkys so I could be free.

If you are black it is much more likely that it was my white ancestors who did that deed. Somehow you don't seem all that grateful.

Your white ancestors didnt fight to free me. They fought to keep the union together and make sure the south didnt start enslaving other whites.

Your black ancestors didn't fight to free you either, moron.

Of course they did. They killed a bunch of honkys to make sure I wouldnt have to be born a slave.

Where you born? I bet you were not born in a southern state. In fact I don't think you're from the United States of America. I'll bet Toronto is where you live.

I was born in Oakland. My mom was born in Mississippi. I didnt ask what you bet or where you think I'm from. None of that is relevant to the point that my ancestors killed a bunch of honkys to make sure I was born free.

"Honky's"? Who are you, Fred Sanford?

George Jefferson.

 

[Asclepias]

My bad. It was a SCOTUS decision. 1812

???

What decision?

It was completely unclear until the war. It was not legally cleared up until Texas v. White.

SCOTUS decision based on New Englands flirtation with secession in 1812.

Can you give me a cite, or even a name?

Hartford Convention | Federalist Party, Secession, New England

Hartford Convention, (December 15, 1814–January 5, 1815), in U.S. history, a secret meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, of Federalist delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont who were dissatisfied with Pres. James Madison’s mercantile policies and the

www.britannica.com

A secret meeting is not a SCOTUS decision. I don't get what you are trying to show me.

The issue of whether secession was legal was still debatable all the way up to the end of the war, and legally not clarified until 1869.

Unless you have something else, there was no absolute duty to remain in the Union and nothing binding about it.

Just saying the idea came from that instance that later led to the court decision in 1869.

 

[Nostra]

To me Confederate flags honor family members who died honorably fighting bravely for a good cause.

Fighting against the United States of America and in support of maintaining slavery is a good cause?

The simple fact is that the South wanted to self govern. You can argue the reason they wanted to self govern until the cows come home, it really doesn't matter. They no longer recognized the authority of Washington DC just as the USA no longer recognized the authority of the Crown 80 years prior.

To state their cause was "wrong" is to state our cause was wrong in 1776, because they only difference is the USA won it's war for independence.

They were wrong, the reason they left was because of a perceived threat to Slavery when in fact they had as much clout in the Congress as they did BEFORE lincoln was elected and a President alone could not change the Constitution nor state laws. They were worried that 20 years down the line Free States would out number the slave states enough to effect slavery, and instead of fighting politically to prevent that they instead cut their own throats and ended slavery in 3 years not 20.

*Sigh* Read the post again - the REASON is irrelevant. They wanted independence and they fought for it. Same as we did in 1776. If they were "wrong", so were we.

the REASON is irrelevant.

You all obviously want that to be the case. That's what the lost cause bullshit was meant to do. To change the narrative.
Its not irrelevant. Not at all.
The reason, the self stated reason by the confederate states, is exactly why those monuments and statues are being removed.

Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Apparently the negros didn't.

Sure they did. But the vast majority of them chose not to fight for it.

But you didn't answer the question: Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Sure they did. But the vast majority of them chose not to fight for it.

Liar.
Your revisionist bullshit isn't gonna fly.

The war, for the confederacy was first and foremost about the preservation of their perceived racial superiority, slavery and the economic advanges thereof. As always, don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

There is nothing else. The fact that the average rube, not unlike yourself, never understood that is irrelevant to the fact that they were indeed fighting toward those ends.

Which of those self stated principles of the confederacy, racial superiority, slavery or the economic exploitation of said slaves through forced labor, deserve continued veneration in American society today?

That was their reason for secession. I agree. It's undeniable.

It was NOT the reason for the war, which was to keep the union together.

That was their reason for secession. I agree. It's undeniable.

It was NOT the reason for the war, which was to keep the union together

Derp....
The reason for the confederacy, fool. They weren't fighting to preserve the union. They were fighting to preserve their way of life.
The confederate states threatened civil war for years over the movement toward abolition. They started the war.

The federal were fighting to preserve the union, you fucking moron. No one said the Confederacy was. The were trying to secede.

How much of a dumbass can you be ?

Hey retard. The confederate losers started the war and they seceded.

Wrong. I have already proven they didn't. Lincoln invaded Virginia.

The only thing you've ever proven is that you are retarded. The confederate losers attacked Ft Sumter first on April 12, 1861 and got their asses beat down in the end.

You keep posting "Confederate losers" as if that is gonna upset someone here.

Your game is weak.

You wouldnt have brought up my use of the term confederate losers if it didnt upset you.

Why would you think it upsets me? And why am I not shocked you are too stupid to realize when you are being mocked?

I think it upsets you because you brought it up and no one else even noticed. They were the confederate losers..

Yes, they were. It's odd how you find this to be some sort of revelation. I guess when you take into account how dumb you are, it may be to you.

 

[Asclepias]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

 

[Nostra]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

Fred Sanford.

 

[bripat9643]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

 

[Asclepias]

To me Confederate flags honor family members who died honorably fighting bravely for a good cause.

Fighting against the United States of America and in support of maintaining slavery is a good cause?

The simple fact is that the South wanted to self govern. You can argue the reason they wanted to self govern until the cows come home, it really doesn't matter. They no longer recognized the authority of Washington DC just as the USA no longer recognized the authority of the Crown 80 years prior.

To state their cause was "wrong" is to state our cause was wrong in 1776, because they only difference is the USA won it's war for independence.

They were wrong, the reason they left was because of a perceived threat to Slavery when in fact they had as much clout in the Congress as they did BEFORE lincoln was elected and a President alone could not change the Constitution nor state laws. They were worried that 20 years down the line Free States would out number the slave states enough to effect slavery, and instead of fighting politically to prevent that they instead cut their own throats and ended slavery in 3 years not 20.

*Sigh* Read the post again - the REASON is irrelevant. They wanted independence and they fought for it. Same as we did in 1776. If they were "wrong", so were we.

the REASON is irrelevant.

You all obviously want that to be the case. That's what the lost cause bullshit was meant to do. To change the narrative.
Its not irrelevant. Not at all.
The reason, the self stated reason by the confederate states, is exactly why those monuments and statues are being removed.

Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Apparently the negros didn't.

Sure they did. But the vast majority of them chose not to fight for it.

But you didn't answer the question: Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Sure they did. But the vast majority of them chose not to fight for it.

Liar.
Your revisionist bullshit isn't gonna fly.

The war, for the confederacy was first and foremost about the preservation of their perceived racial superiority, slavery and the economic advanges thereof. As always, don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

There is nothing else. The fact that the average rube, not unlike yourself, never understood that is irrelevant to the fact that they were indeed fighting toward those ends.

Which of those self stated principles of the confederacy, racial superiority, slavery or the economic exploitation of said slaves through forced labor, deserve continued veneration in American society today?

That was their reason for secession. I agree. It's undeniable.

It was NOT the reason for the war, which was to keep the union together.

That was their reason for secession. I agree. It's undeniable.

It was NOT the reason for the war, which was to keep the union together

Derp....
The reason for the confederacy, fool. They weren't fighting to preserve the union. They were fighting to preserve their way of life.
The confederate states threatened civil war for years over the movement toward abolition. They started the war.

The federal were fighting to preserve the union, you fucking moron. No one said the Confederacy was. The were trying to secede.

How much of a dumbass can you be ?

Hey retard. The confederate losers started the war and they seceded.

Wrong. I have already proven they didn't. Lincoln invaded Virginia.

The only thing you've ever proven is that you are retarded. The confederate losers attacked Ft Sumter first on April 12, 1861 and got their asses beat down in the end.

You keep posting "Confederate losers" as if that is gonna upset someone here.

Your game is weak.

You wouldnt have brought up my use of the term confederate losers if it didnt upset you.

Why would you think it upsets me? And why am I not shocked you are too stupid to realize when you are being mocked?

I think it upsets you because you brought it up and no one else even noticed. They were the confederate losers..

Yes, they were. It's odd how you find this to be some sort of revelation. I guess when you take into account how dumb you are, it may be to you.

If you were educated you would know why this is a revelation. See if you respond to something thats not even part of the point then that means you were triggered. Its ok but just know that I know. Confederate losers

 

[Asclepias]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

 

[Nostra]

To me Confederate flags honor family members who died honorably fighting bravely for a good cause.

Fighting against the United States of America and in support of maintaining slavery is a good cause?

The simple fact is that the South wanted to self govern. You can argue the reason they wanted to self govern until the cows come home, it really doesn't matter. They no longer recognized the authority of Washington DC just as the USA no longer recognized the authority of the Crown 80 years prior.

To state their cause was "wrong" is to state our cause was wrong in 1776, because they only difference is the USA won it's war for independence.

They were wrong, the reason they left was because of a perceived threat to Slavery when in fact they had as much clout in the Congress as they did BEFORE lincoln was elected and a President alone could not change the Constitution nor state laws. They were worried that 20 years down the line Free States would out number the slave states enough to effect slavery, and instead of fighting politically to prevent that they instead cut their own throats and ended slavery in 3 years not 20.

*Sigh* Read the post again - the REASON is irrelevant. They wanted independence and they fought for it. Same as we did in 1776. If they were "wrong", so were we.

the REASON is irrelevant.

You all obviously want that to be the case. That's what the lost cause bullshit was meant to do. To change the narrative.
Its not irrelevant. Not at all.
The reason, the self stated reason by the confederate states, is exactly why those monuments and statues are being removed.

Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Apparently the negros didn't.

Sure they did. But the vast majority of them chose not to fight for it.

But you didn't answer the question: Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Sure they did. But the vast majority of them chose not to fight for it.

Liar.
Your revisionist bullshit isn't gonna fly.

The war, for the confederacy was first and foremost about the preservation of their perceived racial superiority, slavery and the economic advanges thereof. As always, don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

There is nothing else. The fact that the average rube, not unlike yourself, never understood that is irrelevant to the fact that they were indeed fighting toward those ends.

Which of those self stated principles of the confederacy, racial superiority, slavery or the economic exploitation of said slaves through forced labor, deserve continued veneration in American society today?

That was their reason for secession. I agree. It's undeniable.

It was NOT the reason for the war, which was to keep the union together.

That was their reason for secession. I agree. It's undeniable.

It was NOT the reason for the war, which was to keep the union together

Derp....
The reason for the confederacy, fool. They weren't fighting to preserve the union. They were fighting to preserve their way of life.
The confederate states threatened civil war for years over the movement toward abolition. They started the war.

The federal were fighting to preserve the union, you fucking moron. No one said the Confederacy was. The were trying to secede.

How much of a dumbass can you be ?

Hey retard. The confederate losers started the war and they seceded.

Wrong. I have already proven they didn't. Lincoln invaded Virginia.

The only thing you've ever proven is that you are retarded. The confederate losers attacked Ft Sumter first on April 12, 1861 and got their asses beat down in the end.

You keep posting "Confederate losers" as if that is gonna upset someone here.

Your game is weak.

You wouldnt have brought up my use of the term confederate losers if it didnt upset you.

Why would you think it upsets me? And why am I not shocked you are too stupid to realize when you are being mocked?

I think it upsets you because you brought it up and no one else even noticed. They were the confederate losers..

Yes, they were. It's odd how you find this to be some sort of revelation. I guess when you take into account how dumb you are, it may be to you.

If you were educated you would know why this is a revelation. See if you respond to something thats not even part of the point then that means you were triggered. Its ok but just know that I know. Confederate losers

Yep. I learned all about the Civil War in grade school. Congrats on finally getting up to speed, Halfwit.

 

[Correll]

To me Confederate flags honor family members who died honorably fighting bravely for a good cause.

Fighting against the United States of America and in support of maintaining slavery is a good cause?

The simple fact is that the South wanted to self govern. You can argue the reason they wanted to self govern until the cows come home, it really doesn't matter. They no longer recognized the authority of Washington DC just as the USA no longer recognized the authority of the Crown 80 years prior.

To state their cause was "wrong" is to state our cause was wrong in 1776, because they only difference is the USA won it's war for independence.

They were wrong, the reason they left was because of a perceived threat to Slavery when in fact they had as much clout in the Congress as they did BEFORE lincoln was elected and a President alone could not change the Constitution nor state laws. They were worried that 20 years down the line Free States would out number the slave states enough to effect slavery, and instead of fighting politically to prevent that they instead cut their own throats and ended slavery in 3 years not 20.

*Sigh* Read the post again - the REASON is irrelevant. They wanted independence and they fought for it. Same as we did in 1776. If they were "wrong", so were we.

the REASON is irrelevant.

You all obviously want that to be the case. That's what the lost cause bullshit was meant to do. To change the narrative.
Its not irrelevant. Not at all.
The reason, the self stated reason by the confederate states, is exactly why those monuments and statues are being removed.

Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Apparently the negros didn't.

Sure they did. But the vast majority of them chose not to fight for it.

But you didn't answer the question: Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Sure they did. But the vast majority of them chose not to fight for it.

Liar.
Your revisionist bullshit isn't gonna fly.

The war, for the confederacy was first and foremost about the preservation of their perceived racial superiority, slavery and the economic advanges thereof. As always, don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

There is nothing else. The fact that the average rube, not unlike yourself, never understood that is irrelevant to the fact that they were indeed fighting toward those ends.

Which of those self stated principles of the confederacy, racial superiority, slavery or the economic exploitation of said slaves through forced labor, deserve continued veneration in American society today?

That was their reason for secession. I agree. It's undeniable.

It was NOT the reason for the war, which was to keep the union together.

That was their reason for secession. I agree. It's undeniable.

It was NOT the reason for the war, which was to keep the union together

Derp....
The reason for the confederacy, fool. They weren't fighting to preserve the union. They were fighting to preserve their way of life.
The confederate states threatened civil war for years over the movement toward abolition. They started the war.

The federal were fighting to preserve the union, you fucking moron. No one said the Confederacy was. The were trying to secede.

How much of a dumbass can you be ?

Hey retard. The confederate losers started the war and they seceded.

Wrong. I have already proven they didn't. Lincoln invaded Virginia.

The only thing you've ever proven is that you are retarded. The confederate losers attacked Ft Sumter first on April 12, 1861 and got their asses beat down in the end.

You keep posting "Confederate losers" as if that is gonna upset someone here.

Your game is weak.

You wouldnt have brought up my use of the term confederate losers if it didnt upset you.

Why would you think it upsets me? And why am I not shocked you are too stupid to realize when you are being mocked?

I think it upsets you because you brought it up and no one else even noticed. They were the confederate losers..

The person using the term repeatedly, is the one that "brought it up".


You are just gaslighting, becasue you are a dishonest, lefty troll.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My bad. It was a SCOTUS decision. 1812

???

What decision?

It was completely unclear until the war. It was not legally cleared up until Texas v. White.

SCOTUS decision based on New Englands flirtation with secession in 1812.

Can you give me a cite, or even a name?

Hartford Convention | Federalist Party, Secession, New England

Hartford Convention, (December 15, 1814–January 5, 1815), in U.S. history, a secret meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, of Federalist delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont who were dissatisfied with Pres. James Madison’s mercantile policies and the

www.britannica.com

A secret meeting is not a SCOTUS decision. I don't get what you are trying to show me.

The issue of whether secession was legal was still debatable all the way up to the end of the war, and legally not clarified until 1869.

Unless you have something else, there was no absolute duty to remain in the Union and nothing binding about it.

Just saying the idea came from that instance that later led to the court decision in 1869.

But, it was still legitimately unclear. Those arguing that secession was legal did so in good faith (not just trying to bullshit their way out). So, it's really hard to call those States "traitors" when their actions were not clearly forbidden and appeared to be voluntary in/voluntary out.

Call them racists. Call them losers. Call them anything under the sun. Just not "traitors" because that is bullshit

 

[Nostra]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

Southern white men got fed up with your racist Dimwinger party.

Next?

 

[Correll]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

As white racism declined in the South, the dems lost their grip. What part of that is confusing to you?

 

[Asclepias]

My bad. It was a SCOTUS decision. 1812

???

What decision?

It was completely unclear until the war. It was not legally cleared up until Texas v. White.

SCOTUS decision based on New Englands flirtation with secession in 1812.

Can you give me a cite, or even a name?

Hartford Convention | Federalist Party, Secession, New England

Hartford Convention, (December 15, 1814–January 5, 1815), in U.S. history, a secret meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, of Federalist delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont who were dissatisfied with Pres. James Madison’s mercantile policies and the

www.britannica.com

A secret meeting is not a SCOTUS decision. I don't get what you are trying to show me.

The issue of whether secession was legal was still debatable all the way up to the end of the war, and legally not clarified until 1869.

Unless you have something else, there was no absolute duty to remain in the Union and nothing binding about it.

Just saying the idea came from that instance that later led to the court decision in 1869.

But, it was still legitimately unclear. Those arguing that secession was legal did so in good faith (not just trying to bullshit their way out). So, it's really hard to call those States "traitors" when their actions were not clearly forbidden and appeared to be voluntary in/voluntary out.

Call them racists. Call them losers. Call them anything under the sun. Just not "traitors" because that is bullshit

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

"

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

"

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

 

[Asclepias]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

As white racism declined in the South, the dems lost their grip. What part of that is confusing to you?

Whats confusing to me is why all the white supremacists voted repub every since the implementation of the southern strategy? However, I'm not really confused especially after I heard what Lee Atwater said.

 

[Correll]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

Yeah, the idea that once you join, you are not allowed to leave?


That is the type of shit you spell out very clearly, if that is your intent.

 

[Asclepias]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

 

[Correll]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

As white racism declined in the South, the dems lost their grip. What part of that is confusing to you?

Whats confusing to me is why all the white supremacist voted repub? However, I'm not really confused especially after I heard what Lee Atwater said.

Except the white supremacists did not all vote repub.


They were mostly the rural poor and they mostly voted their economic interests, ie the party of government handouts, ie the dems.


It was the wealthier suburbs where the GOP made it's inroads.


This has all been well known and documented for years. Are you really this ignorant of this?


Your white lib friends have been lying to you and snickering at you for falling for their stupid lies.

 

[beautress]

Why does our President support the racist, treasonous Confederate Flag?

Why do the Democrats call their flag treasonous one hundred and sixty five years later?