The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War

[Rogue 9]

Rogue9 never offers source for his gratuitous assertions. He is simply a Pseudo intellectual with nothing beyond his simple indoctrination to add to the subject.

You are a goddamned liar, Mr. Everett. I have filled this thread with sources aplenty and to spare, including in the very post he was quoting that you responded to; I have to conclude at this point that you simply aren't reading what I post.

 

[James Everett]

whitehall snow, you know nothing.

Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.


All the South had to do was

(1) Keep slavery in the old South

(2) Respect federal property

(3) Follow constitutional, electoral process

Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.

The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.

Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.

JAKESTARKEY,
To address ....
(1) of your comment....When the Southern States seceded, Slavery ended in the U.S. Did it not? Therefore Slavery was kept in the South. No one was forcing Slavery on the Northern States, or Western States, they each had their own choice in the matter.
(2) The South probably should not have fired on Sumter, they should have simply shut off all access to resupply any of them, hence starve them out. The U.S. did NOT own the waters around Sumpter, or the land around any of the forts, therefore to resupply them would have meant the U.S. would have to cross Southern States soil or waters. The legal question is open in my opinion as to whether or not the U.S. could hold legal claim on those forts, once a State exits the union, all agreements to which that State became a member State in it were nullified.
(3) Please explain how the Southern States did NOT follow the constitutional election process. The States have constitutional total control over ballot access, and to this very day restrict such to third party candidates which is exactly what Lincoln was. And NO IT WAS LINCOLN AND THE NORTHERN STATES WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE AS THEY WERE IN REBELLION TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE U.S. CONstitutions TENTH AMENDMENT.

 

[James Everett]

Rogue9 never offers source for his gratuitous assertions. He is simply a Pseudo intellectual with nothing beyond his simple indoctrination to add to the subject.

You are a goddamned liar, Mr. Everett. I have filled this thread with sources aplenty and to spare, including in the very post he was quoting that you responded to; I have to conclude at this point that you simply aren't reading what I post.

The only two sources concerning the legality of secession were easily shot down, one being the Militia act of 1793 wherein I destroyed that poor point, then there was Article IV section three that you THOUGHT was a law forbidding secession, and yet again I destroyed that misunderstanding that you held. Beyond that I have seen NOTHING but gratuitous assertions on your part without sourcing evidence of fact concerning your posts to me. P.S. YOUR deadline is less than 24hrs away. Actually, I find it difficult to read what you post at this point as you have so discredited yourself via your lack of understanding your own U.S. CONstitution, it is akin to reading a third graders thoughts or understanding thereof.

 

[Rotagilla]

Are you blind or just illiterate? But fine, I'll hold your hand.

Very mature rebuttal.

You posted these before and you already have my answer. But since your memory is evidently impaired, I'll answer again.

You can't refute them so you try to play word games...but yes..My memory must be impaired. Very mature rebuttal.

First, you cut off the rest of the Declaration, which goes on to say:

Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Yes. I "cut off" that part..If the citizens of 11 states decide that they want to withdraw that obviously isn't a "light or transient cause"...You purposely try to mischaracterize/demean...as usual.

A Presidential election is quite transient, it's extremely difficult to argue that Lincoln had subjected the Slave Power to a long train of anything before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power didn't show anything even resembling patient sufferance. You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.

More distortion and anti southern revisionist nonsense.

The south didn't attempt to peacefully withdraw because of an election. You aren't fooling anyone with that (public) middle school assessment. Don't you wish it were that simple....

Second, "being inclined and having the power." Clearly, they didn't have the power. QED.

Oh you think it's funny to laugh and gloat over a government that would invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from your union?
Now you see WHY they wanted to get away from people that think like you.

Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?

Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?

Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.

We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?

Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up funny boy...

Third, what do you think that even proves? He said they had no reason to secede for fear that he'd abolish slavery outright if they stayed in the Union, which is true;

Your public school indoctrination is leaking through. You try to condense the causes of war of northern aggression into one simple issue. That won't fly.

The south didn't secede over the election of lincoln or the abolition of slavery...More distortion. I doubt many readers are fooled, though.

he didn't even have the inclination or support to do that for over two years while the war was actively going on! The "lawless invasion" the Republican platform (which he was quoting) condemned was John Brown's raid. (I've always found it notable that John Brown was condemned and hanged, while Preston Brooks was sent new canes from across the South to replace the one he broke beating Senator Sumner and was unanimously reelected by his constituents. Interesting, isn't it?) What he did not say was that their property, peace, and personal security wouldn't be endangered by starting a war with the United States.

..and down the rabbit hole you go again with john brown..preston brooks...sumner.....Anything to cause a distraction seems to be your tactic...I'm not chasing you as you dodge and try to evade...You've made your anti southern, anti democracy and anti freedom position clear.

You think you have all the snappy answers when you get to frame the topic and redefine the terms used.

Let's see you wiggle out of this...Yes..I posted it before...several times...and you continue to ignore it as you try to ignore the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

Let me see you play word games and redefine terms here, slick;

We can go sentence by sentence or word by word...whichever you like.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

A. Lincoln
in Congress 1848

 

[Ravi]

...
....

I so tire of repeating myself.

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

One of your gems from that thread:

...
The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact..

lol.


Then the one where you went on to say how the "south didn't want to Import anymore" slaves in 1860...
That was a real knee slapper.

Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."

Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.

Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
All good. It'll get sorted one day.

This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.

Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.

 

[Rotagilla]

JAKESTARKEY,
To address ....
(1) of your comment....When the Southern States seceded, Slavery ended in the U.S. Did it not? Therefore Slavery was kept in the South. No one was forcing Slavery on the Northern States, or Western States, they each had their own choice in the matter.
(2) The South probably should not have fired on Sumter, they should have simply shut off all access to resupply any of them, hence starve them out. The U.S. did NOT own the waters around Sumpter, or the land around any of the forts, therefore to resupply them would have meant the U.S. would have to cross Southern States soil or waters. The legal question is open in my opinion as to whether or not the U.S. could hold legal claim on those forts, once a State exits the union, all agreements to which that State became a member State in it were nullified.
(3) Please explain how the Southern States did NOT follow the constitutional election process. The States have constitutional total control over ballot access, and to this very day restrict such to third party candidates which is exactly what Lincoln was. And NO IT WAS LINCOLN AND THE NORTHERN STATES WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE AS THEY WERE IN REBELLION TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE U.S. CONstitutions TENTH AMENDMENT.

Mr. Everett,
It has been my understanding that the south offered to pay for all federal installation on our property and safely evacuate any troops that were there.


Even revisionist wikipedia can't deny those facts;
Battle of Fort Sumter - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The South sent delegations to Washington, D.C., and offered to pay for the Federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with the Confederate agents because he did not consider the Confederacy a legitimate nation and making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government. However, Secretary of State William H. Seward, who wished to give up Sumter for political reasons—as a gesture of good will—engaged in unauthorized and indirect negotiations that failed.[21]

We already know that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney thought secession was legal and the union had no right to invade...

...but no..lincoln had to have his war...
Oh well...Next time.

 

[Rotagilla]

...
....

I so tire of repeating myself.

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

One of your gems from that thread:

...
The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact..

lol.


Then the one where you went on to say how the "south didn't want to Import anymore" slaves in 1860...
That was a real knee slapper.

Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."

Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.

Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
All good. It'll get sorted one day.

This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.

Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.

Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.

Let me try to understand;

Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?

 

[Ravi]

...
....

I so tire of repeating myself.

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

One of your gems from that thread:

...
The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact..

lol.


Then the one where you went on to say how the "south didn't want to Import anymore" slaves in 1860...
That was a real knee slapper.

Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."

Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.

Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
All good. It'll get sorted one day.

This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.

Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.

Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.

Let me try to understand;

Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?

Farm animals, how charming.

No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.

 

[Rotagilla]

...
....

I so tire of repeating myself.

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

One of your gems from that thread:

...
The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact..

lol.


Then the one where you went on to say how the "south didn't want to Import anymore" slaves in 1860...
That was a real knee slapper.

Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."

Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.

Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
All good. It'll get sorted one day.

This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.

Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.

Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.

Let me try to understand;

Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?

Farm animals, how charming.

What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
Take your time.

No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.

Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play


Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.

 

[Ravi]

I so tire of repeating myself.

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why Did The South Secede Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

One of your gems from that thread:lol.


Then the one where you went on to say how the "south didn't want to Import anymore" slaves in 1860...
That was a real knee slapper.

Or how that rip roarin' 1850 cotton harvester you plucked from wiki was makin' slavery "a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time."

Anyone want to read a Rigatoni-flavored White supremacist make a fool of himself, that thread is quite the funz.

Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
All good. It'll get sorted one day.

This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.

Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.

Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.

Let me try to understand;

Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?

Farm animals, how charming.

What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
Take your time.

No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.

Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play


Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.

I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.

 

[Rotagilla]

Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
All good. It'll get sorted one day.

This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.

Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.

Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.

Let me try to understand;

Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?

Farm animals, how charming.

What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
Take your time.

No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.

Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play


Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.

I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.

ravi...is it your position that if not for the war of northern aggression there would still be slavery in america?

 

[Ravi]

This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.

Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.

Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.

Let me try to understand;

Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?

Farm animals, how charming.

What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
Take your time.

No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.

Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play


Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.

I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.

ravi...is it your position that if not for the war of northern aggression there would still be slavery in america?

No, since it was always unconstitutional. But it would have lasted another 50 to 100 years.

You lost, get over it.

 

[Rotagilla]

Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.

Let me try to understand;

Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?

Farm animals, how charming.

What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
Take your time.

No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.

Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play


Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.

I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.

ravi...is it your position that if not for the war of northern aggression there would still be slavery in america?

No, since it was always unconstitutional.

slavery was not "always" unconstitutional.

But it would have lasted another 50 to 100 years.

in your opinion.

You lost, get over it.

america lost.

 

[Ravi]

It was always unconstitutional.

America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?

 

[Rotagilla]

It was always unconstitutional.

Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
Your opinion doesn't matter here.

America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?

america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the union.

Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?

Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?

Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.

We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?

Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...

 

[James Everett]

Slavery was a dying practice. Southerners knew it. The leaders of the south knew it.
Machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than humans..
...but you aren't here to have a mature discussion about facts, are you?..you prefer to preen and pose and mock as you display your anti southern bias.
All good. It'll get sorted one day.

This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.

Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.

Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.

Let me try to understand;

Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?

Farm animals, how charming.

What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
Take your time.

No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.

Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play


Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.

I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.

Where did this RAVI idiot come from? So you believe that the Northern people are capable of moving forward from Slavery, yet the Southern People would never move beyond? THANK YOU SIR!!! This is the type of bigotry that I always enjoy presenting to our people, so that they may see how the Yankee feels about them. It always helps to further our restoration cause. You Yankees are such moral minded people that you moved beyond your rape murder and extermination of the Native American indian by the time your work there was done, around, lets see what year was that???? Perhaps 1910 or so? Then we have your Yankee government finally moving beyond its CDC Tuskegee syphilis experiments on our Black Brothers in Alabama in 1972, and in 1992 Your President Clinton admitted it was a racist experiment and made apologies for it, We're Still waiting for the apology on the U.S. Governments master Race program called Eugenics. There were no Jim Crow laws in the Northern States???? No Sundown towns???? But thats OK, we are an evil people and you Yankees have NO BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. We would surely be keeping the Black Man enslaved simply for sport, right???? What a bigoted lil fool you are, but again thanks, I will be using you as an example to help our people see that we are NOT compatible. And talk about a long train of abuses.....

 

[James Everett]

It was always unconstitutional.

America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?

Idiot! The people lost their rights under common law, their federal system of government, their union of States.

 

[Rotagilla]

This is oft repeated bullshit. There would always be more jobs to force slaves to do.

Not to mention that slavery is wrong and every day it lasted compounded that wrong.

Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.

Let me try to understand;

Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?

Farm animals, how charming.

What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
Take your time.

No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.

Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play


Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.

I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.

Where did this RAVI idiot come from? So you believe that the Northern people are capable of moving forward from Slavery, yet the Southern People would never move beyond? THANK YOU SIR!!! This is the type of bigotry that I always enjoy presenting to our people, so that they may see how the Yankee feels about them. It always helps to further our restoration cause. You Yankees are such moral minded people that you moved beyond your rape murder and extermination of the Native American indian by the time your work there was done, around, lets see what year was that???? Perhaps 1910 or so? Then we have your Yankee government finally moving beyond its CDC Tuskegee syphilis experiments on our Black Brothers in Alabama in 1972, and in 1992 Your President Clinton admitted it was a racist experiment and made apologies for it, We're Still waiting for the apology on the U.S. Governments master Race program called Eugenics. There were no Jim Crow laws in the Northern States???? No Sundown towns???? But thats OK, we are an evil people and you Yankees have NO BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. We would surely be keeping the Black Man enslaved simply for sport, right???? What a bigoted lil fool you are, but again thanks, I will be using you as an example to help our people see that we are NOT compatible. And talk about a long train of abuses.....

ravi is just another hyperpartisan, anti southern agitator with bumper sticker slogans and shallow thought processes.
Not worth seriously engaging..you'll just waste your time.she'll try to run you in circles... she isn't here for mature discussion.

 

[Ravi]

It was always unconstitutional.

Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
Your opinion doesn't matter here.

America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?

america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the union.

Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?

Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?

Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.

We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?

Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Rotagilla]

It was always unconstitutional.

Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
Your opinion doesn't matter here.

America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?

america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the union.

Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?

Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?

Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.

We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?

Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
Corrections will be made.