War Of Northern Aggression

[BlindBoo]

Forgive me but what racist and historically inaccurate comments did he make?

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

That is racist now?

Did I miss where the dictionary changed the definition of the word?

I concede that it is not racist, however it's certainly not historically accurate.

 

[g5000]

Most historians are Lincoln sycophants on the government payroll. They get paid to say that the federal government is justified in invading sovereign states.

LOL... Pretty sure that Fort Sumter was a federal installation continuously occupied by federal troops prior to the secession of South Carolina, thus technically not an "invasion".

Wrong, dipstick. The minute SC seceded, the federal government was occupying sovereign foreign territory. The federal government has been "occupying" Subic Bay in the Philippines since WW II. Does that make it U.S, territory?

US federal property is US federal property.

And we withdrew from Subic Bay over 20 years ago.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

Let's see...who fired on who first?

That doesn't determine who started the war. You're allowed to fire on foreign invaders who are occupying your territory.

It is the United States of America, One Nation, Indivisable. Was then, is now. All of the flap-yap was settled at Appamotox Court House.

 

[BlindBoo]

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

The South started it by seceding and occupying Federal Forts after the election of 1860 but before Lincoln's inauguration. Then after the inauguration South Carolina attacked Federal troops in Ft. Sumter.

Secession isn't an act of war. Forts within the boundaries of South Carolina were not federal territory. They were Carolina territory. The federal government committed an act of war when it declined to evacuate them when asked to do so.

This stupid argument has been posted in the forum at least 1000 times and has been shot down every time. But, hey, what else can the Lincoln sycophants use to justify blatant acts of war committed by their savior?

Where in the Constitution does it provide for States to leave the Union again?

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL... Pretty sure that Fort Sumter was a federal installation continuously occupied by federal troops prior to the secession of South Carolina, thus technically not an "invasion".

Wrong, dipstick. The minute SC seceded, the federal government was occupying sovereign foreign territory. The federal government has been "occupying" Subic Bay in the Philippines since WW II. Does that make it U.S, territory?

US federal property is US federal property.

And we withdrew from Subic Bay over 20 years ago.

Come on now, don't confuse Pattycake with facts

 

[Pete7469]

Most historians are Lincoln sycophants on the government payroll. They get paid to say that the federal government is justified in invading sovereign states.

LOL... Pretty sure that Fort Sumter was a federal installation continuously occupied by federal troops prior to the secession of South Carolina, thus technically not an "invasion".

Wrong, dipstick. The minute SC seceded, the federal government was occupying sovereign foreign territory. The federal government has been "occupying" Subic Bay in the Philippines since WW II. Does that make it U.S, territory?

Actually we shut down Subic Bay in 1992, but we're occupying places all over the world where the locals would prefer we didn't.

Funny though...

A lot of filipinoes want us back now.

 

[Old Rocks]

Most historians are Lincoln sycophants on the government payroll. They get paid to say that the federal government is justified in invading sovereign states.

LOL... Pretty sure that Fort Sumter was a federal installation continuously occupied by federal troops prior to the secession of South Carolina, thus technically not an "invasion".

Wrong, dipstick. The minute SC seceded, the federal government was occupying sovereign foreign territory. The federal government has been "occupying" Subic Bay in the Philippines since WW II. Does that make it U.S, territory?

Silly ass. You couldn't secede then, you cannot now. And even if there were enough dingleberries like you to try it at present, you would just get your silly asses kicked again.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Most historians are Lincoln sycophants on the government payroll. They get paid to say that the federal government is justified in invading sovereign states.

LOL... Pretty sure that Fort Sumter was a federal installation continuously occupied by federal troops prior to the secession of South Carolina, thus technically not an "invasion".

Wrong, dipstick. The minute SC seceded, the federal government was occupying sovereign foreign territory. The federal government has been "occupying" Subic Bay in the Philippines since WW II. Does that make it U.S, territory?

Still negates your claim that they "invaded" as opposed to merely occupying same... one is aggressive while the other is merely passive. Did South Carolina pay the federal government for the facility? It was owned by the US government. Perhaps the Confederates were trying to steal it and the US was merely employing the Castle Doctrine of self defense?

 

[BobPlumb]

Most historians agree that the start of the Civil War can be traced to April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., when Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.

Most historians are Lincoln sycophants on the government payroll. They get paid to say that the federal government is justified in invading sovereign states.

There is no provision for individual States to secede from the union. The people of the South have been paying for the mistake made by the Southern Elite ever since. Hell their way of life might have been preserved until the 20th century if they hadn't been so stupid.

Is there a provision in the constitution preventing states from seceding? Doesn't the constitution enumerate the powers given to the federal government with all other powers going to the states and the people?

I'm not supporting slavery, so don't go there. But why shouldn't a state have a right to secede if a super majority of its citizens vote to do so.

 

[bripat9643]

Most historians agree that the start of the Civil War can be traced to April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., when Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.

Most historians are Lincoln sycophants on the government payroll. They get paid to say that the federal government is justified in invading sovereign states.

LOL... Pretty sure that Fort Sumter was a federal installation continuously occupied by federal troops prior to the secession of South Carolina, thus technically not an "invasion".

Why can't you numskulls get it through your thick heads the Ft Sumter was within the boundaries of South Carolina?

Don't answer that, I already know the reason: any facts that intrude on your delusions are automatically ignored and filtered out.

 

[bripat9643]

Most historians agree that the start of the Civil War can be traced to April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., when Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.

Most historians are Lincoln sycophants on the government payroll. They get paid to say that the federal government is justified in invading sovereign states.

LOL... Pretty sure that Fort Sumter was a federal installation continuously occupied by federal troops prior to the secession of South Carolina, thus technically not an "invasion".

I'm pretty sure that you're an idiot who ignores the facts and believes what you find convenient to believe.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL... Pretty sure that Fort Sumter was a federal installation continuously occupied by federal troops prior to the secession of South Carolina, thus technically not an "invasion".

Wrong, dipstick. The minute SC seceded, the federal government was occupying sovereign foreign territory. The federal government has been "occupying" Subic Bay in the Philippines since WW II. Does that make it U.S, territory?

Still negates your claim that they "invaded" as opposed to merely occupying same... one is aggressive while the other is merely passive. Did South Carolina pay the federal government for the facility? It was owned by the US government. Perhaps the Confederates were trying to steal it and the US was merely employing the Castle Doctrine of self defense?

ROFL! More stupidities. The bottom line is that it was SC territory. If SC asks the Union government to get the hell out, then international law requires it to get the hell out. Failure to leave is an act of war. We currently have a base in Saudi Arabia. If they asked us to leave and refused, do you imagine they would fail to fire one it? Would anyone claim Saudi started a war if they did?

Mindlessly repeating that it was the "property" of the federal government only shows you're a numskull who doesn't understand the issue.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL... Pretty sure that Fort Sumter was a federal installation continuously occupied by federal troops prior to the secession of South Carolina, thus technically not an "invasion".

Wrong, dipstick. The minute SC seceded, the federal government was occupying sovereign foreign territory. The federal government has been "occupying" Subic Bay in the Philippines since WW II. Does that make it U.S, territory?

Silly ass. You couldn't secede then, you cannot now. And even if there were enough dingleberries like you to try it at present, you would just get your silly asses kicked again.

The Lincoln sycophants have never managed to show the language in the Constitution that prevents a state from seceding. All such claims are pure horse squeeze.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL... Pretty sure that Fort Sumter was a federal installation continuously occupied by federal troops prior to the secession of South Carolina, thus technically not an "invasion".

Wrong, dipstick. The minute SC seceded, the federal government was occupying sovereign foreign territory. The federal government has been "occupying" Subic Bay in the Philippines since WW II. Does that make it U.S, territory?

Actually we shut down Subic Bay in 1992, but we're occupying places all over the world where the locals would prefer we didn't.

Funny though...

A lot of filipinoes want us back now.

Yep, we shut it down because the government of the Philippines asked us to get the hell out.

 

[bripat9643]

The South started it by seceding and occupying Federal Forts after the election of 1860 but before Lincoln's inauguration. Then after the inauguration South Carolina attacked Federal troops in Ft. Sumter.

Secession isn't an act of war. Forts within the boundaries of South Carolina were not federal territory. They were Carolina territory. The federal government committed an act of war when it declined to evacuate them when asked to do so.

This stupid argument has been posted in the forum at least 1000 times and has been shot down every time. But, hey, what else can the Lincoln sycophants use to justify blatant acts of war committed by their savior?

Where in the Constitution does it provide for States to leave the Union again?

Where does it prevent that?

 

[bripat9643]

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

That is racist now?

Did I miss where the dictionary changed the definition of the word?

I concede that it is not racist, however it's certainly not historically accurate.

It actually is historically accurate.

 

[Sunshine]

.
A couple of months ago the new president of the NRA got Southern racists all riled up by calling the Civil War "The War Of Northern Aggression" etc. Now, the Lincoln Memorial has been vandalized, we don't yet know who the vandals are or if there is a connection to the President of the NRA's racist and historically inaccurate comments and the Lincoln Memorial vandals but...

New NRA President Calls Civil War 'Northern Aggression' - YouTube
​

And then-----and then this nutball called President Obama "the fake President"...

.

What a goddamned race baiter you are!

You are a little behind the times. I'm 65 and have heard it called The War of Northern Aggression my entire life. In fact I call it The War of Northern Aggression, and have my entire life. I have even posted that on this forum. And you might do a little research on how blacks feel about Lincoln. He is NOT their hero by any stretch. So stop your stupid race baiting. It could have been anyone who defaced that monument. Most likely a bunch of kids high on something.


And FYI: Lincoln didn't free the northern slaves. He only freed the southern slaves.

 

[Pete7469]

.
A couple of months ago the new president of the NRA got Southern racists all riled up by calling the Civil War "The War Of Northern Aggression" etc. Now, the Lincoln Memorial has been vandalized, we don't yet know who the vandals are or if there is a connection to the President of the NRA's racist and historically inaccurate comments and the Lincoln Memorial vandals but...

New NRA President Calls Civil War 'Northern Aggression' - YouTube
​

And then-----and then this nutball called President Obama "the fake President"...

.

What a goddamned race baiter you are!

You are a little behind the times. I'm 65 and have heard it called The War of Northern Aggression my entire life. In fact I call it The War of Northern Aggression, and have my entire life. I have even posted that on this forum. And you might do a little research on how blacks feel about Lincoln. He is NOT their hero by any stretch. So stop your stupid race baiting. It could have been anyone who defaced that monument. Most likely a bunch of kids high on something.


And FYI: Lincoln didn't free the northern slaves. He only freed the southern slaves.

And LBJ RE-ENSLAVED a lot of their decendents. There's just no work requirement.

 

[bripat9643]

.
A couple of months ago the new president of the NRA got Southern racists all riled up by calling the Civil War "The War Of Northern Aggression" etc. Now, the Lincoln Memorial has been vandalized, we don't yet know who the vandals are or if there is a connection to the President of the NRA's racist and historically inaccurate comments and the Lincoln Memorial vandals but...

New NRA President Calls Civil War 'Northern Aggression' - YouTube
​

And then-----and then this nutball called President Obama "the fake President"...

.

What a goddamned race baiter you are!

You are a little behind the times. I'm 65 and have heard it called The War of Northern Aggression my entire life. In fact I call it The War of Northern Aggression, and have my entire life. I have even posted that on this forum. And you might do a little research on how blacks feel about Lincoln. He is NOT their hero by any stretch. So stop your stupid race baiting. It could have been anyone who defaced that monument. Most likely a bunch of kids high on something.


And FYI: Lincoln didn't free the northern slaves. He only freed the southern slaves.

Actually, he didn't free a single slave. The Emancipation Proclamation applied only in territory held by the Confederates. In other words, it applied where the federal government had no jurisdiction. It was purely a political maneuver.

 

[Mr Natural]

The South.

The only people to fight a war to prove they were better than the slaves and lose.