Were the Confederates traitors

[Unkotare]

Once South Carolina seceded Sumter went back to S. Carolina.
...

Wrong on many levels.

 

[Unkotare]

No, the South seceded. ...

Nope. That act of treason was never legal or legitimate.

 

[Correll]

Puerto Rico is not a state.

Lawyer talk.

They are AMERICANS, who have the right to vote to leave the country.


Different folks, different rules.

 

[Correll]

Except no one cares about your analogy. It ain't the same slugger.

They were traitors. The people in Puerto Rico are not...
But you can still throw paper towels at them.

It's not an analogy. It's the same thing. Except, it's not history, it's current events.


We wouldn't kill THESE Americans if they vote to leave, but we pretend that if we were in the past, that we would have been happy to fight and die to stop other Americans from leaving.

This shows that the... faux outrage over secession, is bullshit. AND further more shows how and why even the Americans that actualluy were willing to fight and die to stop that secession,


afterwards, didn't have the... faux outrage that the the modern left has indoctrinated this generation of Americans to have about it, becuase of the connection to slavery.


THe opinion that secession was a Right, was a REASONABLE opinion to have, and even the Union soliders who disagreed, were willing to put that disagreement behind them, after teh war, because it was settled.

Today, the... weird long after the fact HATE that so many have about this, has nothing to do with the actual facts of that time, in the context of that time.


This is about pumping up SLAVERY , as some sort of American Original Sin, so that the left can use it, to smear AMERICA as a whole and try to define US as somehow "bad".


**** that shit. It is retarded nonsense.

 

[Correll]

Why not?

They are not a state stupid

Lawyer talk.


You would not kill them by the hundreds of thousands, because you respect their right to leave.

 

[rightwinger]

History tells us that the flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the Union Jack and sadly the American flag. Today's left ignores history because it is easier for the ignorant to blame the Confederacy than share the guilt for slavery.

The reason the US allowed slavery was because the southern states insisted on it.

Same states that formed the Confederacy

 

[rightwinger]

Lawyer talk.


You would not kill them by the hundreds of thousands, because you respect their right to leave.

Wrong again Skippy

Puerto Rico is a territory

They can choose to

Remain a territory
Request statehood
Become independent

A state cannot

 

[rightwinger]

Once South Carolina seceded Sumter went back to S. Carolina.

The movememt of Anderson from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter was the act of war. Plus, anderson destroyed the arms left in Fort Moultrie before he left. All was a threatning move and broke the agreement that no arms or troops are to change till the negotiations are finished.

The South was trying to negotiate. That is what Anderson destroyed, and the North refused to send him back, and instead decided to reinforce him.

The North provoked the War. Which is what they wanted. Made them look like the good guys. Made the South look like the evil people.

Quantrill

Doesn’t work like that
Sumter was US territory not the state of S Carolina
Just like Guantanamo Bay today

Anderson was a US Soldier, we could move him where we want. The arms at Ft Moultrie were US a property and he was right to destroy them to keep them out of the hands of insurrectionists

The South was right to negotiate the return of Ft Sumter. Attacking Sumter provoked a war and led to an ass kicking

 

[Unkotare]

Lawyer talk.
...

Simple truth.

 

[Correll]

Wrong again Skippy

Puerto Rico is a territory

They can choose to

Remain a territory
Request statehood
Become independent

A state cannot

Since you want to play lawyer games where in teh constitution does it say that?

 

[Correll]

Simple truth.

Nope. Simple truth would be to treat both groups of Americans who want to leave the same.

FInding legal loopholes to explain why one group is celebrated and the other is mass murdered, is lawyer talk.


It is also worth remembering that the vast majority of people then and now, are NOT lawyers or legal experts, but actually form political positions based on "Simple truth" and NOT legalities.


So, explaining POLITICAL DECISIONS, because of legal reasons, is generally not true.

 

[Unkotare]

Nope. Simple truth would be to treat both groups of Americans who want to leave the same.
...

Puerto Rico is not a state.

 

[Correll]

Puerto Rico is not a state.

Yeah, we're past that.

Simple truth would be to treat both groups of Americans the same.

 

[Unkotare]

Yeah, we're past that.
...

No we're not. You are still trying to divert away from that key fact.

 

[Correll]

No we're not. You are still trying to divert away from that key fact.

Your raised that point, and I addressed it, ie pointing out that that was lawyer talk, not reality.

Ink on paper doesn't explain political positions or actions.


The reality is that the PEOPLE of this generation are different than the people of hte 1860s.

We are less expansionistic and less ready to wage war over territory.

Thus, the hysterical rage that so many people have towards the secession attempt of the confederacy is not based on the actual secession or the actual facts of the history.


It is based on indoctrination of Anti-Americanism.

 

[Unkotare]

Your raised that point, and I addressed it, ie pointing out that that was lawyer talk, not reality.
...

That's not addressing it; that's avoiding the most pertinent aspect of your hypothetical nonsense.

 

[Unkotare]

...


It is based on indoctrination of Anti-Americanism.

Anti-Americanism is archaic defense of vile traitors of over one hundred years ago.

 

[Correll]

Anti-Americanism is archaic defense of vile traitors of over one hundred years ago.

You are more angry about them, then the generation that actually had to fight them.


That is not reasonable. That is not based on 160 year old history, that is your indoctrination talking.


It was a very reasonable position, that a state would have the right to seceed.

 

[Unkotare]

...


It was a very reasonable position, that a state would have the right to seceed [sic].

It was not. That has long since been resolved.

 

[Correll]

It was not. That has long since been resolved.

You're... confused about my use of the past tense?