On Preservation of the Union at Any Cost

[Dead Duck]

I read the article and I'm not sure that it's correct.

You should probably clarify it with someone that was there.
Let me go ask my mom.....

 

[Dead Duck]

I talked to my mom because she was in the civil war.
She wanted me to ask you, "Why do you Hate Israel?"














Educate yourself before you start reading and spewing from Anti-American websites.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference".

Reinhold Niebuhr

and the ability to remember where I buried the bodies of those who I just HAD to kill today because they pissed me off...




Somebody Else's Variation on a Theme

 

[spencer rifle]

"But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure." - Andrew Jackson

"In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy [here referring to the existing Union] is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish." - James Buchanan, not exactly an enemy of secession

 

[wadcutter]

Your side lost. Let it go. Slavery is over. You have no right to a beautiful ownership of a human being.

Mr. Freeman:

Please provide a reference to any correspondence from Abraham Lincoln to Jefferson Davis assuring the Confederate States of America that they would permanently be free from all interference or intrusion by the North if the CSA were immediately to abolish slavery.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Please provide a reference to any correspondence from Abraham Lincoln to Jefferson Davis assuring the Confederate States of America that they would permanently be free from all interference or intrusion by the North if the CSA were immediately to abolish slavery.

What? The South left and fought a war for White Supremacy.

The South was quite open about why they committed Treason. It was the cornerstone of their reason for being.

But since you asked, here you go: Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason for the Confederacy was to defend slavery. The excuse making only transpired after the war.

The Neo-Confederates want to hide behind the White Supremacist mindset of CSA founders and speak of drivel that the Confederacy did not intend.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

P.S. -- historical evidence seems to indicate also that the Civil War was not about Slavery for most people.

Absolutely incorrect.

The South said it loud and proud, they went to war to defend slavery. No other reason.

 

[wadcutter]

What? The South left and fought a war for White Supremacy.

The South was quite open about why they committed Treason. It was the cornerstone of their reason for being.

But since you asked, here you go: Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason for the Confederacy was to defend slavery. The excuse making only transpired after the war.

The Neo-Confederates want to hide behind the White Supremacist mindset of CSA founders and speak of drivel that the Confederacy did not intend.

Mr. Freeman:

Please stay on topic. In support of your claim that the North fought the CSA to liberate slaves, you were demanded to provide "a reference to any correspondence from Abraham Lincoln to Jefferson Davis assuring the Confederate States of America that they would permanently be free from all interference or intrusion by the North if the CSA were immediately to abolish slavery."

As we all know, the "Cornerstone Speech" was not written by Lincoln for delivery to Davis.

Please provide the requested reference.

 

[halfmileharry]

"History is the lie commonly agreed upon." -Voltaire

History is most always written by the victors.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In support of your claim that the North fought the CSA to liberate slaves,

There is no such claim on the table. The South fought the United States of America to preserve slavery.

Slavery was everything to the South. It was the 3/5ths compromise, it was the Missouri Compromise, it was 1850, it was the reason Southerners wrote books predicting a war with the North over slavery, slavery was the Fugitive Slave Act, slavery was Dred Scot, slavery was the reason Southerners stages coups in other nations so they could enslave Central America, slavery was the reason behind the CSA.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In support of your claim that the North fought the CSA to liberate slaves,

Please cite what you construe as my "claim that the North fought the CSA to liberate slaves".

You cannot do it because it is ahistorical.

Neo-Confederates always attack Lincoln but it is their side that went to war for slavery and White Supremacy.

 

[Libertarian01]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Santayana

Those who wallow in past defeats and have broadband are trolls- Houghmade

Those who cannot remember last night had a damn good time! - Doug

PS - I can play too!

 

[wadcutter]

There is no such claim on the table. The South fought the United States of America to preserve slavery.

Slavery was everything to the South. It was the 3/5ths compromise, it was the Missouri Compromise, it was 1850, it was the reason Southerners wrote books predicting a war with the North over slavery, slavery was the Fugitive Slave Act, slavery was Dred Scot, slavery was the reason Southerners stages coups in other nations so they could enslave Central America, slavery was the reason behind the CSA.

Mr. Freeman:

I really must insist on a legitimate response.

As it appears you have great reluctance to answer the question directly, I'll ask it differently.

Isn't it true that Abraham Lincoln never sent Jefferson Davis correspondence of any sort assuring the Confederate States of America that they would permanently be free from all interference or intrusion by the North if the CSA were immediately to abolish slavery?

 

[wadcutter]

Please cite what you construe as my "claim that the North fought the CSA to liberate slaves".

You cannot do it because it is ahistorical.

Neo-Confederates always attack Lincoln but it is their side that went to war for slavery and White Supremacy.

Mr. Freeman:

Is secession an act of war?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Isn't it true that Abraham Lincoln never sent Jefferson Davis correspondence of any sort assuring the Confederate States of America that they would permanently be free from all interference or intrusion by the North if the CSA were immediately to abolish slavery?

That was absolutely nothing to do with the motivations of the South. The South was driven by their love of slavery.

Those that defend the South, defend the cornerstone of the Confederate Sates of America, slavery and White Supremacy.

Is secession an act of war?

Declaring war on the United States of America is an act of Treason. You do that by firing on United States property.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I really must insist on a legitimate response.

Again, show me where I have argued anything about the motives of the North.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

[wadcutter]

That was absolutely nothing to do with the motivations of the South. The South was driven by their love of slavery.

Those that defend the South, defend the cornerstone of the Confederate Sates of America, slavery and White Supremacy.



Declaring war on the United States of America is an act of Treason. You do that by firing on United States property.

Mr. Freeman:

This is the fourth time the question has been put to you.

Please, Sir, an answer.

Isn't it true that Abraham Lincoln never sent Jefferson Davis correspondence of any sort assuring the Confederate States of America that they would permanently be free from all interference or intrusion by the North if the CSA were immediately to abolish slavery?

 

[wadcutter]

That was absolutely nothing to do with the motivations of the South. The South was driven by their love of slavery.

Those that defend the South, defend the cornerstone of the Confederate Sates of America, slavery and White Supremacy.



Declaring war on the United States of America is an act of Treason. You do that by firing on United States property.

Mr. Freeman:

The question was "Is secession an act of war?"

The question was not "Is secession coupled with force an act of war."

I'll ask the question, again, explicitly devoid of all context.

Is secession an act of war?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

his is the fourth time the question has been put to you.

And yet again, I ask you where did I make any statement about the motivations of the North.

I still await your answer.

Is secession an act of war?

I have answered that.

 

[wadcutter]

And yet again, I ask you where did I make any statement about the motivations of the North.

I still await your answer.

Mr. Freeman:

With all due respect, Sir, you appear to be trying to evade the question.

For the fifth time.

Isn't it true that Abraham Lincoln never sent Jefferson Davis correspondence of any sort assuring the Confederate States of America that they would permanently be free from all interference or intrusion by the North if the CSA were immediately to abolish slavery?

I have answered that.

Then I apologize for not being able to understand your response. Would you kindly rephrase your answer in more accessible terms?

The question is, devoid of any context, is secession an act of war?