Another confederate statue removed

MASON said:
Nice spin,the treason was succession.
Click to expand...

Succession? What succession?

I believe you mean secession. It is not treason. Every State has the right to disavow it's membership in the Union, and no longer honor or hold itself to the agreements it made in the Constitution of the United States.

Currently, the SOTC has done just that. It is no longer a State of the Union, for it no longer honors the Constitution of the United States, or it's own State constitution. The form of government in the SOTC is fascism by oligarchy.

There are those within the SOTC trying to escape back into the United States, or wish to stay and overthrow this oligarchy and return the State of California to the Union.

The only difference is, the SOTC government never had the balls to formally declare their secession. At least the Southern States did.
 
ZILCHMONGER said:
Well, you know leftist are the elite and therefore succession is now the correct spelling of secession.

BTW, your n-l comment was unnecessary and certainly does not make you a comrade of mine. I have no use for racist or those who support slavery.
Click to expand...

Racism is a fallacy. It is a compositional error fallacy where the class is people and the property is a genetic trait. People in the South weren't fighting to keep slavery. Most didn't even own slaves. There were free men both black and white. There were slaves both black and white. There were slave owners both black and white.

The Southerners were fighting to protect their property and to protect the South from invasion, not to keep slavery or racism.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The southern states wanted their own country and should have been allowed to have it. Yes, they should have been run over and demolished anyway--thank you, General Sherman--but then they should have been left to rebuild on their own, the dumb fucks. They're certainly a drain on the republic now, and actually, they can have the central plains states, too.
Click to expand...

No, they ARE the Union. The only State that has left the Union recently was California. I call it the SOTC now.
 
Into the Night said:
Quite right. It was about a lot of things. Economy, property rights (here Lincoln violated the 4th and 5th amendments, tariffs levied against individual States (violations of equal taxation clauses in the Constitution), and of course the invasion of the Union into the Confederacy (a separate nation at the time).
Click to expand...

Those that call the Confederates traitors clearly don't understand the definition of the term. For someone to be a traitor, they have to go against their own nation. Wanting to peacefully leave isn't traitorous nor is fighting when those that refuse to let you go do so in a way where the only thing you can do is fight back.
 
Into the Night said:
Succession? What succession?

I believe you mean secession. It is not treason. Every State has the right to disavow it's membership in the Union, and no longer honor or hold itself to the agreements it made in the Constitution of the United States.

Currently, the SOTC has done just that. It is no longer a State of the Union, for it no longer honors the Constitution of the United States, or it's own State constitution. The form of government in the SOTC is fascism by oligarchy.

There are those within the SOTC trying to escape back into the United States, or wish to stay and overthrow this oligarchy and return the State of California to the Union.

The only difference is, the SOTC government never had the balls to formally declare their secession. At least the Southern States did.
Click to expand...

The dumbass using the wrong term wants to try and tell people about history.
 
CFM said:
Those that call the Confederates traitors clearly don't understand the definition of the term. For someone to be a traitor, they have to go against their own nation. Wanting to peacefully leave isn't traitorous nor is fighting when those that refuse to let you go do so in a way where the only thing you can do is fight back.
Click to expand...

Hear hear!

For these idiots to call the Confederates traitors and claim loyalty to the United States is to call themselves traitors! The United States itself was formed out of States (then called Colonies) leaving their sovereign government and forming their own, and going their own way, and joining up in a confederacy of their own.

One was successful. The other wasn't.
 
Into the Night said:
Racism is a fallacy. It is a compositional error fallacy where the class is people and the property is a genetic trait. People in the South weren't fighting to keep slavery. Most didn't even own slaves. There were free men both black and white. There were slaves both black and white. There were slave owners both black and white.

The Southerners were fighting to protect their property and to protect the South from invasion, not to keep slavery or racism.
Click to expand...


you are aw moron. The cause of the civil war was slavery. Read the articles of secession and stop using drugs.
 
Into the Night said:
He did. So have I. There are many governmental records and diaries that exist from that period. What you learned in school about the so-called 'Civil War' is wrong.
* It wasn't a civil war. A civil war is two or more factions vying for control of the government. The South wanted to LEAVE, not take over the Union.
* A State has the right to secede from the Union and cease to be a State of the Union. When it does so, it can either become an independent nation on it's own, or join other States in their own constitution (which is what the South did).
* The slave question was certainly prominent, but it was not the reason the the South fought the war. Most southerners didn't own slaves. Some black men owned slaves as well. There were also free black men in the South.
* At the time the United States was founded, quite a few Northerners owned slaves. One by one these States passed laws to end slavery in them. Existing slave owners either freed their slaves, moved to a slave State, or sold their slaves in a slave State. Slavery was already dying out as an institution in the United States (including the slave States).
* Diaries all across the South talk of property rights and State sovereignty, not slaves. Many that wrote in these diaries didn't even own slaves, yet they fought a vicious war to defend the South, and willingly.
* History books don't fuck.
Click to expand...

And I thought "truthie" was entertaining

Seems "nightingale" is again dwelling on semantics attempting to convey his views as authoritative, you could make the case for "civil war," "war between the States," "war of succession," or a half dozen other terms, what difference does it make? You going to tell us next WWII wasn't a world war because every nation in the world wasn't involved in it?

Whether a State has the "right" to succeed is irrelevant, the eleven States that booked might have thought of it that way, but the remaining twenty didn't, some believed it was a right, other's did not, as I said, irrelevant to the total picture of the conflict

And slavery wasn't the main motivator that led the South to leave, I supposed some semblance of States rights was, I'm sure many Southerns weren't quite sure what that meant either, however slavery was the factor behind it, that the belief that the Federal Gov't was going to make those States give up slave labor.

Majority of southerns did not own slaves, but they were manipulated by the power centers that did, who portrayed the conflict as more than just over them maintaining their free labor, the ruse was quickly realized, the Confederacy suffered from high a high desertion throughout the war

What I learned in school about the Civil War was correct
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top