In the Night
Contributor
There is no such thing as a 'global traitor'. China is a proper noun. It is capitalized. Buzzword fallacies. I have no dealings with China. Hallucination.
don't attend the "civil war"
- Thread starter Jerry Mathers
- Start date
There is no such thing as a 'global traitor'. China is a proper noun. It is capitalized. Buzzword fallacies. I have no dealings with China. Hallucination.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
globalist traitor. reading is fundamental, dippo.
act of war imo
Firing on Fort Sumter was an act of insurrection.
In the Night
Contributor
Buzzword fallacy. Cliche fallacy. No argument presented.
sending armed soldiers into another country is an act of war.
In the Night
Contributor
No. It was an act of self defense.
Fort Sumter was a federal military post built on a sand bar in 1814.
On December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States.
https://archive.org/details/genesiscivilwar00crawgoog
Hardly.
In the Night
Contributor
If the soldiers are not invited by that other country, then yes. In the case of Fort Sumpter, you are correct. They were NOT invited into that other country (the CSA).
In the Night
Contributor
It was exactly that. It was repelling foreign soldiers invading the CSA.
In the Night
Contributor
That claim was void when South Carolina seceded. No State could make any such treaty in the CSA. It was unconstitutional.
Last edited:
No, it wasn't.
Federal troops were present in Fort Sumter, which was US soil, before the DEMOCRATS seceded.
And the "CSA" was unrecognized.
Who told you that?
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
words mean things, retard.
you are a globalist traitor to humanity. get a dictionary.
then why was Lincoln negotiating compensation with CSA ?
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
the civil war is for morons.
and the only reason the ship was not sunk was because it was supposed to be bring supplies. the first time they sent soliers insted they got sent back.
Who told you that?