[DoodleDawg]

The attack on Ft. Sumter was stupid, but the Fedzilla response was by far disproportionate.

Was the nuking of two cities and the burning of a bunch of others proportionate to the attack on Pearl Harbor? The South started the war. Having started it, the South alone was responsible for all the death and destruction that followed.

No one was killed in the shelling of Ft. Sumter, and I cannot help but think this is because the Confederates really had no intention of killing anyone.

You think they bombarded the fort for over 24 hours and honestly weren't trying to kill anyone? Really?

It is folly to think we "won" the war of Independence. Britain just decided to stop fighting us.

The British signed a treaty granting the U.S. pretty much everything it was fighting for. You don't call that winning?

Had Lincoln been in charge of England, we wouldn't have gained independence.

Had Lincoln been in charge of the Confederacy and Davis the Union you would be a separate country today.

And what makes this a better cause than the preservation of the United Kingdom?

Because we weren't an integral part of the United Kingdom. We were a colony.

Why are slave states breaking away from the United Kingdom better than Slave states breaking away from the United States?

The rebellion of 1776 was not in defense of slavery. The rebellion of 1861 was.

[DiogenesLamp]

Was the nuking of two cities and the burning of a bunch of others proportionate to the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Again, no one died at Ft. Sumter. There was no blood shed by the confederate forces. The first blood shed of the war was when Union forces tried to invade Virginia.

The South started the war. Having started it, the South alone was responsible for all the death and destruction that followed.

Your assertions is demonstrably wrong. Following your claim, had the Union murdered every person in the South, you would say they deserved it. Had the British murdered every colonist, you would say they had deserved it.

No, this is sheer emotionalism and after the fact justification for abuse. It is no different from a murderer saying the victim had it coming because she slapped him.

You think they bombarded the fort for over 24 hours and honestly weren't trying to kill anyone? Really?

And you think they could do such a thing for 24 hours and NOT kill anyone if they were trying?

The rebellion of 1776 was not in defense of slavery. The rebellion of 1861 was.

Slave states in rebellion from the United Kingdom were fighting for their slave property too. You cannot separate that aspect out from the overall cause of the war. If I recall correctly, the United Kingdom did ALSO offer freedom to any slave who would fight against the vile slave holding colonies.

However the blacks made their greatest bid for freedom by taking up arms. They took up arms fighting for the British early in the Revolution. The British offered blacks their freedom in return for their aid in fighting the Americans. Blacks took up the offer not because they were fighting for the British but because they were fighting for their freedom.

So how does it feel when YOUR SIDE is fighting for slavery while the other side is fighting against it? How do YOU like it when your side's motives are tainted with the slavery issue?

Stop the hypocrisy. Just stop it. The only issue of relevance is whether or not people have a right to self determination or whether they don't.

You are supporting the side of Fedzilla oppression in opposition to a fundamental principle of natural law.

People have a right to create whatever sort of government suits them, even if their reasons for doing so are bad, and even if their newly created government turns out to be a mistake.