Posted on 04/02/2021 9:04:55 AM PDT by gattaca
You and FLF-bird must have the same dictionary.
Lincoln refused to negotiate. They tried.
without paying for your share of national obligations,
They produced the far greater majority of all payments made to the Federal treasury, and they had only 1/4th the population.
Washington DC wasn't against slavery. It was against losing the money produced by slavery which was paying 73% of it's total revenue in 1860.
taking every piece of property you can get your paws on,
It was their property in the first place, and was only given to the Federal government for the purpose of defending their states.
and shooting up a fort on the way out the door
They left in December of 1860. That was "out the door." What happened in April of 1860, many months after they had gone "out the door" was a consequence of the Washington DC government attempting to force them into submission with warships.
Wasn't you the one saying that if a man is going to shoot you dead in the street, you would attack him first?
A statewide democratic vote for independence is not a "rebellion" or an "insurrection." Nations have been doing it quite a lot lately, and nobody is accusing England of "rebelling" from the European Union.
The people who called it a "rebellion" and an "insurrection" were simply liars who manipulated people.
Apart from that, the Constitution derives it's just power from the "consent of the governed" as pointed out by the Declaration of Independence.
Once that consent is withdrawn, they have no further authority.
no, the only significance of Appomattox was the symbolic end of four years of war. The Southern Confederacy was already destroyed. Lee’s decision to spare the lives of the 25-30 thousand soldiers in his army was the only alternative to their pointless deaths supporting a regime that had failed.
Good to see you. It’s been awhile.
And tell me again who got convicted of Treason? I know Jefferson Davis did not, and if they couldn't even convict him, how is it Treason again?
You should see the world as it really is, not how you wish it to be.
The Founding Fathers established a glorious Republic with a magnificent Constitution.
George Washington, Father of our Country, a Southerner.
Richard Henry Lee, Father of the Lee Resolution in the Second Continental Congress calling for the independence of the colonies from Britain. He was a Southerner.
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, a Southerner.
James Madison, Father of the Constitution, a Southerner.
George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights, a Southerner.
And later, Abraham Lincoln, Father of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident - I mean the Fort Sumter Incident. He too was a Southerner, but not a Founding Father.
Battered wife needs to stay with husband so he can continue beating on her. Battered wife tries to leave, and husband beats her so bad she goes to the hospital.
Wife was in the wrong. She shouldn't have tried to get away from the mean evil son of a bitch.
The nation was much better off with those 750,000 people being killed and Washington DC becoming the dictator of everyone else's lives.
They already had their own Marines when they joined, so pretty much yeah.
It certainly wasn't, and Washington DC fully intended to keep it that way.
and don’t forget the concept that human beings are not hereditary chattel property.
Which states had their own Marines when the Constitution was ratified?
I see it fine, I see you as a traitor, no different from the left. Go fly your filfy treason flag, I will fly old glory.
“and don’t forget the concept that human beings are not hereditary chattel property.”
Is this a reference to the United States Constitution handed down by the Founding Fathers - the one Abraham Lincoln twice took an oath to protect and defend?
(Perhaps more than twice if he took an oath upon becoming a member of Congress, or serving in the military.)
The same conditions (slavery) existed in the North too. The slave states remaining in the Union were Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, and Maryland.
Nobody tried to stop slavery in the areas they controlled during the war.
George III was simply far more rational than Lincoln. George III could have conquered the US, but he didn't feel the bloodshed was worth it.
Lincoln had no such qualms, and 750,000 people were killed to establish the supremacy of Washington DC.
“The Liberals won that war.“
No, it was the Conservatives of the Union that won the war.
The Liberal Confederacy and their desire to retain slavery lost and lost big time.
What was it that the Confederates did which made them the "Aggressor"?
so you have no problem with human beings being owned like dogs, cattle or sheep?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.