We Don't Need Another CIVIL WAR!

Old School ^ | 6/8/21 | Patrick Rooney

[DoodleDawg]

Texas alone could raise an army by itself. A Texas Army 3 times the US Army OVERNIGHT.

Texas can't keep the power on and the heat running during a winter storm. They're going to take on the U.S. Army?

[DiogenesLamp]

Dude, you go on and on about the Corwin Amendment and how the North pushed for it. But you do not even understand what was stated in the Amendment.

It says that slavery will continue so long as any state wants it.

Please don’t reply.

People who spew crap never want to hear a reply because they prefer that people just believe their crap and not question it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Bullshit. Lincoln had sent resupply ships.

No he didn't. He sent *WAR*ships. He claimed it was a "supply" mission, but it was in fact a war mission about which he *LIED* to the American public, same as modern liberals constantly lie to the American public.

He sent war ships, three tug boats, and an ocean going passenger ship loaded with troops.

Here is a picture of the USS Pawnee, (One of the Warships Lincoln sent on this mission.) and only an idiot or an ignoramus would think all those cannons are normal on a "supply" ship.

Now I know you are going to immediately deny reality, or make up excuses why it was completely reasonable to send warships with an ultimatum, but rational normal people will acknowledge a fact when they are hit over the head with it.

[DiogenesLamp]

A last-minute attempt to keep the country together by giving the slaveowners the security they claimed to want didn't make the Republicans worse than the slaveowners who wanted slavery forever

See that bolded part in your comment above? That is rationalization. You are tacitly acknowledging that it was a horrible thing, but you are justifying it as necessary.

That is not a moral stance. Nor was it a moral stance for those Northern congressmen who voted for it. It was a pragmatic stance, devoid of any moral direction.

The question not asked is why the Northern congressmen would vote for something so horrible that everyone now claims they fought the entire war to end it? And their reason is to keep the horrible slave owning people in the Union, because it was a great loss to the Union if all those horrible slave owning people left it?

Does not compute. It is nonsense on the face of it.

But taken as a matter of basic logic, you are arguing that they voted to protect slavery to keep the slave states in the Union, while most people argue they fought a war that killed 750,000 people to get rid of the thing they had previously voted to protect.

Does not compute.

Why was it so important to keep the Southern states in the Union? We let go of the Philippines and we let go of Cuba. Why did we need the Southern states? What great loss would it have been to lose them?

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm not a confederate, and the distortion of the actual facts which you are so fond of regurgitating is not the truth.

The event was akin to a woman attempting to leave her husband, and him grabbing her arm and preventing it. (He grabbed her arm first, i.e. Anderson *SEIZED* Fort Sumter) She slapped him, he proceeded to beat her until she was nearly dead, and then claimed it was her fault because she shouldn't have tried to leave him, and therefore she deserved the beating.

All he had to do was let her go, and there would have been no fight.

Also, she had a right to go. It was written into their marriage license. (Declaration of Independence.)

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't consider pointing guns at the people in states and ordering them to pass an amendment that the men controlling the army sent them, to be a valid constitutional amendment process.

The Amendment process was never expected to operate through duress, threats, coercion and the application of pain. No court in the land would accept this methodology in a legal process.

[the OlLine Rebel]

And divorce and marriage is exactly the way I see it.

Why would one even want to keep someone who despises one so much?

If the partner wants to leave, why can’t said partner?

The whole “Union” cry is really holding a gun to the head of partner. What kind of Union is that?

[DiogenesLamp]

I keep trying to tell people that the Republicans of the 1860s were the same liberal socialist Democrats we have today. They even occupy the exact same parts of the country as they did in 1860. The only thing that has changed is their party name.

[the OlLine Rebel]

This was great. Is it archived on line?

[DiogenesLamp]

The government was allowed to seize without compensation any property of any citizen that was used to support the rebellion.

And what part of the constitution gives the government the authority to do that. Silly me, I thought they had a "due process" requirement to seize any property.

Fifth amendment, if you want to look it up.

Of course I anticipate you are going to say "Insurrection"! Or "Rebellion"! by way of justification, but the problem with this idea is two fold.

Firstly it wasn't a rebellion or an insurrection.

Secondly, you can't merely declare everyone living in a certain area as "rebels" and deny them civil rights without going through "due process." There were a lot of people who were not supportive of the confederacy but who happened to be living in territory the confederacy controlled.

Declaring them all "rebels" and "Insurrectionists!" (Like they are doing now with people at the January 6th rally in Washington DC.) is not allowed under constitutional law.

It's like declaring someone a "criminal" and then punishing him without trial.

An honest person would have to face the fact that they went way beyond their legal authority in doing the things they did, but of course I don't expect you to acknowledge this.

[DiogenesLamp]

The whole “Union” cry is really holding a gun to the head of partner. What kind of Union is that?

The people who cheer for armies invading the South and killing people don't want to think about that. They put it out of their mind. It does not register in their consciousness.

They were told the good guys won, and *THAT* is what they wish to believe.

[HandyDandy]

DL: “It says that slavery will continue so long as any state wants it.”

Wow. You’ve come a long way from declaring that Lincoln, in his First Inaugural, desired Slavery to become express and irrevocable. Out of one side of your mouth you say that Slavery was doomed to extinction, and out of the other side you tried to argue that Lincoln, by the Corwin Amendment tried to make Slavery last “indefinitely”. That is something that you will have to sort out on your own. I can’t help you with that. But Dude, I must say I am impressed with your progress. You are now reading the Amendment as written. That must have been an enormous obstacle for you to overcome. I’ve been trying to rub your nose in it for a long time now. I just have to quote you on that. DL says, about the Corwin Amendment, “It says that Slavery will continue as long as any State wants it.” Bravo. Nary a hint of spin.

[sit-rep]

Uuummmmm... Yes... We do!

[HandyDandy]

Not to mention that Jeff Davis had to get Virginia on his side. From one perspective, Sumter was a battle over Virginia. Davis was advised that if he drew first blood that Virginia would side with the South. So he did. That is how Gen Robert E Lee ended up on the side of the South.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Ringworm is a fungus that is highly annoying. Not nearly in the same category as the others. As a sufferer I know it.

And LOTS of children died. They are part of why the “average” age of death is so low EVERYWHERE (and misleading), along with their mothers in childbirth. It’s not just the south of the US. As a graveyard nut, that’s one of the things I learn directly.

[rollo tomasi]

"Bad ass" Texans and the rest of US citizens would piss their pants if their mortgage/quality of life was jeopardized. Lemmings to materialism but talk a good game. All talk, no cattle, last winter spoke rather loud in their impotency.

[rockrr]

Maybe you should try different fonts and colors. That might make your posts more believable.

[HandyDandy]

Additionally, since your mind opened just a sliver, let me run this by you. Just to see what you make of it. We have all heard/read/been taught that Southern States seceding began directly upon the election of Abe “the Gorilla” Lincoln. Why? Because he was going to take away their slaves. Now read the Corwin Amendment again with this in mind. By the proposed Amendment, Lincoln would have taken away any power over slavery from the central government! Thus nullifying the argument of, “we are leaving the Union because this new Republican President is an abolitionist who is going to end Slavery.” Am I getting through to you? Do you understand that Lincoln, by promoting the Corwin Amendment, completely deflated that reason for States to leave the Union. But leave they did anyway. Why?

[HandyDandy]

DL: “People who spew crap never want to hear a reply because they prefer that people just believe their crap and not question it.“

You are certainly speaking from your own experience. Tell me more about “people”.

[HandyDandy]

Don’t temp him. If I see the graph again I’m gonna spew more than crap. Please, not the graph. Maybe he finally poked his own eye out with that thing.