So you also admit to misleading statements. But still it is a wild accusation that you didn't have a link on hand to show what you were saying wasn't some crazy delusion.
A post of a man who was proud of his ancestor. But it was not an isolated incident:
But out of the norm. You said he proves that yankees don't have the facts and that slavery wasn't the cause of secession. One soldier fighting for little dictators proves nothing. There are nuts in every crowd and this soldier had no sense of heritage.
Well duh. If blacks, slave and free, fought for the Confederacy that speaks volumes about the true causes of the war
See, that's where you're delusional. His presence doesn't wipe out what was officially declared in the Declarations. Some will support tyranny, even when it's not in their best interest or the interest of their people.
- to many it was that arrogant yankees attempted to dictate their attitudes and beliefs on the country, and failed to abide by the terms of their agreement.
LOL Yeah, we felt that people shouldn't own other people in a free country, we're funny that way.
But for the sake of argument, slavery was already legal. The South had no need to secede to continue it
Then why did they officially declare that that was their reason? Because they knew the new Republican Party was going to wipe out slavery one way or the other. That's why the Republican Party was formed.
- there were not enough states against it to pass an amendment, and Lincoln himself signed and amendment that would have made slavery permanent.
There was no amendment passed during Lincoln's time in the presidency. You're making up things again. lol
Please, I wrote that modern warfare was gentlemanly per accepted international laws & treaties. The Lieber Code attempted to legalize the attack and destruction of civilian property. See the decision by Taney cited previously which recognizes that civilian property is not a legimate target of war.
What??? War has never been "gentlemanly". It wasn't gentlemanly before 1865 and it wasn't after. More delusion. Like I said, look at what the most civilized people in trhe world, the British, did to the Highlanders. I would say southerners got treated better than any vanquished people up to that time.
Hundreds of thousands of homes and farms were leveled, entire cities were destroyed, thousands of women were raped,...
You're going to have to cite cases of these rapes. I've seen one case reported.
...property stolen, numerous slaves murdered, civilian livestock slaughtered for no reason, the women & children of Roswell enslaved and sent north, nunneries and churches looted and destroyed, and entire populations were left to starve to death or to freeze.
War is hell, it's how wars are won. If the South didn't want war, they shouldn't have fired on Sumter and stole federal property, and they should've followed the constitution in their attempts to secede.
That you delight in such men, or consider their actions trivial speaks volumes.
I delight in men that can win wars saving the lives in the long run. Sherman's actions saved hundreds of thousands, just as Truman's did.
So? The court still had ruled the taking/destruction of civilian property illegal.
Doesn't apply to rebellions. Are you against the police taking a gun from a robber when they apprehend him?
Does Lincoln need Heavy-duty or regular? It was what he said.
The Republican Party was formed to halt the advance of slavery. If Lincoln's only motivation was money, he would've stayed a Whig or became a Democrat. You guys have engulfed your lifes into 140 years in the past to the point of posting the same thing day after day for up to six years now that you've lost touch with reality and you can't discern truth. Like I said, you used to be one of the sane ones, but now you throw stuff out there that is just as delusional as some of the crazys from 4 years ago.
There was no amendment passed during Lincoln's time in the presidency. You're making up things again. lol
Try again, I never said it passed. The Corwin Amendment ['No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.'] was supported by Lincoln as being permanent:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.