In terms of your typical cult like, robotic slander directed at everyone not in full agreement with the 'neo-confederate' agenda, "Bin Laden and Islamic terrorists have a similar hatred and methodology.", What never you have, but nothing should surprise the limitless, disgraceful hate you really do harbour for all those who rightfully support the total eradication of the South's slaveocracy, a detestable, evil system constructed on a shaky foundation of broadbased daily abuse & racial hate for countless millions of victims.
Diehard Islamists firmly believe in slavery, just as the 'Confederate' white supremacists did & do to this day. Southern segregationists, with their outlawed Jim Crow 'laws' had a lot in common with those beast like drafters of the so-called 'Nuremberg Laws', yet you never stop supporting the 'Confederates' coupled with their failed goals of further enslavement for profit.
So when you repeatedly & dishonorably tag all those loyal Americans during the Civil War period, who served this country in defeating what was a wicked system of forced slave labour for millions, a staining curse on this land, as you sickeningly attempt to equate with some how being equal with the likes of jihadic terrorist filth such as "Bin Laden and Islamic terrorists"
Once again you more then prove your uncontrolled, malicious hatred for the vast majority of the American people and her institutions of freedom & liberty. If those you support had won the Civil War, terms such as 'liberty & 'freedom' would have been restricted to only the plantation elite.
You still back the treasonous element which tore this great nation in two so they could continue spreading their empire of slavery. How does it feel being completely devoid of any morals promoting a loathsome scourge which rallied good and honourable men to fight to remove it permanently from America's midst.
Amen!
That describes Stand Watie to a tee...right down to the moronic cut and paste rants he has saved on his hard drive.
No one sold out their country. The Supreme Court had previously held UNAMIMOUSLY that the President could not simply take matters into his own hands. The Attoney General did extend his opinion on the matter as well:
To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties.To suppress insurrections against the State; but this is confined by Article 4, Section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people.
To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory.
All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated 'to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.
"If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquillity which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
"The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot by denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.
"If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions.
What never you have, but nothing should surprise the limitless, disgraceful hate you really do harbour for all those who rightfully support the total eradication of the South's slaveocracy.
Wrong - the only hatred on these threads is that displayed by you. But yet again, you support the 'TOTAL ERADICATION' of Southerners - just as Osama Bin Laden is seething with hatred of innocent Americans, you share that hatred toward innocents. You revel - almost sadomasochistically - in the perverted, wanton death and destruction of all things Southern, glorify the war crimes perpetrated by Sherman [*SPIT*], Sheridan and others.
For those that ordered, condoned or carried out a war against INNOCENT southern civilians I have nothing but contempt, but for the common Union soldier that abided by the rules of war I have nothing but respect.
...yet you never stop supporting the 'Confederates' coupled with their failed goals of further enslavement for profit.
Lincoln supported continued slavery, offering his support for an Amendment making it permanent and irrevocable. If all the Confederacy desired was to continue slavery all the had to do was remain in the union. The seceding states were simply attempting to distance themselves from lunatics like you.
So when you repeatedly & dishonorably tag all those loyal Americans during the Civil War period, who served this country in defeating what was a wicked system of forced slave labour for millions, a staining curse on this land, as you sickeningly attempt to equate with some how being equal with the likes of jihadic terrorist filth such as "Bin Laden and Islamic terrorists"
Regarding the first part see above, regarding the second [from Dictionary.com]: terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.Unless you can point to a section/clause of the Constitution that granted the federal government the power to wage war on innocents their actions fit the definition.
You still back the treasonous element which tore this great nation in two so they could continue spreading their empire of slavery.
Wrong. See above. Lincoln would have continued slavery. As far as empire is concerned, the Arizona/New Mexico territories had been open to slave expansion for decades - yet there were a whopping toatal of 21 slaves there. Empire was not their desire, escaping from of union of fanatical lunatics was.
How does it feel being completely devoid of any morals promoting a loathsome scourge which rallied good and honourable men to fight to remove it permanently from America's midst.
Lincoln stated he did not fight to end slavery, Congress did the same. He also stated that never would have been elected, and that the armies would desert if that were the case. Lincoln stated, '[w]e [-------->] didn't [<---------] go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back, and to act differ at this moment, would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause but smack of bad faith; for I never should have had votes enough to send me here if the people had supposed I should try to use my power to upset slavery. Why, the first thing you'd see, would be a mutiny in the [UNION] army.'
Devoid of morals? I detest uncivilized warfare waged against innocents - you admire the terrorists that waged such. And you think I'm devoid of morals? Bwahahahahahahaha!