Stanly to close offices for Confederate Memorial Day

When I find a wasp in my house I get a glass capture him against the window, cover the opening and set him free.

Fly away, little wasp you can't sting me.

When I find a wasp in my house I get a glass capture him against the window, cover the opening and set him free.

Fly away, little wasp you can't sting me.

Uh huh, exactly what I thought.

Slink away, justshutupandtakeit, you have revealed your true character. Come back when you can debate points instead of hurling racial slurs; that is the only thing I have seen you do well.

Racial slurs? Oh, you mean such as trying to establish a memorial day for those who enslaved those of different color. Those who prevented those slaves from learning to read and write. Those who chained, beat, raped, tore children from the bosom of their mothers some of whom were their own children. Oh, sure I have spoken many racial slurs alright.

The Slaveocracy and their modern apologists are deluded ignoramouses reduced to lying about their opponents and trying to make them appear to be what they, themselves, are.

Come up here and make your idiotic arguments on the West side. I promise I will mop up the floor and bag all the remains.

You are named after the wrong insect and are closer to a gnat than a wasp. Just an annoyance buzzing around the heads of more advanced species.

Hope you and the other apologists for the Slaveocracy enjoyed the attacks on the United States this week you have seen those in action who hate this nation and all it stands for just as you do. Goodbye Osmana bin wasp69.

I see emotion has ruled the day.

Racial slurs? Oh, you mean such as trying to establish a memorial day for those who enslaved those of different color. Those who prevented those slaves from learning to read and write. Those who chained, beat, raped, tore children from the bosom of their mothers some of whom were their own children. Oh, sure I have spoken many racial slurs alright.

You spoke of being able to run any Confederate supporter into the ground and beyond, then you post this. Is that the best you can do? Do you consider this broadbrush crap as your premise? Are you trying to make this easy for me? No problem. Since you've got it all over us and can run us into the ground, maybe you can answer a few questions for me:

1)Which Southerner tried to keep the line item concerning slavery out of the Declaration of Independence and which Northerner decided it should be kept in?

2) How and where did Sam Girard get his fortune to build Girard College in Philadelphia, PA?

3) What 3 Northern cities had their fortunes built by slave trade?

4) What same cities still had ships outfitting for slave routes as late as 1860?

5) Maybe you can tell me who it was that actually made slavery perpetual in the original colonies?

That is just 5, surely someone as good, and as smart as you, can answer those correctly.

The Slaveocracy and their modern apologists are deluded ignoramouses reduced to lying about their opponents and trying to make them appear to be what they, themselves, are.

Deluded ignoramouses? Well, since we are deluded ignoramouses, maybe you can tell me just how many Confederate National Flags flew over slave ships from 1861 to 1865. While you are at it, can you tell me exactly when it was slavery officially ended in the holy North and just how long your adopted "home" state allowed slavery? Thanks in advance.

Come up here and make your idiotic arguments on the West side. I promise I will mop up the floor and bag all the remains.

Ummm, is this supposed to be some kind of threat and am I supposed to be scared?

Hope you and the other apologists for the Slaveocracy enjoyed the attacks on the United States this week you have seen those in action who hate this nation and all it stands for just as you do. Goodbye Osmana bin wasp69.

Unlike you, I am looking only for truth in history; not deification of a gang of criminals and their emporer. I am currently serving the country on active duty just as I have been for the past 15 years. I noticed any military service you may have had conspicuously absent on your bio. Kind of reminds me of another former Arkansan who is now transplanted to a Northern metropolitan area. It is indicative of how emotion rules your life since you ass-u-me I hate my country; quite the contrary actually since I volunteered to die (if necessary) and stand the line in the place of you and yours.

You are named after the wrong insect and are closer to a gnat than a wasp. Just an annoyance buzzing around the heads of more advanced species.

I live in a predominantly black, middle class neighborhood and they don't seem to have a problem with my flags, my t-shirts, or my opinion. It is really amazing, the looks on these peoples faces when I can show them documentation of just exactly how much Saint Abe, and his criminal enablers, didn't care for them. My neighbors (what did you call them - oh yes - n****rs) are far more advanced than your "educated" elitist self could ever hope for. Makes me wonder just what kind of emotionally driven liberal I am dealing with. Just for reference, don't ever use that word in my presence or on this forum again.

What do you think those irrelevant questions are supposed to prove? That northerns profited from the slave trade. Gee, wouldn't that surprise me. Not. That has never been an issue of contention merely something that the neosecess wave attempting to distract attention from the real issue.

Secession was a desperate attempt through unconstitutional means to preserve slavery. Lincoln's magnificent performance of his constitutional duty to preserve the Union still drives those harboring anti-american ideologies insane with fury. Of course, he did what any other President would have done.

The S. Carolina Slaveocrats were not idiotic enough to force Andy Jackson to kick their @sses. So he merely had to disembowel their ridiculous arguments on the legality of secession. This he did in a masterful manner.

You claim to be interested in the truth in history yet, you ignore all the massive evidence that all the founders maintained that the Union was perpetual and secession was illegal. You ignore the treasonous actions of the secessionists taken in defense of the worst cause conceivable. A cause based entirely upon a theory of humanity which was identical with that of Hitler and the Nazis. The representatives of the Super Race had every right to hold the Sub humans in captivity and developed a Tyranny to deprive them of their rights. All the while screaming hysterically about the "tyranny" of Lincoln.

Your disregard for history and support of traitors make any remarks you have suspect. Reading screwballs does not give you a good historical basis. However, there are several recent threads regarding the founders and secession which could give you a good education should you open your eyes. But you won't preferring to believe the disproven notions of cranks and the ill-educated.

The greatest proof of the non-viability of the Slaveocracy in theory and practice was the crushing of it in less than three years. Corrupt societies general fall by the wayside in history and the Confederacy is no exception.

No society could be more corrupt than a Slaveocracy. It did not escape the wrath of God.

Irrelevant questions? Hardly. You attempt to paint with a broad brush, pinning the actions of many on just a few. When you were called upon it, your attempt at broadbased slander became "irrelevant".

Secession was a desperate attempt through unconstitutional means to preserve slavery. Lincoln's magnificent performance of his constitutional duty to preserve the Union still drives those harboring anti-american ideologies insane with fury.

Magnificent performance of his constitutional duty? Pardon me:

AHHHH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

For somebody who "swore to uphold and defend the Constitution", he sure didn't have any problems violating it the same way his Generals violated the civilian populations in various Southern States.

You claim to be interested in the truth in history yet, you ignore all the massive evidence that all the founders maintained that the Union was perpetual and secession was illegal.

BZZZZZZ! Wrong! You, sir, are the one who is ignoring massive evidence to the contrary. Why not read the comments of those who ratified the Constitution or maybe many States delagates who put in writing their conditions for joining the "Union". The Union was not perpetual and we are not "people in the agrregate"; if it was it would not be called a "Union", it would be called a "Nation". Don't believe me? Try looking up Alexander Hamilton's remarks regarding this. Since he was one of the Federalists that was desperately trying to make another crown and parliment right here.

You ignore the treasonous actions of the secessionists taken in defense of the worst cause conceivable. A cause based entirely upon a theory of humanity which was identical with that of Hitler and the Nazis. The representatives of the Super Race had every right to hold the Sub humans in captivity and developed a Tyranny to deprive them of their rights. All the while screaming hysterically about the "tyranny" of Lincoln.

Treasonous? Apparently at least 5 New England States felt secession was a right in the early 19th century. Apparently many 19th century Republicans thought disunion was a necessity. If secession was "treason" maybe then, justshutupandtakeit, oh ye of the many college degrees, you can tell me of just one, just one, Confederate that was convicted of treason in a court of law. Just one will do. Also, nice attempt at trying to paint a paralell of Confederates and Nazi's. I have noticed that many anti-Southern posters on this forum try this exact same trick and it is an easily refutable one. If the CSA was supposed to be a "Super Race" maybe you can tell me why they were aligned with 5 Indian tribes, had a Jewish man who held three different high level positions in the Confederate Government, had blacks fighting side by side with their white counterparts (instead of segregated) long before the Federals did, and had Jews and Hispanics within their ranks. Or maybe you call them by some other racial epithet. I will readily admit the faults and warts of the CS Government; can you admit the same of the US Government of 1861-1865?

Your disregard for history and support of traitors make any remarks you have suspect.

Your support and deification of criminals without any forethought makes yours disreputable. What's the matter, did you not bother to serve your country while condemning someone else who is? Or maybe you would prefer to threaten me again.

Reading screwballs does not give you a good historical basis.

My reference material is not an analysis, it is the actual words spoken and recorded of those involved. If what you mean by "screwballs" relating to the Lincoln Administration, I would still have to disagree since it is their words; not anyone elses.

The greatest proof of the non-viability of the Slaveocracy in theory and practice was the crushing of it in less than three years.

Less than three years? Try again. The armies were in the field for over four years. Wishing the mighty Federal Army could beat a relative handful of farmers in less than three years does not make it so.

No society could be more corrupt than a Slaveocracy. It did not escape the wrath of God.

Slaveocracy? Which "slaveocracy" on the North American Continent were you referring to? You are deluding yourself if you truly believe we do not feel the effects of that war to this day. Wrath of God? Please. Lincoln was the one who decided to wage a war that got countless non-combattants killed (as a matter of policy instead of collatteraly), mocked God, denied Christ, waged war on the Church in both the North and South, and sat in services for expressed purpose of mocking the minister. Care to talk of the "Wrath of God"?

Hysterical posting of falsehoods is all one would expect from such as you. Complete lack of understanding of the nation's founding. Swallowing such bilge as "Hamilton wanting monoarchy", "Lincoln violated the constitution.." laughable but you probably think Jefferson was a great president too.

The Rebellion started 12/1861 was crushed by an army of farmers by 4/1865 i.e. less than four years as I said.

Laughable that the willingness of slavehholding indians to fight for the Slaveocracy is presented as an argument for its humanity.

There were no conditional ratifications with the right to secede reserved. That is a lie.

The Union was explicitly stated to be perpetual even under the Articles thus the "more perfect Union" would certainly include that except in the mind of an idiot.

Had N.E. attempted to secede in the early 1800s it would have been the home of traitors as well. Hamilton and the clearsighted people of that region opposed and prevented such folly. However, there was no clearsighted in the Slaveocracy in 1861 able to exercise significant leadership. Even such heroes demanding preservation of the Union such as Sam Houston were trampled by the idiot stampede.

There is no proof of significant numbers of Free Blacks fighting with the Rebs. that is another trumped up exaggeration of reality. Though Free Blacks could own slaves even if they couldn't vote. Judah Benjamin does not cause the racist nature of the regime to disappear. Who ever said that a Jew couldn't be a racist?

I am not interested in admissions of warts and faults all governments have those but not all governments are based on the preservation of slavery and that is the ONLY reason the Confederate government existed. It was created to perpetuate slavery and made no bones about it. All the leadership admitted it.

I never threatened you at all merely invited you to give your wisdom to the homies out on the West Side. I kindly offered to pick up the remains for a decent disposal kind-hearted gentleman that I am.

How did you come to the conclusion that I don't think we feel those effects today? Almost all the negative effects roundly condemned by conservatives are the result of the insane treason of the Slaveocrats: much bigger government, the distrust by Blacks of the State govenments and the trust by Blacks of the federal government. All this flowed from the insurrection.

Lincoln's greatness came from his love of this country and his understanding that it could not be split asunder or mankind as a whole would lose. Southern independence would have led it deeper into depravity and anti-human ideologies. Thanks to Lincoln's sacrifice and that of the Union soldiers Freedom's Beacon was not extinguished by racist treason.

Hysterical posting of falsehoods is all one would expect from such as you.

Excuse me? Pot, kettle .... black?

Complete lack of understanding of the nation's founding. Swallowing such bilge as "Hamilton wanting monoarchy", "Lincoln violated the constitution.."

You really are trying to make this easy, aren't you? At the time of the ratification of the Constitution there were three factions; Anti-Federalists who wanted nothing that would move the Federal Government towards consolidation thereby usurping the sovereignty of the states, Democratic Republican that wanted a government with just enough power to make it efficient, and the Federalists who utterly hated a Republican form of government.

Alexander Hamilton

The people! Gentlemen, I tell you the people are a great Beast!

If the Constitution is adopted, the Union will still be in fact and in theory an association of States or a Confederacy."

On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.

The first quote was an emotional outburst during a speech in New York showing Mr. Hamilton's thinking in regard to "the people", the second was where he had to admit we were a Union and not a Nation, and the third is a real revalation into what role government should play in the lives of the people. Let us not forget that Mr. Hamilton was responsible for the for the first attempt at a national bank and high inflation and a tax on agricultural products that gave us a neat little incident called "The Whiskey Rebellion". But I am sure you already knew that. As for Lincoln? How about the suspension of habeaus corpus? Want to tackle that one for starters?

The Rebellion started 12/1861 was crushed by an army of farmers by 4/1865 i.e. less than four years as I said.

No, you said less than three. In any event, the CSA did not fully surrender until later when Davis was captured; like I said over 4 years. BTW, army of farmers? From the North? Uh-huh, right. This "army of farmers", as you call them, must have spent more time dating their horses instead of riding them since they couldn't seem to get that cavalry concept down until some time later. Like I said, it took the mighty Federal army over four years to beat a relative handful of farmers; you know, as in from an agricultural based society. Shame they had to take out their frustrations on non-combattants.

Laughable that the willingness of slavehholding indians to fight for the Slaveocracy is presented as an argument for its humanity.

Looks as if you forgot the Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics. Or did you do that on purpose?

There were no conditional ratifications with the right to secede reserved. That is a lie.

Is it?

Virginia

...[I]n the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...

New York

We, the delegates of the people of New York, do declare and make known that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness;...

Rhode Island

We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and Plantations, duly elected, do declare and make known that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness;...

The Union was explicitly stated to be perpetual even under the Articles thus the "more perfect Union" would certainly include that except in the mind of an idiot.

Ahhh, but only the uninformed or the tragically ignorant would believe your point if he/she had not read the remarks of delegates to the Convention or understood that that particular line was the wording under which the states changed the Articles of Confederation "in order to form a more perfect Union." And no, sadly, at least for you, the Union was never meant to be perpetual. It was a compact between sovereign bodies.

Had N.E. attempted to secede in the early 1800s it would have been the home of traitors as well.

It is truly a shame that such people who believed in their right to form a government more to their liking would deny same said right years later. What was even more shameful was the fact they were openly trading with the enemy (England) while Southerners were spilling their blood. Incidentally, Hamilton was dead when NE threatened to secede and stone Madison.

There is no proof of significant numbers of Free Blacks fighting with the Rebs. that is another trumped up exaggeration of reality.

No proof or none that you will acknoledge? Why don't you look up Walter William's writings on just this subject? He is black, surely you can trust him. Not only that, you dishonor the memory of those men that fought to keep an invading army out of their homes and I for one will not allow you to do so unchallenged.

Judah Benjamin does not cause the racist nature of the regime to disappear. Who ever said that a Jew couldn't be a racist?

Oh no, you don't get off that light. You claimed that the CSA was a "Super Race" comparable to that of Nazi Germany and I gave you examples of where they were not. Tell me, how many Jews did Lincoln have serving in his cabinet or administration? Therein lies the difference.

I am not interested in admissions of warts and faults all governments have those but not all governments are based on the preservation of slavery and that is the ONLY reason the Confederate government existed.

So tell me, if Lincoln fought to preserve the Union, why didn't he end slavery? Preservation of slavery? Look away, North, also. The "only" reason the Confederate Government existed? I guess you are now going to tell me that the South seceded just for slavery.

I never threatened you at all merely invited you to give your wisdom to the homies out on the West Side. I kindly offered to pick up the remains for a decent disposal kind-hearted gentleman that I am.

Homies? I guess that is a much better racial epithet than you used earlier; but it is still just as dirty. How very nice of you to temper your language < /sarcasm>. It figures you would follow the example of your heroes to goad others into a fight while you stand on the sidelines. It really doesn't suprise me that a transplanted metropolitan would use Blacks to do his bidding while clamoring how much he loved them and "felt their pain". You go, Bubba.

Almost all the negative effects roundly condemned by conservatives are the result of the insane treason of the Slaveocrats:

I'm sorry, maybe you can point me to the time and place the Confederate Government snuck into DC and passed into being a multigenerational debt that cannot be questioned and a provision that a central government now has say over state governments and that cannot be questioned either. Unless you can, I will be forced to maintain it was done by the 19th century US Government.

Thanks to Lincoln's sacrifice and that of the Union soldiers Freedom's Beacon was not extinguished by racist treason.

Lincoln's sacrifice? Did you mean the pagan sacrifice of human life on the altar of central government? Freedom's Beacon? Oh my! Not too far up in your post you say that the negative effects are roundly condemned by conservatives and now it is Freedom's Beacon? I will readily admit that we are the most free Union on the face of the Earth but not as free as we could have been. The gross violations of the Constitution by Lincoln, and his Congressional conspirators, was completely unnecessary and unwarranted. I will still take the US, and all of it's warts, and maintain my active service to the Constitution until I retire, die, or we no longer swear allegiance to the Constitution. Can you say the same?

BTW, I am still waiting for the name of one, just one, Confederate that was convicted in a court of law for treason.

What a ridiculous lie. George Washington hated a Republic? O.K. Almost all the staff officers fighting and dieing for the republic were federalists. They hated a Republic? Sure, buzzy, sure.

Hamilton had little faith in the people but that was from observing the Slaveocrats fighting against the best interests of the nation. He saw the nation he had spent the majority of his life fighting for being led by liars down the path to dissolution and anarchy like that the Slaveocrats led them down in 1861. But no man ever did more for this nation than Alexander Hamilton. This was one of the reasons G. Washington loved him like a son. I would not expect the uneducated to know much about such a truly great man since they prefer the Jeffersonian inspired lies which the leftwingers in the universities have fostered for 200 years. Most of the things you post are indicative of a lack of education in the field of history so I can't take them too seriously. I have seen those errors repeatedly posted here generally by the same crew. They are nonsense and have no validity particularly things posted about Hamilton. Your third quote is exactly what a sensible man would believe knowing as he would that the country was surrounded by the territories of three powerful European empires all scheming for its downfall and absorption. Hamilton's program was the program of the Washington administration. You should read about this truly great man. Forrest MacDonald, professor of history at Alabama, has written a magnificent biography of Hamilton though it may be too difficult for you.

Habeas corpus can and should be suspended during periods of insurrection and rebellion.

You are correct I did say that it took less than three years. The "mighty" federal army which was composed of farm boys from Neb, Minn, Wis, Ill, Ind, Mich, Ohio etc was nonexistent before the war for all practical purposes. Most of the leadership went with their States rather than the nation. So even though it had to rebuild completely and obtain new leadership it still managed to beat what the Slaveocracy could put into the field. When Lee surrendered the war was over. Just as WWII was over when the bomb was dropped in spite of holdouts on various pacific islands for a few years.

Oh, sure I have heard about all those thousands, hundreds, scores, dozens of non-whites fighting for the Slaveocracy. Only problem is there is no proof of any significant numbers of non-laborers, non-valets, non-cooks serving the Slaveocracy. Giving blacks guns, bwaahahaha. Sure they did.

None of those quotes illustrate either conditional ratifications nor rights to secede.

The States were not sovereign, never had been and, in fact, did not even exist until the NATION AS A WHOLE declared independence. They all realized they would cease to exist should the nation fall since they would be easy pickings for the Europeans. You could note that no State declared its independence by itself but all were working together to obtain the NATION'S independence from the earliest beginnings of the movement for independence.

There was nothing at the Constitutional Convention which indicates any belief in the right to secession. It was never brought up indicating the universal assumption was the union was perpetual.

BTW the discussion of secession by NE under Madison was the second time that idiocy had arisen in NE and Hamilton was very much alive when he assisted in its discrediting at its initial proclamation. Also, the Revolution did not occur because a new King was put on the throne whom we did not approve of unlike the Slaveocracy's insurrection due to the election of a president which it did not like. You think the election of a president not to your liking gives you a right to secede from the Union?

I have no idea what the nonsensical crack about "trading with the enemy (England) while southerners were spilling their blood..." could possibly refer to but it is more than likely another of your manifold misunderstandings or bizarre lies.

How many did Walter refer to? Brigades, companies, platoons, a couple of guys? How many? Answer very few, if any. BTW Walter is not a historian but an economist who enjoys being an iconoclast so I take any of his pronouncements on history with appropriate grains of salt.

No I did not say the CSA was a super race. I said that its ideology was almost identical to that of the Nazis which posited a super race. That is true and only deliberate ignorance would dispute it. That concept, in other words, is throughout the writings of the apologists of the Slaveocracy. There were Jews serving as generals in the U.S. army and in other government positions. Benjamin was more visible without doubt but he was a total anomaly compared to his compatriots.

Lincoln never said he was fighting the war to end slavery. Besides slavery had been ended in the North before the war without federal action only the border states still allowed it. So his actions have nothing to do with the indisputeable fact that the Slaveocrats were fighting ONLY to maintain slavery. Yes, the Slaveocrats ONLY seceded to preserve slavery the reasons thrumped up later were mere excuses. Their leaders clearly maintained the reason and only reason was to preserve the Slaveocracy. You want to fight with Jefferson Davis about that?

I would never instigate Blacks to do anything to anyone merely suggested your ideas would not receive a welcome in some circles of our citizenry. Who do you think they would be more receptive to one who is pushing for the celebration of the Jubilation T. Cornpones or one making fun of him?

If you could read and understand the Constitution of the United States you would understand that it is the supreme law of the land and overrules any State law in conflict with it. All laws can be challenged by States or individuals and the Supreme Court rules on those challenges. Sometimes the challengers are even upheld and the U.S. laws thrown out. I know you won't believe that but it has happened.

The reason no Slaveocrats were tried for treason, as you probably know, was because Lincoln's humanity called for reconciliation. There had been enough suffering and his was magnaminous enough not to rub the Slaveocrats noses in it. His "malice toward none" attitude survived even after his death since Johnson was not convicted and remained president. Had the Radical Republicans removed him there most certainly would have been trial for treason. Lincoln allowed the rebels to merely give their word and swear to be loyal citizens and he forgave them. The insurrection forced the federal government to grow to defend the nation and freedom. It was not growing before the war thus the Slaveocrats are responsible for the burst of federal power required to repress the insurrection. Slaveocracy is incompatible with freedom since it is based on the concept of one class of men losing their freedom and being forced to serve another.

You don't even understand the constitution you claim to support so your claimed allegiance means nothing to me. How one can support clear treason against the constitution and nation and claim to support both is beyond my comprehension. Had the insurrection succeeded both the CSA and the United States would have suffered greatly and the power of each would be much less than that of the two combined. Plus, war would have erupted between them periodically since the controversy over slavery would have led to armed conflicts. And freedom would have suffered all down the line.

You know, justshutupandtakeit, I have answered you with quotes and substance and you provide me nothing but venom, conjecture, insult, and opinion.

Your admiration of Hamilton is very telling. Hamilton hated the idea of a compact Union (not Republic as you contend), wanted a strong centralized government, gave us our first centralized bank that gave us our first bout of inflation, and gave us our first "rebellion". If you don't want to believe Hamilton and his ideas are screwed up, don't. It is no skin off of my nose and it only shows how much you will ignore to scoff at anyone else who poses a different opinion. I provided quotes, what did you give? But, of course, I am not nearly as educated as you since you say so. No, I have never read the words of those that were there < /sarcasm >. I, unlike you, don't prefer to read someone elses analysis instead choosing to read their own words. Is that too difficult for you? Uneducated? Hardly.

Habeaus Corpus cannot be suspended by an executive; ever. That is why it is in the first article of the Constitution; you know, the one set aside for the Legislature? If you wish to believe that then maybe you should read up on Ex Parte Milligan where Lincoln's own ex-Secretary of the Treasury ruled it was illegal along with the 1863 ex post facto law passed by the Congress and Senate. Maybe you should also read up on the comments of Lincoln's Attorney General regarding executive suspension of Habeaus Corpus. Apparently Lincoln didn't like it since he fired him. If you can provide me with proof positive that the founding fathers meant absolutely no separation of powers in the Constitution, I will gladly change my view and denounce Chief Justice Salmon Chase, Chief Justice John Marshall, and Judge Blackstone as heretics. It is something that others who believe the same thing have failed to do. But alas, since I am not as educated as you, I must be wrong. Is that the case here, also?

Do you deny it took the "mighty" Federal Army over 4 years to beat a relative handful of farmers with the industrial and personnel capacity of the North? Not only did the "slaveocracy" kill many of your new heroes but they did it without the benefit of shipping, mass manufacturing and a larger number of men to deploy. Do you also deny the Federal Army taking out their frustrations on non combattants and their property? The Federal Army did not come from just the states you mention. They were not all "farmers" as you would like to believe. As I said before, they must have spent more time dating their horses than gaining proficiency riding them since they couldn't get that cavalry concept down for a while. Here is a maddening couple of little facts that I thought you might enjoy: My Confederate ancestors did not own slaves; my Union ones did. My Confederate Ancestors volunteered while my Union ones were drafted. One of my ancestors fought in integrated companies while the other did not. I'll leave it up to you to figure it out which was which.

Well, if you had "heard" about all of the non-white members fighting for the CSA you apparently were not paying attention. Try looking here for Jewish Confederates. For Hispanics, look up the 37 Texas.org site. For blacks, maybe an April 1861 Frederick Douglas qoute will help:

There are at this date tens of thousands of Negro Soldiers, wearing the Rebel uniform and armed with rifles on their shoulders. They are defending their country.

Laugh all you wish. If you have tried to find any reference material you have not looked very hard. It is readily available and still in print. As for Dr. Williams' article, he made reference to Blacks serving the CSA but he concentrated on 3,000 free Black slave owners in Louisiana that enlisted. All in all, it would seem historical fact outweighs your opinion and whatever hindsight analysis you swallowed as truth.

The quotes I gave you were the conditions that those states put forth for ratifying the Constitution. They made it very clear that whenever they felt the compact was broken, they reserved the right to return the government back to the people of their states. What part those quotes did you not understand? Not only that, it was implied that the Sovereign (State) could fire it's agent (Federal Government) whenever it chose. Don't believe me? The thirteen colonies seceded from the Crown and, eventually, the thirteen colonies seceded from the Articles of Confederation. That is why 5 NE states attempted to exercise their rights to secede from the Union. The traitors trading with the enemy remark comes from these same NE states that were openly trading with England while Southerners were spilling their blood fighting the enemy. What part of that did you not understand? On the other hand, if it is one of my "monumental misunderstandings or bizzare lies" why not refute it. Surely someone as educated as you studied the war of 1812. Or maybe you didn't and choose to slander me in an attempt to cover up your own ignorance. Hmmmm....

The states did in fact exist before the Union. If you don't believe me, why not try reading the Treaty of Paris of 1783? We were recognized as thirteen independent nations. The Constitution was a compact and was never ass-u-med to be perpetual. That is why we were a Union and not a Nation; that is why we have a Federal Government, not a National Government. Try looking up the definitions of both sometime, you may be suprised. Another source you may try reading, if you deem it worthy, is Rawles Commentaries on the Constitution and see what he had to say about secession. Since he was Washington's Attorney General, he would have more first hand knowledge than either you or I. Incidentally, that book was the text that was taught at West Point when Jefferson Davis was a student. Of course this was before Justice Story and his Federalist theory of "people in the aggregate", the same one you espouse, came into print.

You didn't say the CSA was a "Super Race"? Let's see:

The representatives of the Super Race had every right to hold the Sub humans in captivity and developed a Tyranny to deprive them of their rights.
85 Posted on 09/15/2001 23:51:27 PDT by justshutupandtakeit

It would seem that you are mistaken. Damn, but I love it when a bigoted elitist forgets their own words. If you still want to deny it, fine; it would fit in well with your pattern of denying many things in order for you opinion to be right. But let us take a look at your comparison and shoot it full of holes, shall we? Hitler would never have aligned himself with what he would have considered to be an inferior race (Indians) nor would he have had Jews serving in his ranks as well as in his cabinet. That swiss cheese your almighty opinion enough for you? I'm sure you will try to pull another technicality out of your hat. I assure you that I wait with baited breath. If Jews served all over the Federal Army and in the Government, maybe you could name a few. You know, like I did. Also, you must not be acquainted with General Grant's General Order #11.

If I can read and understand the Constitution? Coming from someone who cannot even see the separation of powers that does not mean much.

Nice backpedal on the Confederates convicted of treason. Why not give me something other than your opinion? Can you?

And finally you call my allegiance into question; again. How someone who is supposedly so educated and at the same time so ignorant of the fact that our Founding Fathers seceded from a large centralized government with a large standing army is astounding. How someone so educated can claim Southern secession was "only" about slavery when Lincoln himself admitted it was a problem that had been brewing for over thirty years (that was over tariffs) is beyond comprehension. You want to question my allegiance because I choose not to swallow lies? Okay, you are the same age as my parents. That would mean that you would have had the same oppurtunity to volunteer for the armed forces and serve your country as my father did. That would also mean that you would have had the oppurtunity to go to Viet Nam like my father did. He was lucky; he came back. It would appear you didn't bother to consider it. Maybe you could have had the chance to volunteer after Viet Nam was over and serve your country during a declared war like I did. Instead you did not. Question my loyalties and allegiance? You, sir, haven't moral authority to do so.

You are wrong about the role of the Central Bank causing: A) some conjectured inflation; b) the Whiskey rebellion; C) and its other functions.

None of Hamilton's critics even understood what they were criticizing not Madison and especially not Jefferson. They opposed his programs based on partisian bias and screwy ideas not reality. Reality was his program unleashed a tremendous economic boom which lasted until Jefferson's idiotic policies destroyed the nation's prosperity. It shouldn't be expected that you would understand this since I am sure you never read any economic history. But those are the facts. Hamilton's ideas laid the basis for our nation's success and without them there would have been great difficulty and perhaps failure.

By the way every allegation you posted has been refuted since you think you understand what your quotations mean but you don't. It is not simple to correctly interprete the writings of people who lived 200 yrs. ago. Meanings of words have changed; the statements must be placed within their historical context before their correct meaning is evident.

There is nothing ambiguous about this:"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, UNLESS WHEN IN CASES OF REBELLION or Invasion the public Safety may require it." There was a rebellion thus no problem with suspending habeas corpus. Why would you think the SecTreas should be an authority on this question? Nor do I see that the Article says that suspension of h.c. is limited to the legislature though it could well be the case. I don't mock you for any supposed lack of education. I merely state that some of the things you think you know are not true.

It is not I who would argue there is no separation of powers leave that to Jefferson who wished to get rid of the Supreme Court if his writings are to be believed.

When Lee and most of the officer corp decided not to be Americans the United States Army was essentially destroyed. In actuality the South found it easier to build an army than the north since it had the experienced officer corp as a cadre and probably more ex military officers in total and per capita than the north. Had the North had a real army the war would have been over earlier. In fact, the army of farmers was the northern the south had many more veterans in its army. This allowed it to hold out almost four years since the north had to build an army almost from scratch. Your point about Calvary verifies my contention farmers don't do calvary since plow horses are not chargers.

Civilian atrocities were generally not the result of Union army "frustrations" and were not different than collateral damage associated with all war.

Douglas's comment probably referred more to his paranoia and fears than to reality. Where are the casualty figures for Black confederates? Where are the units of Black soldiers? I am not familiar with the Lousiana volunteers and would like to read more. At present, I believe this to be a mere exaggeration designed to put a patina of respectableness on a racist endeavor.

States were not given the choice of ratification or ratification with conditions merely ratification or rejection. They ratified. Any other verbiage was and is irrelevent. Not that your quotes show conditional ratification in any case.

The thirteen colonies AS A UNIT declared that the Crown no longer governed. It would not be governed having never given its consent. There was no secession from the Articles of confederation. This is an example of incorrect use of words. The confederation changed its government it couldn't secede from itself. Did Illnois secede from itself when it adopted a new constitution in 1970? No, of course not. That is a logical absurdity.

Oh, you mean while British armies were occuping the north there was "trading with the enemy" while southerns were fighting. Not hardly, most of the Battles were in the north and initially militia from the northern states bore the brunt of the bloodshed. So that is another fantastic falsehood you are laboring under. Saratoga, Trenton, White Plains, Brooklyn Heights, Princeton, Harlem Heights, Lexington, Concord, Monmouth, Long Island, New Brunswick, Germantown, in other words you could hardly be more wrong.

Rawles is a poor counterweight to Madison, Hamilton, Marshall, Washington and almost all of the rest of the founders. He is all you defenders of the indefensible have to hang your hat on however. Rawles was never Attorney General, an Office which at the time was part time and essentially irrelevant anyway. You are wrong about that too.

CSA was an attempted nation it wasn't a "race." What I said was that the social theory underlying slavery (the sole reason for the CSA's existence) was similiar to the super race theory of the Nazis. Belief in Black inferiority was widespread in the South (and much of the North) as a Master Race ideology. This was true until recently. I lived there I know.

You may be able to read the Constitution but have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand it.

There was no backpedal on treason merely another statement of fact obvious to all not desparate to glorify the Slaveocracy who have deeply studied history. The Slaveocrats were the ones who said their insurrection was over slavery argue with Jeff Davis not me. I believe him.

I don't question your allegiance for not swallowing lies I think you are swallowing bushels of them. If your conception of the constitution is as you have illustrated and stated then I can't see how it could have any value to you except as an instrument of oppression. Lincoln did his constitutionally required duty in suppressing rebellion just as Andy Jackson threatened to do to the South Carolina Slaveocracy. Nor can I understand how any rational person can believe there was anything noble or valuable in the conception of a society based upon slavery wherein the vast majority of the people black and white were utterly powerless and in the control of the rich planters. That is not a Republic which is what the constitution guarantees.

Not that it is relevent or that you will believe me but in March of 1966 I volunteered for the U.S. army and was rejected for physical reasons. At that time I had no problem with going to Vietnam. Maybe I was crazy but thought I was being told the truth about that war and wanted to go. I later found out that was not the case.