[WhiskeyPapa]

Of all the pro-Confederacy kooks on FR, you must be the most childish and annoying poster yet. You know full well that the Federal government responded to an armed rebellion by certain southern states because they wanted to keep the Union intact. The quote from Lincloln himself said exactly that. Yet you insist on repeatedly badgering others to answer your silly question why.

Saying that the Confederacy DIDN'T start the Civil War is like saying the colonists didn't start the American Revolution.

It's too bad more people on FR don't hold up the neo-rebs to the scorn they so richly deserve.

Walt

[SoCal Pubbie]

It's one thing to believe that states have a right to secede, indeed it's hard to argue that it was was okay for the colonist to want to split but not the Condeferates. However, one must look at the context. Did the southern states have representation? Was there a mechanism in place to legally challenge the binding association of the country, in other words, the courts? Did the slave states try any mechanism other than armed conflict to settle the matter? And don't give me any crapola about envoys sent to negotiate AFTER the decision was made to secede! Looking at the answers, it is difficult to argue that the southern states were in the right in any way.

It is another thing entirely to project guilt by using absurd terms like The War of Northern Agression (of course The War Between the States is a more accurate term than The Civil War), or making wild claims like the North started the war. The struggle is over, the Confederacy lost, and no southerners, the rest of the country does not hate you.

[Gianni]

It's too bad more people on FR don't hold up the neo-rebs to the scorn they so richly deserve.

Can I come to the wedding?

[Stewart_B]

You really seem to have a bug up your arse for Southern people. Why is that?