It sure doesn't look that way to me. It looks like I made a lot of good points that were agreed with, and never refuted.
That article is more important than what I said about the 14th, though.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm
"...We return to 1865. As the legally reconstituted Southern states were busy ratifying the anti-slavery Thirteenth Amendment, the Republican-dominated Congress refused to seat Southern representatives and Senators. This allowed the remaining, rump Congress to propose the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with Article V's requirement of a 2/3 majority for sending a proposed amendment to the states. Never mind that Congress also clearly violated that Article's provision that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
The only thing being destroyed, is your argument against me, and the Constitution's Article V by the RADICAL republicans.
Though the Northern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states, failing to secure the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification under Article V. The Radical Republicans responded with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which virtually expelled the Southern states from the Union and placed them under martial law...."
and all this was well after Lee's surrender. There was no "rebellion" or Constitutional excuse for this tyranny.