you really don't like the idea that someone, anyone would argue STATES RIGHTS FOR the Southern States, because they owned Slaves, all while ignoring that there were almost as many SLAVES in the Fucking Northern States,
I don't like people distorting the truth of history. I have always defended states' rights, in accordance with the Constitution. The irony is that the rebels in 1860 actually argued against states' rights. Just read the secession documents and publications of the fireeaters at the time. They were very clear that their grievance was that the free states, by enacting state laws protecting the inhabitants of their jurisdiction against illegal kidnapping, were somehow violating their "constitutional rights" (not in the Constitution) to cross state lines and abduct any black person without any proof that they were indeed an escaped slave. The rebels were pissed that the federal government, from their perspective, wasn't doing enough to enforce that Fugitive Slave Act. The rebels didn't want stronger state governments and a weaker federal government. Quite on the contrary, they demanded a stronger federal government that would protect slavery, not only where it existed at the time, but also expanded west into the territories, throughout the rest of the United States, and even for the country to acquire more southern territory (originally Mexico, which was quite successful, sadly, and then Cuba, in particular). And of course, when they formed their "new" constitution, they basically copied the US Constitution, but explicitly declared and protected the right of slavery, and strengthened their fantasy central government's power to administrate the so-called Confederacy. In 1860, there were 0 chattel slaves in the northern free states. On the contrary, there were nearly 4 million slaves throughout the southern and middle states where the practice was legal, an increase of 800k (22%) from 1850, and the most numerous population of slaves in the nation's history.
and also while ignoring that the Abolition of Slavery was a STATES RIGHTS ISSUE, not a fucking Federal Issue....
Within the states where slavery existed, yes, it was a states rights issue. But in the territories that would become new states, it was 100% a federal issue. However, the rebels didn't actually see it that way, at least, they wanted it to be a states rights issue for new states (when the Constitution determined otherwise), but then they wanted it to be a federal issue when it came to the demand for the federal government to usurp the protective laws of the free states, in stronger enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. See prior paragraph.
Your HATRED of the south is unjustified,
I don't hate "the south." But I do strongly oppose idiots and those who would attempt to lie about history.
because the STATE you were Born in, also had SLAVES
In my home state of New York, abolition started in 1799 and the end of all gradual emancipation occurred in 1827. How does that fact impact my understating of history? Interesting angle with the attempted psychoanalysis though.
hate yourself for not doing anything about that,
What was I going to do at a time in which I didn't exist?
but stop hating other Americans for being SLOW to action on pushing for the End of Slavery in their own States.
I don't generally hate my fellow Americans. But I do despise liars and manipulators, especially when it comes to gaslighting about our history. I also despise those who would engage in rebellion against this country for the most unholy of causes, then lie about it to avoid having to own up to their sins.
You don't see me going to New York and screaming at everyone for not walking around with a gun on their hip, and yet where I grew up, it was a common occurrence to see five or six guns anywhere at one time....
What does this analogy have to do with history and the condemnation of bad dudes from history doing bad things? You imply as if I somehow hate you because you apparently live in one of the former rebel states. I don't hate you. But I do oppose your absurd defense of the Lost Cause apostles.
I know Slavery is bad, BUT, Slavery has been part of Humanity for LONGER than Written History, and it is STILL happening all around the fucking Planet, so, if you must HATE, hate the ones who SUPPORT Slavery TODAY,
Yeah. It's bad. Always has been, everywhere it existed and continues to exist. It would be great if the rest of the world wouldn't lecture the USA on our past sins, and ignore the slavery imposed by Islamic Arabs onto Europeans and Christians, or of Africans onto other tribes of Africans, or of Europeans onto colonized indigenous groups, or ignore the slavery that continues today. The USA is an easy target. Apparently the critics don't see much to gain by condemning Spain and Portugal who actually trafficked the vast majority of African slaves brought into the western hemisphere, to the Caribbean and South America.
and just look at American History as a chance to learn and grow....
Take some of your own medicine and be willing to learn about how evil people were able to dupe useful idiots into supporting an illegal rebellion against their lawful government, in defense of an evil institution. I realize this is a hard truth to accept, and free yourself from the Lost Cause gaslighting that was used to successfully indoctrinate you. As Q pointed out, WHO pushed the Lost Cause propaganda? Democrats. Why? To make well-meaning patriots look like idiots so that people won't take them seriously.
And as YOU so pointedly stated ""Onlychildren resort to temper tantrums""...
Says the apparent adult dropping 3 f-bombs in a thread on an internet forum. My statement stands.
Ok, look I get the whole ""He kidnapped me"" thing, but you mist Remove EMOTION from the whole equation, because LAW does NOT include how you FEEL....
Law is a FORCE, it has NO EMOTION it at best, and under the best of intentions, is only FORCE with direction....
I agree with you, I do not like anyone distorting the Truth about History in any direction that leads to one side or the other as being more Moral or Superior or whatever....
So I want to look at BOTH SIDES, from a Superior point of view, and have a Look from above, like someone looking at ants, instead of some one looking at it AS an Ant...
So you adhere your opinions to Clowns? The Fire Eaters were akin to ANTIFA today, just a bunch of idiots who really had no home, were paid to cause trouble, and had wealthy backers, only looking to foment strife, same as ANTIFA, and BLM....
Oh I intend to fully go therough evey part you've written, but since it is New Years, I wish you a very Happy and Prosperous and Healthy and fortunate New Yaer to You and your Family and Friends....
Ok, look I get the whole ""He kidnapped me"" thing, but you mist Remove EMOTION from the whole equation, because LAW does NOT include how you FEEL....
Emotion, like the random ALL-CAPS usage? You're the one exhibiting quite a lot of emotion in this debate. Indeed, the law doesn't care how you feel. Which is why I keep referring to it.
So I want to look at BOTH SIDES, from a Superior point of view, and have a Look from above, like someone looking at ants, instead of some one looking at it AS an Ant...
Sure, which is why I sympathize with the majority of the rebels, who were duped into stupidly supporting and dying for an unjust cause. Like Lincoln and Grant, I would have urged mercy for the dupes (majority). Only the rebel ringleaders should have been punished with any level of severity... I think that the 14th's prohibition of being allowed to serve in government was fair, although there should have been no opportunity for those rights to ever be restored. Look what happened, after Reconstruction, former rebel Dems stole elections in the former rebel states and legalized themselves back into power. Where I disagree with Lincoln, is that the top ringleaders, including those guilty of treason (violating their constitutional oaths... former federal office holders and military), should have been more harshly punished. Death sentence or at the least, exile for the top rebel leaders. I contend that because the penalties weren't harsh enough, and not enough examples were made, that allowed the former rebels to basically return to a "legalized" system of slavery in the former rebel states for another 100 years.
So you adhere your opinions to Clowns? The Fire Eaters were akin to ANTIFA today, just a bunch of idiots who really had no home, were paid to cause trouble, and had wealthy backers, only looking to foment strife, same as ANTIFA, and BLM....
Actually, the real fireeaters are the ones pulling the strings to sucker average people to join and support terrorists like ANTIFA and BLM. Follow the money. Who funds these groups. Modern fireeaters have vastly improved their ability to hide in the shadows, though with the digital age, it has also become more possible to identify, expose and catch them.
Oh I intend to fully go therough evey part you've written, but since it is New Years, I wish you a very Happy and Prosperous and Healthy and fortunate New Yaer to You and your Family and Friends.... For now, I'ma Watch the last episodes of TDW.... Laters my Fren....
By all means, make every effort you desire. I can dance all day and happy to do it. Iron sharpens iron.
The 14th Amendment was created in order to fully fly against the Article 4, Section 2 State Citizens, which ny all Rights and Laws were "Explicitly untouchable by the Federation in it's claims or dealings, that is Specifically why they didn't bother to force the Issue with General Lee and President Jefferson, there was no possible way to Prosecute them for Treason, because they knew that the Unite States is NOT an actual Nation, bit a Conglomeration of Various Nations....
No southerner ever committed Treason, but any Northerners did.....
The 14th Amendment was created in order to fully fly against the Article 4, Section 2 State Citizens
It was actually enacted because former rebel Demcrat shits were continuing to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens, e.g. the recently freed blacks. The amendment was ratified. It's legally binding as part of the Constitution.
why they didn't bother to force the Issue with General Lee and President Jefferson,
You should do more research on the indictments against both, who were actually very close to being fully prosecuted, had it not been for the political pressure to avoid making them into martyrs which risked encouraging former rebels to reignite open rebellion.
there was no possible way to Prosecute them for Treason, because they knew that the Unite States is NOT an actual Nation, bit a Conglomeration of Various Nations....
The USA is a nation and always has been, originally employing a governance structure a a confederation and then with the transition to a Constitution, a federation. Again, dual sovereignty.
No southerner ever committed Treason, but any Northerners did.....
Every politician and member of the military who took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the USA, and then took up arms, aided or abetted rebellion against the USA, committed treason. The many thousands of rebel traitors should have counted their blessings that Lincoln was as merciful as he was.
I don't like people distorting the truth of history. I have always defended states' rights, in accordance with the Constitution. The irony is that the rebels in 1860 actually argued against states' rights. Just read the secession documents and publications of the fireeaters at the time. They were very clear that their grievance was that the free states, by enacting state laws protecting the inhabitants of their jurisdiction against illegal kidnapping, were somehow violating their "constitutional rights" (not in the Constitution) to cross state lines and abduct any black person without any proof that they were indeed an escaped slave. The rebels were pissed that the federal government, from their perspective, wasn't doing enough to enforce that Fugitive Slave Act. The rebels didn't want stronger state governments and a weaker federal government. Quite on the contrary, they demanded a stronger federal government that would protect slavery, not only where it existed at the time, but also expanded west into the territories, throughout the rest of the United States, and even for the country to acquire more southern territory (originally Mexico, which was quite successful, sadly, and then Cuba, in particular). And of course, when they formed their "new" constitution, they basically copied the US Constitution, but explicitly declared and protected the right of slavery, and strengthened their fantasy central government's power to administrate the so-called Confederacy. In 1860, there were 0 chattel slaves in the northern free states. On the contrary, there were nearly 4 million slaves throughout the southern and middle states where the practice was legal, an increase of 800k (22%) from 1850, and the most numerous population of slaves in the nation's history.
Within the states where slavery existed, yes, it was a states rights issue. But in the territories that would become new states, it was 100% a federal issue. However, the rebels didn't actually see it that way, at least, they wanted it to be a states rights issue for new states (when the Constitution determined otherwise), but then they wanted it to be a federal issue when it came to the demand for the federal government to usurp the protective laws of the free states, in stronger enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. See prior paragraph.
I don't hate "the south." But I do strongly oppose idiots and those who would attempt to lie about history.
In my home state of New York, abolition started in 1799 and the end of all gradual emancipation occurred in 1827. How does that fact impact my understating of history? Interesting angle with the attempted psychoanalysis though.
What was I going to do at a time in which I didn't exist?
I don't generally hate my fellow Americans. But I do despise liars and manipulators, especially when it comes to gaslighting about our history. I also despise those who would engage in rebellion against this country for the most unholy of causes, then lie about it to avoid having to own up to their sins.
What does this analogy have to do with history and the condemnation of bad dudes from history doing bad things? You imply as if I somehow hate you because you apparently live in one of the former rebel states. I don't hate you. But I do oppose your absurd defense of the Lost Cause apostles.
Yeah. It's bad. Always has been, everywhere it existed and continues to exist. It would be great if the rest of the world wouldn't lecture the USA on our past sins, and ignore the slavery imposed by Islamic Arabs onto Europeans and Christians, or of Africans onto other tribes of Africans, or of Europeans onto colonized indigenous groups, or ignore the slavery that continues today. The USA is an easy target. Apparently the critics don't see much to gain by condemning Spain and Portugal who actually trafficked the vast majority of African slaves brought into the western hemisphere, to the Caribbean and South America.
Take some of your own medicine and be willing to learn about how evil people were able to dupe useful idiots into supporting an illegal rebellion against their lawful government, in defense of an evil institution. I realize this is a hard truth to accept, and free yourself from the Lost Cause gaslighting that was used to successfully indoctrinate you. As Q pointed out, WHO pushed the Lost Cause propaganda? Democrats. Why? To make well-meaning patriots look like idiots so that people won't take them seriously.
Says the apparent adult dropping 3 f-bombs in a thread on an internet forum. My statement stands.
Ok, look I get the whole ""He kidnapped me"" thing, but you mist Remove EMOTION from the whole equation, because LAW does NOT include how you FEEL....
Law is a FORCE, it has NO EMOTION it at best, and under the best of intentions, is only FORCE with direction....
I agree with you, I do not like anyone distorting the Truth about History in any direction that leads to one side or the other as being more Moral or Superior or whatever....
So I want to look at BOTH SIDES, from a Superior point of view, and have a Look from above, like someone looking at ants, instead of some one looking at it AS an Ant...
So you adhere your opinions to Clowns? The Fire Eaters were akin to ANTIFA today, just a bunch of idiots who really had no home, were paid to cause trouble, and had wealthy backers, only looking to foment strife, same as ANTIFA, and BLM....
Oh I intend to fully go therough evey part you've written, but since it is New Years, I wish you a very Happy and Prosperous and Healthy and fortunate New Yaer to You and your Family and Friends....
For now, I'ma Watch the last episodes of TDW....
Laters my Fren....
Emotion, like the random ALL-CAPS usage? You're the one exhibiting quite a lot of emotion in this debate. Indeed, the law doesn't care how you feel. Which is why I keep referring to it.
Sure, which is why I sympathize with the majority of the rebels, who were duped into stupidly supporting and dying for an unjust cause. Like Lincoln and Grant, I would have urged mercy for the dupes (majority). Only the rebel ringleaders should have been punished with any level of severity... I think that the 14th's prohibition of being allowed to serve in government was fair, although there should have been no opportunity for those rights to ever be restored. Look what happened, after Reconstruction, former rebel Dems stole elections in the former rebel states and legalized themselves back into power. Where I disagree with Lincoln, is that the top ringleaders, including those guilty of treason (violating their constitutional oaths... former federal office holders and military), should have been more harshly punished. Death sentence or at the least, exile for the top rebel leaders. I contend that because the penalties weren't harsh enough, and not enough examples were made, that allowed the former rebels to basically return to a "legalized" system of slavery in the former rebel states for another 100 years.
Actually, the real fireeaters are the ones pulling the strings to sucker average people to join and support terrorists like ANTIFA and BLM. Follow the money. Who funds these groups. Modern fireeaters have vastly improved their ability to hide in the shadows, though with the digital age, it has also become more possible to identify, expose and catch them.
By all means, make every effort you desire. I can dance all day and happy to do it. Iron sharpens iron.
ELE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0spFY1I2NQ
frens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH0Qda32IKM
The 14th Amendment was created in order to fully fly against the Article 4, Section 2 State Citizens, which ny all Rights and Laws were "Explicitly untouchable by the Federation in it's claims or dealings, that is Specifically why they didn't bother to force the Issue with General Lee and President Jefferson, there was no possible way to Prosecute them for Treason, because they knew that the Unite States is NOT an actual Nation, bit a Conglomeration of Various Nations....
No southerner ever committed Treason, but any Northerners did.....
It was actually enacted because former rebel Demcrat shits were continuing to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens, e.g. the recently freed blacks. The amendment was ratified. It's legally binding as part of the Constitution.
You should do more research on the indictments against both, who were actually very close to being fully prosecuted, had it not been for the political pressure to avoid making them into martyrs which risked encouraging former rebels to reignite open rebellion.
The USA is a nation and always has been, originally employing a governance structure a a confederation and then with the transition to a Constitution, a federation. Again, dual sovereignty.
Every politician and member of the military who took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the USA, and then took up arms, aided or abetted rebellion against the USA, committed treason. The many thousands of rebel traitors should have counted their blessings that Lincoln was as merciful as he was.