Confederate flag was the flag of traitors

Well, we finally agree on something.

Thank you for that accurate description of why the South seceded. They had to do something to protect slavery. Originally Posted by ExNYer

watch it scalawag and learn something...

Ive been giving some serious thought to this, Simple Jack. Maybe since your typical post is a cut and paste bit of video propaganda aimed at the foolish audience, you should be called by a new name. How does YouBoob strike you?

Ive been giving some serious thought to this, Simple Jack. Maybe since your typical post is a cut and paste bit of video propaganda aimed at the foolish audience, you should be called by a new name. How does YouBoob strike you? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Right on cue ... YouBoob!

Love your reviews, butt plug!

Right on cue ... YouBoob!

Love your reviews, butt plug! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You do butt plug reviews?

Am I mistaken or did IBIdiot continue this argument in another thread, thereby hijacking both? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

He did.

LIAR. By mission. AGAIN. Missouri was also a star on the US flag all through the war. Don't you know i'd read the same source as you? And Missouri fielded only about 40K troops for the Confederacy, but 100K troops for the Union. You omitted THAT, too The Confederacy's bogus claims to Missouri were based on the phony legislature in exile. Cite where on any occasion a Union general dismissively ignored Missouri combatants for the Confederacy on a battlefield as "bogus" or "phony", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Meanwhile, Florida 'only' fielded 15,000 combatants for the Confederacy, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, and Robert E. Lee 'only' had 65 to 75,000 combatants total when he marched on Gettysburg, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. 40,000 men is equivalent to three divisions, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass!

You lose. Again. One document (Missouri) isn't a vlid document at all and the other document (Arkansas) references its earlier slavery complaints without using the word slavery. I asked you for a Declaration of Secession that was based on something other than slavery and NOT based on slavery. Arkansas' Ordinance IS based on slavery, tranny fucker. You are getting very desperate. Despite your head-up-your-ass perspective, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, it's quite 'valid', and it clearly states that it was Lincoln's belligerent actions that provoked Arkansas to secede. And when one Googles "Declaration of Secession" ... "Ordinances of Secession" is one of the links that Google provides. you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.


I don't give a fuck if Arkansas decided to postpone secession until later. And historical facts don't care about your head-up-your-ass perspective, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. I asked for a Confederate state that seceded for some OTHER reason and NOT for slavery. I did not ask for a decisive factor or a primary reason because that is just a matter of opinoin and I knew you would argue that to death. Despite your head-up-your-ass perspective, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, Arkansas's Ordinance of Secession clearly states that it was Lincoln's belligerent actions that provoked Arkansas to secede. That is why I demanded that you identify a Confederate state that seceded for stated reasons that did NOT include slavery. The Arkansas and Missouri Ordinances of Secession clearly state that it was Lincoln's belligerent actions that provoked the secession ordinances, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. That's why the Ordinances are mostly useless because they generally don't state reasons. The Arkansas and Missouri Ordinances of Secession DO clearly state that it was Lincoln's belligerent actions that provoked the secession ordinances, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. So your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is more than "mostly" wrong when you claim that 'none' state a reason.



ONCE AGAIN, merely stating another reason doesn't cut it. I'm not going to argue with you over primary reasons. Again, historical facts don't care about your head-up-your-ass perspective, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. That's just opinion and you like to state yours like they are facts. Historical facts are not 'opinions', you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. The reasons for seceding must NOT include slavery. EVERY Confederate state secession was based on slavery. There may have been other lame reasons stated. Your lame 'deflection' doesn't make anything a 'lame reason', you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. But the rest are just window dressing to make it look like it wasn't just slavery. No one was seceding over tariff levels. Per Lostinspace's citation, Jefferson Davis says this before he once mentions the slave issue: "The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control. They learned to listen with impatience to the suggestion of any constitutional impediment to the exercise of their will, and so utterly have the principles of the Constitution been corrupted in the Northern mind that, in the inaugural address delivered by President Lincoln in March last, he asserts as an axiom, which he plainly deems to be undeniable, of constitutional authority, that the theory of the Constitution requires that in all cases the majority shall govern; and in another memorable instance the same Chief Magistrate did not hesitate to liken the relations between a State and the United States to those which exist between a county and the State in which it is situated and by which it was created. This is the lamentable and fundamental error on which rests the policy that has culminated in his declaration of war against these Confederate States."
So your lame 'deflection' doesn't make anything 'window dressing', you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

And the "economic reason" is a good example of a bullshit rationale. Texas, a state seceding to preserve slavery, threatened an economic boycott of Missouri unless that also secede with them. And slavery supporters in MO cited THAT as a reason to secede. This ignores that the economic boycott from the North would dwarf a Texas boycott. They could have told Texas for fuck off. Frankly this qualifies as another slavery-based reason for seceding. It's still an economic reason and the ordinance makes no mention of slavery, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

Keep trying, tranny fucker. Originally Posted by ExNYer

.

Having been out of pocket for a couple of weeks, I read with interest this entire thread prior to commenting. I knew as soon as I read the first post that this would quickly turn into a slugfest with the usual cast of characters trying to somehow defend the South's decision to secede from the Union, shortly after Lincoln was first elected POTUS in 1860.

I find it ironic that the same ECCIE posters who defend the South's decision to secede from the Union are also the individuals who proudly make the claim that President Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. By today's standards Lincoln clearly would not have aligned himself with the modern day Republican Party.

The fact of the matter is that the first state to secede from the Union was South Carolina and it was done shortly after Lincoln was elected. Before Abe even took the oath of office for the first time, seven Southern states seceded from the Union.

Why? Because it was apparent to each of those 7 states that once in office, Lincoln would pursue an anti-slavery agenda.

Draw your own conclusions!

You should have stayed away. Your response was kind of "blonde" (see vapid, air-headed, lacking substance). You recounted some historical facts that most of us are already aware (and a few don't). You tie everything back to slavery without proof and ignore what Lincoln said about slavery, if he could preserve the Union and keep slavery, he would have done it. The South had become the George W. Bush of the northern press. Uncle Tom's Cabin was lionized as a sterling example of life in the South but we know that it was so much BS (see propaganda) which hyped things that were not true. Is it any wonder that if you beat an ox for 20 years that it finally gets tired and tried to leave? It was a surprise to the North. Hey! We're not done beating you yet. Get back in your place.

This is not a defense of slavery and I don't think anyone here has tried to defend the practice but secession was more than slavery. It was also about tariffs, social trends, yellow journalism, and (yes) states rights.

To the OP...a stupid point that the south is traitourist because they wanted to succeed....

That would mean ExNyer believes the Colonies were "traitors" because they wanted succession; not to mention his own country Ireland which fought for it's independence.....traitors the whole lot !

And the Northern Ireland secessionists = traitor Catholics, the whole lot !

It could also be said the Union were the traitors by refusing to grant the states the rights they were entitled to according to the constitution...traitors the whole lot !

You should have stayed away. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Spoken by the same JB Idiot who regularly brags about Lincoln being a Republican hoping it will somehow lend some level of justification for his hate filled racist views.

This is not a defense of slavery and I don't think anyone here has tried to defend the practice but secession was more than slavery. It was also about tariffs, social trends, yellow journalism, and (yes) states rights. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You can say what you want but the fact of the matter is: Without the issue of slavery there would not have been any reason for the South to secede. The Conservative Democrats from the South knew their lifestyle would change dramatically when a Liberal "Republican" from Illinois campaigned against slavery and ultimately won the White House. The Southern Aristocrats from SC started the secession ball rolling. Shortly thereafter, 6 Southern Aristocratic states quickly followed suit.

Bottom Line: The greed of the racist Southern Aristocrats resulted in a painful, sordid and costly chapter of American history!

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Keep desperately beating the dead horses, tranny fucker.

The Missouri ordinance has no more legal weight than a Texas Tea Party ordinance of session (although you would think that was legal).

And the Arkansas ordinance references slavery referendums that were voted on.

You cannot find a Confederate state that voted to secede only for reasons unrelated to slavery.

EVERY LAST ONE of the Confederate states was aggrieved over the pending end of slavery. Demographics were not on their side.

Just like demographics are not on the side of middle-aged white rednecks like you. It is ALL down hill from here.

And the "agrarian" interest that Jefferson Davis was trying to protect was slave-based agriculture. Or are you too stupid to realize that? OF COURSE the north was trying to restrict the Southern economy, shit head. They were trying to end slavery. That is NOT an economic reason apart from slavery. That IS a slavery reason.

You should have stayed away. Your response was kind of "blonde" (see vapid, air-headed, lacking substance). You recounted some historical facts that most of us are already aware (and a few don't). You tie everything back to slavery without proof and ignore what Lincoln said about slavery, if he could preserve the Union and keep slavery, he would have done it. The South had become the George W. Bush of the northern press. Uncle Tom's Cabin was lionized as a sterling example of life in the South but we know that it was so much BS (see propaganda) which hyped things that were not true. Is it any wonder that if you beat an ox for 20 years that it finally gets tired and tried to leave? It was a surprise to the North. Hey! We're not done beating you yet. Get back in your place.

This is not a defense of slavery and I don't think anyone here has tried to defend the practice but secession was more than slavery. It was also about tariffs, social trends, yellow journalism, and (yes) states rights. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

And i suppose "Twelve Years A Slave" was also propaganda?

You should have quit while you were ahead.

This is not a defense of slavery and I don't think anyone here has tried to defend the practice but secession was more than slavery. It was also about tariffs, social trends, yellow journalism, and (yes) states rights. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JD Idiot, have you ever asked yourself what Wikipedia has to say about the origin of the Civil War?

I did your homework for you, they specifically said it was the "fractious issue of slavery, especially the extension of slavery into the western territories."

Apparently, Wiki did not use our resident JD Idiot as an "informed' source. Gee, I suppose Wiki wanted to get it right!

From Wiki:

The American Civil War, also known as the War Between the States or simply the Civil War (see naming), was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 in the United States after several[3] Southern slave states declared their secession and formed the Confederate States of America (the "Confederacy" or the "South"). The states that remained were known as the "Union" or the "North". The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery, especially the extension of slavery into the western territories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

Why the FUCK are we even discussing this STUPID SHIT? Our country is going to HELL and we talk about 150 year old history.... wake the fuck up!