Confederate flag was the flag of traitors

like you say .. "You idiots are looking at a 19th century problem through 21st century morality."


including yourself TSA, NSA, drone boy etc etc Originally Posted by CJ7

That doesn't make any sense.

Wait a sec, it's CBJ7. Never mind.

I don't know if I would call Lincoln a power mad dictator. He came into office with a plank to end slavery and an unofficial plank to preserve the Union. As someone correctly pointed out, South Carolina and other states seceded before Lincoln took office and Buchanan did nothing. Though they seceded nothing much changed. The borders were not closed, northerns were not beaten from the fair south, and they didn't even try to take over the harbor forts like Sumter with any zeal. Soldiers from Fort Sumter regularly went into Charleston for shopping and socializing. It was only when Lincoln tried to reinforce Sumter with men that the southern battery took shots at the ship. In the beginning of hostilities Lincoln did not recruit a large force and the force was of a very short duration. About being a power mad dictator, Lincoln used minimum force and was forced to respond to southern resistance. I think he did what he thought he had to do to preserve the Union. If he had failed they would not have elected another republican for another fifty years. The GOP would be known as the party of a broken union. So I think politics had a lot to do with Lincoln's response.

That doesn't make any sense.

Wait a sec, it's CBJ7. Never mind.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The little guy is a 19 century person trying to make sense of the 21 century.

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. Originally Posted by ExNYer

And you're the "dead horse getting a beating", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Arkansas chose not to secede in March, 1861, but subsequently DID choose to secede in May declaring that Lincoln's belligerent actions were the cause. Missouri's elected legislators and governor made the same declaration later that year.

And your "deflection" attributing a "noble cause" behind Yankee protective tariffs doesn't hold water, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass:

1. "The Tariff of 1828 was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States. It was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy."

2."New York did not free its last slaves until 1829, Rhode Island had five slaves still listed in the 1840 census, Pennsylvania's last slaves were freed in 1847, Connecticut did not completely abolish slavery until 1848, and slavery was not completely lifted in New Hampshire and New Jersey until the nationwide emancipation in 1865."

Here's a FYI for you, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, it was the "Rump Parliament" that was in session while Oliver Cromwell kicked lame-dick, mick-ass in Ireland.

BTW, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass and BigKoTex, this is what Mr. Lincoln said about slavery and HIS war to save the Union:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

Exactly how long does this condition persist before the Hulk reverts to Dr. Banner, eh Corpy?

You've been on a rampage for 21 days now. Into your FOURTH WEEK of this epic meltdown, flinging feces, posting like a hysterical lunatic, screaming and attacking anybody who addresses you, even posters who have never commented on your rants before.

You been chasing cars, too?

And you're the "dead horse getting a beating", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Arkansas chose not to secede in March, 1861, but subsequently DID choose to secede in May declaring that Lincoln's belligerent actions were the cause. Missouri's elected legislators and governor made the same declaration later that year.

And your "deflection" attributing a "noble cause" behind Yankee protective tariffs doesn't hold water, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass:

1. "The Tariff of 1828 was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States. It was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy."

2."New York did not free its last slaves until 1829, Rhode Island had five slaves still listed in the 1840 census, Pennsylvania's last slaves were freed in 1847, Connecticut did not completely abolish slavery until 1848, and slavery was not completely lifted in New Hampshire and New Jersey until the nationwide emancipation in 1865."

Here's a FYI for you, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, it was the "Rump Parliament" that was in session while Oliver Cromwell kicked lame-dick, mick-ass in Ireland.

BTW, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass and BigKoTex, this is what Mr. Lincoln said about slavery and HIS war to save the Union:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Missouri's PHONY rump legislature and governor declared secession, which doesn't mean shit. And if 2.5 times as many Missourians fought for the Union as the Confederacy, you can see why they had to set up a rump legislature. They couldn't get the necessary votes for secession.

And Arkansas CLEARLY was seceding to protect slavery, liar. Deny it all you want. And that was voted on BEFORE Lincoln ever exercised his legitimate Constitutional powers to suppress a rebellion. And if Arkansas decided to add Lincoln's actions to their list of reasons for seceding, that does NOT change the fact that they were also seceding to preserve slavery, tranny fucker.

And, once again, you seek to deflect from the subject at hand by listing the number of slaves still held in some Northern states. As if that changes anything. But, you forget that NONE of those Northern states seceded, little twat.

That doesn't make any sense.

Wait a sec, it's CBJ7. Never mind.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

that because you're living with a 19th century mindset in 21st century world, Droneboy

Missouri's PHONY rump legislature and governor declared secession, which doesn't mean shit. Two things, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, that rump legislature was popularly elected, and that means something, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. And if 2.5 times as many Missourians fought for the Union as the Confederacy, you can see why they had to set up a rump legislature. Federal troops and Unionist militia led by a Connecticut general chased the popularly elected Missourian legislators and governor out of the capitol, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. The "rump legislature" was more legitimate than the "provisional government" established and propped up by federal bayonets, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. They couldn't get the necessary votes for secession. The "votes" had already been counted, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, but the vote was nullified by Yankee bayonets!

And Arkansas CLEARLY was seceding to protect slavery, liar. That's not what the document says, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass; hence, you're the liar. Deny it all you want. And that was voted on BEFORE Lincoln ever exercised his legitimate Constitutional powers to suppress a rebellion. Squirm all you want, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, Arkansas did not vote to secede until May, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, AFTER Lincoln made his call to arms. And if Arkansas decided to add Lincoln's actions to their list of reasons for seceding, that does NOT change the fact that they were also seceding to preserve slavery, tranny fucker. . Arkansas would not have seceded at all had it not been for Lincoln's call for armed aggression, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

And, once again, you seek to deflect from the subject at hand by listing the number of slaves still held in some Northern states. As if that changes anything. But, you forget that NONE of those Northern states seceded, little twat.
There was no "deflection" involved in disproving your ignorant assertion that the North enacted tariffs for the purpose of bringing an end to slavery, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Exactly how long does this condition persist before the Hulk reverts to Dr. Banner, eh Corpy?

You've been on a rampage for 21 days now. Into your FOURTH WEEK of this epic meltdown, flinging feces, posting like a hysterical lunatic, screaming and attacking anybody who addresses you, even posters who have never commented on your rants before.

You been chasing cars, too? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're a delusional, dumb-fuck golem jackass, you dumb-fuck golem jackass.

You've been on a rampage for 21 days now. Into your FOURTH WEEK of this epic meltdown, flinging feces, posting like a hysterical lunatic, screaming and attacking anybody who addresses you, even posters who have never commented on your rants before. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Make that 22 days (and counting)!

Make that 22 days (and counting)! Originally Posted by bigtex

So, BigKoTex, you're "learning" how to count from the dumb-fuck golem jackass?

No, Corpy. We're learning how to count from YOU, you corpulent, pustulent drama queen!

At some point this meltdown will transcend the days and just become another of your many psychoses.

You're a delusional, dumb-fuck golem jackass, you dumb-fuck golem jackass. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Keep dreaming shit for brains.

I said the Arkansas votes on the complaints about slavery were voted on before Lincoln acted to suppress the rebellion. Can't you read? And the Arkansas Ordinance specifically refers to the March votes on slavery and other issues, even if it doesn't specifically sue the word slavery, so YEAH, THE ORDINANCE IS BASED ON SLAVERY.

And your bullshit spin about Missouri doesn't match the facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missour...ican_Civil_War

Key quotes:
---------------------------
In the election of 1860, Missouri’s newly elected governor was Claiborne "Fox" Jackson, a career politician and an ardent supporter of the South. Jackson campaigned as a Douglas Democrat, favoring a conciliatory program on issues that divided the country. After Jackson’s election, however, he immediately began working behind the scenes to promote Missouri’s secession. In addition to planning to seize the federal arsenal at St. Louis (see below), Jackson conspired with senior Missouri bankers to illegally divert money from the banks to arm state troops, a measure that the Missouri General Assembly had so far refused to take.
--------------------------

So, your great Missouri governor - who you say was NOT going to secede - intended to secede even BEFORE he took office and began secret plots as soon as he took office. And he was planning on attacking the federal government (seizing federal arsenals) and embezzling money to raise his own Confederate troops without approval of the MO assembly.

Another key quote:
----------------------------
Jackson and Price, who were working to construct the new Missouri State Guard in nine military districts state-wide, wanted to contain the Federal toe-hold to the Unionist stronghold of St. Louis. Jackson demand that Federal forces be limited to the boundaries of St. Louis, and that pro-Unionist Missouri "Home Guards" in several Missouri town be disbanded. Lyon refused, and stated that if Jackson insisted on so limiting the power of the Federal Government "This means war".
----------------------------

So basically, Jackson was telling the federal government what it could and could not do with its military in Missouri. Governors and state legislature do not have that power. So that is de facto secession.

Missouri pretended to have a postion of "armed neutrality". But that is bullshit. If you are IN the Union, you do not have the power to tell the federal government what to do with its troops. If Lincoln wanted to move more of them into Missouri, the state could not refuse. So Jackson was effectively seceding even WITHOUT a secession vote.

And then there is this:
---------------------
Jackson and the pro-Confederate politicians fled to the southern part of the state. Jackson and a rump of the General Assembly eventually set up a government-in-exile in Neosho, Missouri and announced an Ordinance of Secession. This government was recognized by the Confederacy, despite that fact that the "Act" was not endorsed by a plebiscite (as required by Missouri state law) and that Jackson's government was all but powerless inside Missouri.
----------------------------

So, their Act of secession violated state law. They did not have the authority to do it.

And yet, you think this rump was more valid than the Unionist legislature.

Fucking hypocrite.

There wasn't s single Confederate state that secede over other reasons, but NOT slavery.

Which brings up another question: If there were other reasons for seceding besides preserving slavery, why didn't any of the non-slave states also secede for one of those other reasons?

Why didn't Maine or Ohio also secede in response to Lincoln's "call to arms" that you like to blame?

Make that 22 days (and counting)! Originally Posted by bigtex

IB has the official count.

.....what day are we on now, officially IB?

Interesting article.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/opinio...html?hpt=hp_c3

There are a lot of Tea Party members that are simply small government advocates. Many others are libertarians opposed to the security/police state. Still others are religious types who don't want gay marriage crammed down their throats.

But NOTHING undermines their legitimate causes and beliefs faster than when InBredHankering or one of his knuckle dragging cousins shows up at a TP rally and starts waving the Confederate Rag. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I really don't have anything against donktards. They are what they are... but you, TsFLFer.... you are a RAT with a tail a mile long...you can't be trusted by either side....LOL

I really don't have anything against donktards. They are what they are... but you, TsFLFer.... you are a RAT with a tail a mile long...you can't be trusted by either side....LOL Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

What language are you writing in, banjo boy?