April is Confederate History Month

[citdog]

gould shaw, john brown.... difference? none. In the context of the times no difference in our view. to pretend that ALL you were fighting for was to free those held in bondage is as disingenious (sp) and historically inaccurate as those who say that is ALL we were fighting for. was one of the goals of the USCT to help incite servile insurrection? YES. Did the men of African descent fight well generally? Yes. Did the fact that they did help to begin to prove to both sections the view they all held about his inferiority to them solely because of the color of his skin to be inaccurate? YES.

As far as the collective memory of our country? the undereducated, the people who know just enough to be dangerous, will always hold that view. they possess not the intelligence to see past what the State Power WAS to ever be able to look objectively at the argument of State Powers where it is plain to all the righteousness of THE CAUSE.

Grant and sherman heroes of humanity? if that is your view then you must be a huge fan of atilla, the mongols, the huns, and these guys

So yes the yankee view of the nature of our 'voluntary union' won out in 1865 and LOOK at the results of THAT! A bloated, out of control, imperialist government of corruption and greed. Johnny Reb striking a match against a tree and puffing on his tobacco pipe says.......


"I TOLD YOU SO!"

See, no one ever says that all the Union was fighting for was to end slavery. From the get go, everyone agrees that the Union was fighting to preserve the Union. The goal to end slavery once and for all didn't come to being until much later in the war. However, the South, from the get go, was clearly and foremostly interested in preserving slavery. All you have to do is read all the articles of secession - every single one of them talk about how preserving slavery forever was paramount to the South and that they left the Union to preserve that right. They weren't seceeding because of tarriffs or representation in the legislature, per se, they were withdrawing because they felt slavery was threatened. Come on, man, this passage starts the second sentence of the Mississippi secession pronouncement...

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

As for what government has been wrought since the Civil War, I'm not really ashamed of the US since then. We ended slavery, have given women more rights than in most areas of the world, fought and won two World Wars, the second against one of the most vile movements in the history of mankind, fought a Cold War against a vile Communistic regime and won, and have been the source of the most numeorus and important advances in almost every field of every science over the past century. Yeah, we have a problem with deficits and such, but on the whole, the US has been a remarkable success for the past 150 years. And we can most likely attribute some portion of that to the convincing annihilation of the South and it's vile defense of bondage based on race.

Cry me a fucking river you yankee twit. your tiny, like the size of mr. lincoln's schmeckle tiny, little State couldn't even pick a side. not that either one was waiting with bated breath for "delaware's might" to show itself on the field. you defeated the most vile movement in the history of mankind in the 2nd World War but used his same tactics 75 years before. it must have made it easy to recognize. you are one of the undereducated I was speaking of above. you are not smart enough to be able to see that it didn't matter what the State Power WAS. The States enjoy the right to Secede. Pick any reason you want. You say they do not. The difference between us is that we BELIEVED IN THE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED. We were fighting for them. It was you who tore up the Constitution by waging an illegal war of coercion. Marching into the South with an Army and forcing a free people to remain your countrymen is not a right the National Government enjoys. Secession was legal. Secession is still legal. Secession will always be legal. God let us come to our senses and utilize the remedy and cast off the yoke of this dying empire known as the 'late united states'.

[GannonFan]

See, no one ever says that all the Union was fighting for was to end slavery. From the get go, everyone agrees that the Union was fighting to preserve the Union. The goal to end slavery once and for all didn't come to being until much later in the war. However, the South, from the get go, was clearly and foremostly interested in preserving slavery. All you have to do is read all the articles of secession - every single one of them talk about how preserving slavery forever was paramount to the South and that they left the Union to preserve that right. They weren't seceeding because of tarriffs or representation in the legislature, per se, they were withdrawing because they felt slavery was threatened. Come on, man, this passage starts the second sentence of the Mississippi secession pronouncement...



As for what government has been wrought since the Civil War, I'm not really ashamed of the US since then. We ended slavery, have given women more rights than in most areas of the world, fought and won two World Wars, the second against one of the most vile movements in the history of mankind, fought a Cold War against a vile Communistic regime and won, and have been the source of the most numeorus and important advances in almost every field of every science over the past century. Yeah, we have a problem with deficits and such, but on the whole, the US has been a remarkable success for the past 150 years. And we can most likely attribute some portion of that to the convincing annihilation of the South and it's vile defense of bondage based on race.

Cry me a **** river you yankee twit. your tiny, like the size of mr. lincoln's schmeckle tiny, little State couldn't even pick a side. not that either one was waiting with bated breath for "delaware's might" to show itself on the field. you defeated the most vile movement in the history of mankind in the 2nd World War but used his same tactics 75 years before. it must have made it easy to recognize. you are one of the undereducated I was speaking of above. you are not smart enough to be able to see that it didn't matter what the State Power WAS. The States enjoy the right to Secede. Pick any reason you want. You say they do not. The difference between us is that we BELIEVED IN THE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED. We were fighting for them. It was you who tore up the Constitution by waging an illegal war of coercion. Marching into the South with an Army and forcing a free people to remain your countrymen is not a right the National Government enjoys. Secession was legal. Secession is still legal. Secession will always be legal. God let us come to our senses and utilize the remedy and cast off the yoke of this dying empire known as the 'late united states'.

Of course it's illegal - Texas v. White and Williams v. Bruffy have put to bed the idea that secession is a Constitutional right and somehow legal. It isn't. Sure, it's revolutionary, but even the ever dim-witted Buchanan could see that there was never a legal precedent for secession. You fought a revolution and you lost, and lost wholly and completely. And the main reason for fighting your revolution was to keep Black people as slaves. You celebrating that attempt is no better than the dopes who parade down streets in white Klan clothing shouting "white power". You and them are one in the same. When you pretend that your ancestors were cloaked in only honor and that men of similar heroism and honor like Shaw deserve to be in the pits of Hell simply because they did fight to end slavery (a stain that you even now admit was abhorrent) you reveal yourself to be a rube of the highest order. Your celebration of a delusional and vile way of life and then pretending there was legal justification for a severing of the Union outside of revolution is embarassing to yourself and to those you purport to represent. Call it a revolution if you like, at least that has merit, but don't hide behind some misbegotten and thoroughly debunked idea that secession was a Constitutionally permitted act. Unfortunately, there weren't enough men of higher caliber in the South by the 1860's to talk the simpletons like you down from the cliff - a good Andrew Jackson here or there could've gone a long way to keeping a leash on your type. Sadly, that left the job to the Union to smack you down, as they did through war, unfortunately at great loss of life and property. And all so that you could keep holding Black people, men, women, and children, in perpetual slavery - the real cause. What a reason to celebrate.

[CID1990]

Cry me a **** river you yankee twit. your tiny, like the size of mr. lincoln's schmeckle tiny, little State couldn't even pick a side. not that either one was waiting with bated breath for "delaware's might" to show itself on the field. you defeated the most vile movement in the history of mankind in the 2nd World War but used his same tactics 75 years before. it must have made it easy to recognize. you are one of the undereducated I was speaking of above. you are not smart enough to be able to see that it didn't matter what the State Power WAS. The States enjoy the right to Secede. Pick any reason you want. You say they do not. The difference between us is that we BELIEVED IN THE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED. We were fighting for them. It was you who tore up the Constitution by waging an illegal war of coercion. Marching into the South with an Army and forcing a free people to remain your countrymen is not a right the National Government enjoys. Secession was legal. Secession is still legal. Secession will always be legal. God let us come to our senses and utilize the remedy and cast off the yoke of this dying empire known as the 'late united states'.

Of course it's illegal - Texas v. White and Williams v. Bruffy have put to bed the idea that secession is a Constitutional right and somehow legal. It isn't. Sure, it's revolutionary, but even the ever dim-witted Buchanan could see that there was never a legal precedent for secession. You fought a revolution and you lost, and lost wholly and completely. And the main reason for fighting your revolution was to keep Black people as slaves. You celebrating that attempt is no better than the dopes who parade down streets in white Klan clothing shouting "white power". You and them are one in the same. When you pretend that your ancestors were cloaked in only honor and that men of similar heroism and honor like Shaw deserve to be in the pits of Hell simply because they did fight to end slavery (a stain that you even now admit was abhorrent) you reveal yourself to be a rube of the highest order. Your celebration of a delusional and vile way of life and then pretending there was legal justification for a severing of the Union outside of revolution is embarassing to yourself and to those you purport to represent. Call it a revolution if you like, at least that has merit, but don't hide behind some misbegotten and thoroughly debunked idea that secession was a Constitutionally permitted act. Unfortunately, there weren't enough men of higher caliber in the South by the 1860's to talk the simpletons like you down from the cliff - a good Andrew Jackson here or there could've gone a long way to keeping a leash on your type. Sadly, that left the job to the Union to smack you down, as they did through war, unfortunately at great loss of life and property. And all so that you could keep holding Black people, men, women, and children, in perpetual slavery - the real cause. What a reason to celebrate.

Some good points, some bad.

Overall you lump a heck of a lot of people who fought for the Confederacy yet never owned slaves (or supported secession in the first place) into one tidy, evil lot. That's one of the reasons Southerners don't care much for Yankees, right or wrong.

[citdog]

Cry me a **** river you yankee twit. your tiny, like the size of mr. lincoln's schmeckle tiny, little State couldn't even pick a side. not that either one was waiting with bated breath for "delaware's might" to show itself on the field. you defeated the most vile movement in the history of mankind in the 2nd World War but used his same tactics 75 years before. it must have made it easy to recognize. you are one of the undereducated I was speaking of above. you are not smart enough to be able to see that it didn't matter what the State Power WAS. The States enjoy the right to Secede. Pick any reason you want. You say they do not. The difference between us is that we BELIEVED IN THE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED. We were fighting for them. It was you who tore up the Constitution by waging an illegal war of coercion. Marching into the South with an Army and forcing a free people to remain your countrymen is not a right the National Government enjoys. Secession was legal. Secession is still legal. Secession will always be legal. God let us come to our senses and utilize the remedy and cast off the yoke of this dying empire known as the 'late united states'.

Of course it's illegal - Texas v. White and Williams v. Bruffy have put to bed the idea that secession is a Constitutional right and somehow legal. It isn't. Sure, it's revolutionary, but even the ever dim-witted Buchanan could see that there was never a legal precedent for secession. You fought a revolution and you lost, and lost wholly and completely. And the main reason for fighting your revolution was to keep Black people as slaves. You celebrating that attempt is no better than the dopes who parade down streets in white Klan clothing shouting "white power". You and them are one in the same. When you pretend that your ancestors were cloaked in only honor and that men of similar heroism and honor like Shaw deserve to be in the pits of Hell simply because they did fight to end slavery (a stain that you even now admit was abhorrent) you reveal yourself to be a rube of the highest order. Your celebration of a delusional and vile way of life and then pretending there was legal justification for a severing of the Union outside of revolution is embarassing to yourself and to those you purport to represent. Call it a revolution if you like, at least that has merit, but don't hide behind some misbegotten and thoroughly debunked idea that secession was a Constitutionally permitted act. Unfortunately, there weren't enough men of higher caliber in the South by the 1860's to talk the simpletons like you down from the cliff - a good Andrew Jackson here or there could've gone a long way to keeping a leash on your type. Sadly, that left the job to the Union to smack you down, as they did through war, unfortunately at great loss of life and property. And all so that you could keep holding Black people, men, women, and children, in perpetual slavery - the real cause. What a reason to celebrate.

hey shitstain see the corwin amendment. see the emancipation proclamation. we could have kept on keeping servants FOREVER IN THE UNION. All we wanted was to be left alone. Our separation was complete. The States are sovereigns. Always have been ALWAYS will be. It was NOT a CIVIL WAR. See Mr. Webster's definition. If Secession is not legal then you must have been supporting the Tory's in the 1st War of Independence. What was ok for the 13 Colonies in 1776 was also ok for the 7 Cotton States in 1860-1861. The insanity of your mr. lincoln forced 6 more States out of the union when he called for 75,000 volunteers to do that which HE HAD NOT A SHRED OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO. I tire of educating you. reading your same tired old incorrect argument like Cap'n Cat's poll choice the other day.....my cock itches

[GannonFan]

Of course it's illegal - Texas v. White and Williams v. Bruffy have put to bed the idea that secession is a Constitutional right and somehow legal. It isn't. Sure, it's revolutionary, but even the ever dim-witted Buchanan could see that there was never a legal precedent for secession. You fought a revolution and you lost, and lost wholly and completely. And the main reason for fighting your revolution was to keep Black people as slaves. You celebrating that attempt is no better than the dopes who parade down streets in white Klan clothing shouting "white power". You and them are one in the same. When you pretend that your ancestors were cloaked in only honor and that men of similar heroism and honor like Shaw deserve to be in the pits of Hell simply because they did fight to end slavery (a stain that you even now admit was abhorrent) you reveal yourself to be a rube of the highest order. Your celebration of a delusional and vile way of life and then pretending there was legal justification for a severing of the Union outside of revolution is embarassing to yourself and to those you purport to represent. Call it a revolution if you like, at least that has merit, but don't hide behind some misbegotten and thoroughly debunked idea that secession was a Constitutionally permitted act. Unfortunately, there weren't enough men of higher caliber in the South by the 1860's to talk the simpletons like you down from the cliff - a good Andrew Jackson here or there could've gone a long way to keeping a leash on your type. Sadly, that left the job to the Union to smack you down, as they did through war, unfortunately at great loss of life and property. And all so that you could keep holding Black people, men, women, and children, in perpetual slavery - the real cause. What a reason to celebrate.

Some good points, some bad.

Overall you lump a heck of a lot of people who fought for the Confederacy yet never owned slaves (or supported secession in the first place) into one tidy, evil lot. That's one of the reasons Southerners don't care much for Yankees, right or wrong.

And you see, you jump to the conclusion that I'm lumping those people in as being evil themselves. What they fought to defend, whether they profitted from the institution or not or whether they felt like they were fighting for it or not, was evil. Didn't make the people evil - never did and never will. That's one of the reasons why Yankees don't care much for Southerners, Southerners have a hard time separating people from the institution they fought to protect. Right or wrong of course.

[GannonFan]

hey shitstain see the corwin amendment. see the emancipation proclamation. we could have kept on keeping servants FOREVER IN THE UNION. All we wanted was to be left alone. Our separation was complete. The States are sovereigns. Always have been ALWAYS will be. It was NOT a CIVIL WAR. See Mr. Webster's definition. If Secession is not legal then you must have been supporting the Tory's in the 1st War of Independence. What was ok for the 13 Colonies in 1776 was also ok for the 7 Cotton States in 1860-1861. The insanity of your mr. lincoln forced 6 more States out of the union when he called for 75,000 volunteers to do that which HE HAD NOT A SHRED OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO. I tire of educating you. reading your same tired old incorrect argument like Cap'n Cat's poll choice the other day.....my cock itches

Of course you're tired, you don't have a leg to stand on but yet you keep trying to do so. The Corwin ammendment was moot - just an attempt by some in the North to avoid the war the South was so intent on forcing. Every state in the South made sure it was clear in each of their secession documents that they had to preserve slavery. It's hard to refute every single one of those documents that puts slavery front and center. Like any ammendment, it could have been repealed, hence why the South, which was steadfastly committed to preserving slavery, never would've been mollified by such a tenuous ammendment. And since the Emmancipation Proclamation came just two short years later, it's very likely it would've been repealed. And the 13th ammendment came about not soon after as well so your definition of "forever" doesn't jibe with the accepted definition of "forever" - you may want to hold onto your copy of Mr. Webster's dictionary.

As for what the colonies did in 1776 - of course it was illegal - revolutions are not legally sanctioned, hence why they are revolutions. No one then would've argued that what we did was legal under English law - that was the point. We didn't want to be under their laws and we revolted and, most importantly, we won. The South didn't legally break from the Union either - there was no such right. The South revolted and, most importantly, they lost. But there was never any legal basis that has stood up to the test of time.

[mrklean]

God Bless John Brown and Nat Turner!!!!

[citdog]

hey shitstain see the corwin amendment. see the emancipation proclamation. we could have kept on keeping servants FOREVER IN THE UNION. All we wanted was to be left alone. Our separation was complete. The States are sovereigns. Always have been ALWAYS will be. It was NOT a CIVIL WAR. See Mr. Webster's definition. If Secession is not legal then you must have been supporting the Tory's in the 1st War of Independence. What was ok for the 13 Colonies in 1776 was also ok for the 7 Cotton States in 1860-1861. The insanity of your mr. lincoln forced 6 more States out of the union when he called for 75,000 volunteers to do that which HE HAD NOT A SHRED OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO. I tire of educating you. reading your same tired old incorrect argument like Cap'n Cat's poll choice the other day.....my cock itches

Of course you're tired, you don't have a leg to stand on but yet you keep trying to do so. The Corwin ammendment was moot - just an attempt by some in the North to avoid the war the South was so intent on forcing. Every state in the South made sure it was clear in each of their secession documents that they had to preserve slavery. It's hard to refute every single one of those documents that puts slavery front and center. Like any ammendment, it could have been repealed, hence why the South, which was steadfastly committed to preserving slavery, never would've been mollified by such a tenuous ammendment. And since the Emmancipation Proclamation came just two short years later, it's very likely it would've been repealed. And the 13th ammendment came about not soon after as well so your definition of "forever" doesn't jibe with the accepted definition of "forever" - you may want to hold onto your copy of Mr. Webster's dictionary.

As for what the colonies did in 1776 - of course it was illegal - revolutions are not legally sanctioned, hence why they are revolutions. No one then would've argued that what we did was legal under English law - that was the point. We didn't want to be under their laws and we revolted and, most importantly, we won. The South didn't legally break from the Union either - there was no such right. The South revolted and, most importantly, they lost. But there was never any legal basis that has stood up to the test of time.

even though I feel as if I should be paid a salary by your flyshit sized State for educating one of her most poorly informed citizens I will respond to your blatantly incorrect statements above.

The Corwin Amendment
"NO AMENDMENT shall be made to the Constitution which will AUTHORIZE, or give the power to the Congress to abolish, or interfere within ANY STATE, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." This amendment does one thing other than the obvious of making the practice of keeping servants legal FOREVER IN THE UNION. It admits that the Congress didn't then possess the authority to interfere in the domestic institutions practiced in the United States only THE STATES DID. Mr. Lincoln offered no objection to this amendment. Quite the contrary, Mr. Lincoln in his first inaugural was in favor of making the Corwin Amendment "Express and IRREVOCABLE". Was ratified by such "tenous", as you state above, powers like the State of Maryland and the STATE OF OHIO.

The Emancipation Proclamation
paraphrasing "All persons held to servitude in States now in rebellion (dirty son of a bitch) are henceforth and forever free if those States do not return to the union before 1 January 1863."

The above make quite clear that if all we wanted was to keep Africans as servants we could have done so FOR ALL TIMES BY REMAINING IN, OR RETURNING TO, THE UNION.

you are just utterly ignorant and so wrong on your views on Secession that there is no use even trying to debate you. it's like trying to debate Shakespere with an orangutan. see the hartford convention. you mention "Old Hickory" of South Carolina well he was wrong and most of his problem was of a personal nature because Mr. Eaton married a whore and Mrs. John C. Calhoun rightly treated her as such.

I believe the document authored by Mr. Jefferson and published to the world on 4 July 1776, which is all the justification any State has ever needed for Secession, has stood up to the test of time quite nicely.

[CID1990]

Some good points, some bad.

Overall you lump a heck of a lot of people who fought for the Confederacy yet never owned slaves (or supported secession in the first place) into one tidy, evil lot. That's one of the reasons Southerners don't care much for Yankees, right or wrong.

And you see, you jump to the conclusion that I'm lumping those people in as being evil themselves. What they fought to defend, whether they profitted from the institution or not or whether they felt like they were fighting for it or not, was evil. Didn't make the people evil - never did and never will. That's one of the reasons why Yankees don't care much for Southerners, Southerners have a hard time separating people from the institution they fought to protect. Right or wrong of course.

Not jumping to conclusions at all there, Bubba. It is precisely what you wrote.

You have no idea what most of those men fought to defend, and what they sacrificed in the defense of it. If they had stayed home, the Union armies would have come marching right through in 1862.

[citdog]

Drewry's Bluff The yankee invader got no further than this by water up the James.


[youtube][/youtube]

[citdog]

our people ate rats, horses, and mules. they lived in caves. all for that most ancient of American Rights, SELF GOVERNMENT. Vicksburg June 1863

[youtube][/youtube]

[93henfan]

Since a bunch of The Cit folks seem to be vising this thread, do any of you know a fellow alum named Dave Jenkins? I had to deal with him recently in the course of my business and he mentioned he was an alum of your esteemed institution. He looks like he probably graduated late 80s/early 90s. I neglected to ask. I'll be dealing with him again, so if you want to name drop, feel free.

[GannonFan]

Of course you're tired, you don't have a leg to stand on but yet you keep trying to do so. The Corwin ammendment was moot - just an attempt by some in the North to avoid the war the South was so intent on forcing. Every state in the South made sure it was clear in each of their secession documents that they had to preserve slavery. It's hard to refute every single one of those documents that puts slavery front and center. Like any ammendment, it could have been repealed, hence why the South, which was steadfastly committed to preserving slavery, never would've been mollified by such a tenuous ammendment. And since the Emmancipation Proclamation came just two short years later, it's very likely it would've been repealed. And the 13th ammendment came about not soon after as well so your definition of "forever" doesn't jibe with the accepted definition of "forever" - you may want to hold onto your copy of Mr. Webster's dictionary.

As for what the colonies did in 1776 - of course it was illegal - revolutions are not legally sanctioned, hence why they are revolutions. No one then would've argued that what we did was legal under English law - that was the point. We didn't want to be under their laws and we revolted and, most importantly, we won. The South didn't legally break from the Union either - there was no such right. The South revolted and, most importantly, they lost. But there was never any legal basis that has stood up to the test of time.

even though I feel as if I should be paid a salary by your flyshit sized State for educating one of her most poorly informed citizens I will respond to your blatantly incorrect statements above.

The Corwin Amendment
"NO AMENDMENT shall be made to the Constitution which will AUTHORIZE, or give the power to the Congress to abolish, or interfere within ANY STATE, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." This amendment does one thing other than the obvious of making the practice of keeping servants legal FOREVER IN THE UNION. It admits that the Congress didn't then possess the authority to interfere in the domestic institutions practiced in the United States only THE STATES DID. Mr. Lincoln offered no objection to this amendment. Quite the contrary, Mr. Lincoln in his first inaugural was in favor of making the Corwin Amendment "Express and IRREVOCABLE". Was ratified by such "tenous", as you state above, powers like the State of Maryland and the STATE OF OHIO.

The Emancipation Proclamation
paraphrasing "All persons held to servitude in States now in rebellion (dirty son of a bitch) are henceforth and forever free if those States do not return to the union before 1 January 1863."

The above make quite clear that if all we wanted was to keep Africans as servants we could have done so FOR ALL TIMES BY REMAINING IN, OR RETURNING TO, THE UNION.

you are just utterly ignorant and so wrong on your views on Secession that there is no use even trying to debate you. it's like trying to debate Shakespere with an orangutan. see the hartford convention. you mention "Old Hickory" of South Carolina well he was wrong and most of his problem was of a personal nature because Mr. Eaton married a whore and Mrs. John C. Calhoun rightly treated her as such.

I believe the document authored by Mr. Jefferson and published to the world on 4 July 1776, which is all the justification any State has ever needed for Secession, has stood up to the test of time quite nicely.

Dude, there are no "irrevocable" ammendments. Every single one can be repealed. The Corwin Ammendment, if it ever passed, would've been the same. Let me know where in the Constitution you can find where an ammendment can be made "irrevocable" - it's problem the same section dealing with the legal basis for secession.

And really, the Corwin ammendment was about allowing slavery to remain where it existed, but still to prevent it's expansion, which is what set the South off with Lincoln's election in the first place. No one was taking away your slaves, they were just taking away the possibility of bringing slavery whereever you wanted.

And really, Mr. Jefferson's document never discussed the legal underpinnings of secession - some type of voluntary association that can walked away from at will or on a whim and is codified in the written law. It talked about the moral reasoning why people would need to rise up in arms and fight a revolution, even if it meant breaking the laws of the land. Taking away the possibility of expanding slavery is hardly the type of oppression that Mr. Jefferson was talking about.

Seriously, I know I've mocked the education that is apparently being done in South Carolina these days, I just had no idea that it was this pervasively warped, from elementary schools all the way through the University system. But then
again, it was probably this warped as well back in the leadup to self ruin that happened 150 years ago - and all to keep Black people in chains - forever.

[GannonFan]

And you see, you jump to the conclusion that I'm lumping those people in as being evil themselves. What they fought to defend, whether they profitted from the institution or not or whether they felt like they were fighting for it or not, was evil. Didn't make the people evil - never did and never will. That's one of the reasons why Yankees don't care much for Southerners, Southerners have a hard time separating people from the institution they fought to protect. Right or wrong of course.

Not jumping to conclusions at all there, Bubba. It is precisely what you wrote.

You have no idea what most of those men fought to defend, and what they sacrificed in the defense of it. If they had stayed home, the Union armies would have come marching right through in 1862.

Where did I write that they were evil? Still waiting. Bubba.

Of course they fought for different personal reasons, but at the end of the day, by doing so, they were also de facto fighting for slavery. Again, there's no getting around that. Without slavery, the war just doesn't happen. And yeah, if they stayed home, the Union armies probably still would've marched through - but it would've been a lot nicer than it was when they came marching through in 1864 and 1865 and then the decade that came later. Reversing a political attempt at seccession would've been much easier than a military attempt at secession. Heck, ironically you probably could've kept your slaves too, at least where you had them. Actually, kind of good then that you guys took the wrong path and decided to fight - it got Black people out of chains far earlier than they would've been.

[CID1990]

Not jumping to conclusions at all there, Bubba. It is precisely what you wrote.

You have no idea what most of those men fought to defend, and what they sacrificed in the defense of it. If they had stayed home, the Union armies would have come marching right through in 1862.

Where did I write that they were evil? Still waiting. Bubba.

Of course they fought for different personal reasons, but at the end of the day, by doing so, they were also de facto fighting for slavery. Again, there's no getting around that. Without slavery, the war just doesn't happen. And yeah, if they stayed home, the Union armies probably still would've marched through - but it would've been a lot nicer than it was when they came marching through in 1864 and 1865 and then the decade that came later. Reversing a political attempt at seccession would've been much easier than a military attempt at secession. Heck, ironically you probably could've kept your slaves too, at least where you had them. Actually, kind of good then that you guys took the wrong path and decided to fight - it got Black people out of chains far earlier than they would've been.

Your ignorance is completely off the charts. Tell you what- go back and take a look at all my posts and you'll see that you are preaching to the choir about the slavery issue to me. Again, you are condensing the issue down, and lumping all those who fought for the Confederacy into one tidy EVIL group. It is your implication. Did you say the word EVIL? No. Happy, Mr. Semantics?

Maybe in your world, you can understand sitting home on your hands like a coward when a belligerent army comes through, but the men of that time were of a little better character than that. I'm better at putting myself into the position of a dirt farmer in Caswell County NC in 1862 than you are I suppose. I guess that when history is eventually written about us today, our modern soldiers will be contemptible for having fought for a country that supported corporatist interests that caused poverty and desolation in the 3rd world.

You know what? Fvck it. I'm not going to get into a historical argument with this kind of ignorance. Go ahead and post away.

[citdog]

even though I feel as if I should be paid a salary by your flyshit sized State for educating one of her most poorly informed citizens I will respond to your blatantly incorrect statements above.

The Corwin Amendment
"NO AMENDMENT shall be made to the Constitution which will AUTHORIZE, or give the power to the Congress to abolish, or interfere within ANY STATE, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." This amendment does one thing other than the obvious of making the practice of keeping servants legal FOREVER IN THE UNION. It admits that the Congress didn't then possess the authority to interfere in the domestic institutions practiced in the United States only THE STATES DID. Mr. Lincoln offered no objection to this amendment. Quite the contrary, Mr. Lincoln in his first inaugural was in favor of making the Corwin Amendment "Express and IRREVOCABLE". Was ratified by such "tenous", as you state above, powers like the State of Maryland and the STATE OF OHIO.

The Emancipation Proclamation
paraphrasing "All persons held to servitude in States now in rebellion (dirty son of a bitch) are henceforth and forever free if those States do not return to the union before 1 January 1863."

The above make quite clear that if all we wanted was to keep Africans as servants we could have done so FOR ALL TIMES BY REMAINING IN, OR RETURNING TO, THE UNION.

you are just utterly ignorant and so wrong on your views on Secession that there is no use even trying to debate you. it's like trying to debate Shakespere with an orangutan. see the hartford convention. you mention "Old Hickory" of South Carolina well he was wrong and most of his problem was of a personal nature because Mr. Eaton married a whore and Mrs. John C. Calhoun rightly treated her as such.

I believe the document authored by Mr. Jefferson and published to the world on 4 July 1776, which is all the justification any State has ever needed for Secession, has stood up to the test of time quite nicely.

Dude, there are no "irrevocable" ammendments. Every single one can be repealed. The Corwin Ammendment, if it ever passed, would've been the same. Let me know where in the Constitution you can find where an ammendment can be made "irrevocable" - it's problem the same section dealing with the legal basis for secession.

And really, the Corwin ammendment was about allowing slavery to remain where it existed, but still to prevent it's expansion, which is what set the South off with Lincoln's election in the first place. No one was taking away your slaves, they were just taking away the possibility of bringing slavery whereever you wanted.

And really, Mr. Jefferson's document never discussed the legal underpinnings of secession - some type of voluntary association that can walked away from at will or on a whim and is codified in the written law. It talked about the moral reasoning why people would need to rise up in arms and fight a revolution, even if it meant breaking the laws of the land. Taking away the possibility of expanding slavery is hardly the type of oppression that Mr. Jefferson was talking about.

Seriously, I know I've mocked the education that is apparently being done in South Carolina these days, I just had no idea that it was this pervasively warped, from elementary schools all the way through the University system. But then
again, it was probably this warped as well back in the leadup to self ruin that happened 150 years ago - and all to keep Black people in chains - forever.

it was YOUR mr. lincoln's words "express and irrevocable", hence the use of ", not mine. does the Corwin Amendment mention expansion of the peculiar institution in any way? NO. in fact it makes it quite clear that congress did not have the power to touch the keeping of servants anywhere in the 'late union'. that's why i pointed that out you ignorant wretch.

YOUR mr. lincoln spoke on STATE POWERS. http://confederatereprint.com/articles_ ... rights.php

if this http://www.ushistory.org/DECLARATION/document/index.htm is not a Secession Ordinance then just what in the hell is it? The right of our position begins with "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers in the CONSENT of the governed.......".

SC, rightly so, will NEVER allow the descendants of those who UNLAWFULLY COERCED and murdered her citizens, along with the compact and contract that USED to bind us, to dictate what we will teach our children. NO SIR!

None of the 13 Colonies would have joined the union by ratifying the Constitution VOLUNTARILY, if it wasn't understood that they could LEAVE it in the same manner.

Here endth the history lesson.

[citdog]

CSS Virginia vs USS Monitor


[youtube][/youtube]

[Pwns]

Don't you backwards southern hillbillies get it?

Believing the American Civil War was unjustified = you hate black people and are no different than the KKK!
Opposing the Iraq War = you sympathize with Islamic fundamentalists!
Believing Vietnam to be a big mistake = you love commies!

Also, jailing reporters who disagree with you, kidnapping state legislators to prevent votes on secession, suspending habeas corpus, and starting a war that was admittedly over secession of dubious illegality and not slavery is called leadership and qualifies you to be the greatest president ever. Never mind that so many other civil rights movements succeeded without years of carnage and 620,000 deaths! Heil Lincoln!

[citdog]

Don't you backwards southern hillbillies get it?

Believing the American Civil War was unjustified = you hate black people and are no different than the KKK!
Opposing the Iraq War = you sympathize with Islamic fundamentalists!
Believing Vietnam to be a big mistake = you love commies!

Also, jailing reporters who disagree with you, kidnapping state legislators to prevent votes on secession, suspending habeas corpus, and starting a war that was admittedly over secession of dubious illegality and not slavery is called leadership and qualifies you to be the greatest president ever. Never mind that so many other civil rights movements succeeded without years of carnage and 620,000 deaths! Heil Lincoln!

With the above post Eagle Creek is indeed BEAUTIFUL!

[citdog]

CSS Hunley

[youtube][/youtube]

[citdog]

Secession=treason? Including the thoughts of Dr. Ron Paul


[youtube][/youtube]

"It's cant" notwithstanding, a good examination of the issue.

[OL FU]

April is the cruelest month





Can't wait til is over

[biobengal]

Picked up some of these today... not bad, the Shipyard IPA is way better,

Cheers!

[citdog]

I prefer this.

[citdog]

The Lone Sentinel Fort Sumter July 1864