Deranged Rhino Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 His SOP is that, and changing the topic and terms of any discussion to "prove" other people "wrong." Just look at this thread. It was about slavery, until you called him out for supporting slavery, then it was about treason. But sometimes it's about racism. Because we're racist, for "supporting" traitors who wanted to own slaves, but it's not about slavery. He's got to be a homeopath. No way he's a real doctor, with that sort of intellectual "skill." That's a good summary and conclusion of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 That's a good summary and conclusion of this thread. Right. This thread's just hit its halfway mark, and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Should've saved that for when gatorman calls all of you my "minions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I`m amazed you quickly you log off as DC Tom and to Greg and then to Meazza and back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Only George can save the country from being torn apart. Supported slavery, fought for the Union. Racist, not a traitor. Where does he fit in birddog's weltschwachgestalt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 it was lincoln's fault. the northerners shouldn't have elected him. they should have bowed to the traitors in the south that had no choice but to revolt as lee put it. the rest of the quote you cited is simply a lie proven by history. but that's what traitors do. you all are kooks. you are so far removed from conventional thought that if you we're to be correct on these ideas, you would be considered geniuses. unfortunately, you are not correct and thus should be judged village idiots. the amazing thing is that such radical departure from conventional thought is shared by so many on a single blog. or might that queer agreement be easily explained? The several states of the Union reserved the right to secede as a legitimate check on government, as State's rights were central to the American concept of government both conceptually, and Constitutionally at that time. What Lincoln did, in breaking with Constitutional authority, was to commit acts of aggression on the South, and dissolve the Union, as he was acting illegitimately with powers he did not possess. The fact that slavery is abhorrent today does not mitigate these facts. The fact that the North won the war, and Lincoln unilaterally and fundamentally changed the nature of American federal government, the role of the executive, and the relationship between the several states and federal government does not change the history either. The South was not traitorous, Lincoln was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 Please provide the contemporary evidence that show that Lee's intent behind resigning his commission and joining the Virginia was the deliberate destruction of the Union. I read books. Obviously more than you do. a) Losing a Presidential election, especially in 1860, did not mean that the states whom did not get their preferred choice had to vacate their Constitutionally prescribed states rights. Nor did it vacate the purposeful checks and balances intentionally built into the system, as the entire prior history of the Country demonstrates. The South assumed, quite naturally, that the Federal government, still bound by it's Founding Document, was quite limited what Lincoln wanted to do. Prior to 1860, we had elected Presidents rather than Kings. b) The South revolted because Lincoln broke the Constitutional compact that the Federal government had with it's member states. Lincoln destroyed the country, and as I mentioned prior actually admitted to doing so, such that he could rebuild it in a way that reported to his personal politics and preferences. a) Yes, so why did the minority revolt? b) Lincoln had not even taken office. Please see your first answer there. He was not President, he was only President elect. How did a non-office holding individual actaully accomplish the destruction of the union by doing nothing? You are contradicting yourself He can't because it wasn't. Interesting how he completely ignored my quote from Lee essentially saying that secession was the last thing he wanted and felt that it was the North that was forcing it. He joined along in the secession movement, he was part of the problem. Heck, he even admitted it would be a disaster yet join along anyway That's a good summary and conclusion of this thread. How would you know? You can't even follow the discussion because you are way too stupid. You are just Tom's little Cabin boy minion Should've saved that for when gatorman calls all of you my "minions." Wow, no sooner did I write it than the little cretin actually admits hes your little suck boy. Greggy is a sick person who follows along after a sick person Only George can save the country from being torn apart. George McClellan, who won most of the battles of the Seven Days, and retreated each time. Great at building an army, terrible at using it. You can follow along at Antietam the different stages of the battle and the markers have time of day on them for when that part of the battle was fought. And the point in that is how General Mac didn't hurl his whole army at Lee but did it in pieces. It's like if Tom and his minion had an army against my army. I'd destroy them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I read books. Obviously more than you do. I was asking for the name of the book. No doubt it's already on my bookshelf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 I was asking for the name of the book. No doubt it's already on my bookshelf. Good for you. Try reading them then. Or are you too busy with your little minion? He admits he is your little minion!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 a) Yes, so why did the minority revolt? Because of Lincoln's stated intentions to deny them their Constitutionally prescribed States rights, fundamentally breaking the compact which bound them together. b) Lincoln had not even taken office. Please see your first answer there. He was not President, he was only President elect. How did a non-office holding individual actaully accomplish the destruction of the union by doing nothing? You are contradicting yourself His stated intent was to deny the Southern states their Constitutional rights. The upper Southern states did not secede initially, but rather reserved their right to do so only if the federal government break it's compact. As it turns out, your point is moot, as Lincoln did in fact carry out with his breach of the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 Because of Lincoln's stated intentions to deny them their Constitutionally prescribed States rights, fundamentally breaking the compact which bound them together. His stated intent was to deny the Southern states their Constitutional rights. The upper Southern states did not secede initially, but rather reserved their right to do so only if the federal government break it's compact. As it turns out, your point is moot, as Lincoln did in fact carry out with his breach of the Constitution. He did? What was that? Do tell us! And to review: Lee is not trying to destroy the nation even while fighting it, but Lincoln saying something--supposidly--is destroying it. Love you guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 He joined along in the secession movement, he was part of the problem. Heck, he even admitted it would be a disaster yet join along anyway No he did not. He fought for just the opposite. Reading books doesn't mean you understand what they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 He did? What was that? Do tell us! And to review: Lee is not trying to destroy the nation even while fighting it, but Lincoln saying something--supposidly--is destroying it. Love you guys! Lincoln campaigned on a platform of denying the southern states their Constitutional rights. They had every reason to believe he would act on those promises, and he justified their concern many times over. Lee fought to North over Lincoln breaking the Constitutional contract, and then aggressively coercing the seceding states back into the Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 George McClellan, who won most of the battles of the Seven Days, and retreated each time. Great at building an army, terrible at using it. Even though he was a slow, plodding dipshit, his failure was mostly because he was using Pinkertons as spies. And they were telling him Johnston's (opposed slavery, opposed secession, fought for the Confederacy) entire force was about five times larger than it actually was. (One of general Hooker's greatest contributions when he was in command was getting rid of the Pinkertons and creating a real intelligence system in the Army of the Potomac.) Ultimately, Seven Days is about Lee's mastery of the operational art. He lost every battle, but consistently out-maneuvered McClellan before and after the battles. You can follow along at Antietam the different stages of the battle and the markers have time of day on them for when that part of the battle was fought. And the point in that is how General Mac didn't hurl his whole army at Lee but did it in pieces. I know, I've done the staff ride. Though I've never been entirely comfortable placing all the blame on McClellan for Antietam - most of it, since he did have the lost order, but the Army of the Potomac was a snake pit of intrigue, backbiting, and insubordination, and his corps and division commanders were basically out of control at that point. It's like if Tom and his minion had an army against my army. I'd destroy them! Dream on. You'd wouldn't even achieve McClellan's level of competence. You'd be more like Burnside in front of Marye Heights. Good for you. Try reading them then. Or are you too busy with your little minion? He admits he is your little minion!! Which one contains the quote from Lee that his intent was to destroy the Union? I'll start with that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 Lincoln campaigned on a platform of denying the southern states their Constitutional rights. They had every reason to believe he would act on those promises, and he justified their concern many times over. Lee fought to North over Lincoln breaking the Constitutional contract, and then aggressively coercing the seceding states back into the Union. What right's? I don't just think you are wrong, I know it. Hey, I'm not a minion here, I know what I'm talking about. What right did Lincoln say he was going to take away from the South? And you are changing your answer. He said he DID, now you are saying he said he would, but you are wrong on both counts. You don't know what you are talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) just wondering where the basis for legality of seccesion originates and is based on. it seems many supreme court justices believe otherwise: that secession is illegal and unconstitutional. "Another argument against secession centers on the language of Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….” To proponents of this position, Article I, Section 10 unequivocally shows that the states which formed the Confederate States of America were in clear violation of the Constitution, thus invalidating their government and the individual acts of secession which led to it. Abraham Lincoln indirectly defended this position" full link here: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/ perhaps one of the self appointed constitutional scholars here woulsd like a shot at debating Scalia's viewpoint on this? Edited January 21, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 just wondering where the basis for legality of seccesion originates and is based on. it seems many supreme court justices believe otherwise: that secession is illegal and unconstitutional. "Another argument against secession centers on the language of Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….” To proponents of this position, Article I, Section 10 unequivocally shows that the states which formed the Confederate States of America were in clear violation of the Constitution, thus invalidating their government and the individual acts of secession which led to it. Abraham Lincoln indirectly defended this position" full link here: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/ perhaps one of the self appointed constitutional scholars here woulsd like a shot at debating Scalia's viewpoint on this? Link? Link? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts