The Confederacy: America's worst idea

Says the man who took his screenname from a man who did much the same.

The North followed the fugitive slave act up until the insurrection.

Suuuure, that's why they fired first.

You mean where the government tried to integrate former slaves into the political system and tried to reintegrate a bunch of insurrectionists back into the nation that failed due to their constant guerilla attacks and cowardly domestic terrorism?

Cool story, bro.

Cool story, bro.

 

Rerread. Pay attention this time.

Again, how could we never have left if we have to vote a certain way to be brought back in? Ummm?

No, we don't need it. Certainly not from you.

Really, what courts are you talking about?

Typical yankee answer. Kill the Southern whte man. This is why we had to secede.

Oh, Texan first. Member of the former Confederacy. U.S. citizen by the bayonet.

Quantrill

 

When?

No, the Southern States couldn't engage in a passive resistance. They had been trying to do that for years. Never worked. The good yankees let John Brown and people like him attack the South.

Shame all those weak Southernors killed so many yankees. Won so many battles though outnumbered almost every single time. Ate your lunch and made you run. But, yes, you were brave when you were torching grannies house and sending the kids to running. I understand. Total war.

Quantrill

 

Please. At least be original. Everyone uses Hitler and Nazism. Proves to me you don't have anything else to support you.

Quantrill

 

I linked to it. Twice. With a summary. Do you not read what you are responding to?

It was a Supreme Court decision.

Not all of them. Just the ones who want to enslave people.

You could leave whenever you wanted to, you just could not take our land with you.

Texans dont seem to be complaining.

 

Learn to use quote tags properly to respond in a halfway intelligible manner.

Anyway, Texas V. White decided on the legality of secession. The Supreme Court is the arbiter of such things, you know.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is the word we use to describe such outright fabrications. They'd been engaging in active and violent resistance since the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s.

You mean the battles such as those that brave, brave Quantrill made, wherein he disarmed and executed men in front of their families?

I'm sad he was killed in battle though. It's a shame he couldn't have been killed again and again.

Just face it: the Slave Power was unable to wage total war like the Union. Too weak to actually assault anything north of Gettysburg, while the Union smashed through the heart of the Slave Power and showed them the hard hand of war.

The Slave Power wanted that war, but they didn't realize what they were getting into. Maybe they should have thought about the consequences to their actions instead of wanting to hold onto slavery regardless of cost.

 

If the glove fits, my friend. And the glove fits very well, in this instance.

 

Well, you better keep talking because we are going to keep up with our history. And, you will find if you look into it that they have lied to you quiet a bit. But, go ahead and belileve it. Its what you want to believe anyway. You will find that what you have been fed is the 'fiction' side of that War.

There would have been nothing wrong with discussing compensation for slave owners before the war. It was the way England did it. The good yankees in the north who had slaves, were allowed to sell their slaves. Isn't that somehting how the good yankee sells off his slaves, then later jumps up on his high horse and demands that the Southernor set his free at his cost.

Im not putting words in your mouth. God back and reread. Your attitude towards the Southrnor is the same as the yankee then. The Souithern slave owner doesn't deserve to be protected by the laws of the land so its ok to kill him. Its ok for us, the yankees, to break the laws.

Sure most people may call you moral and right, but your the lawbreaker. But thats ok. We have established that.

The law didn't change till after the War. The South was protected. You the yankee becomes the lawbreaker and traitor. Then change the law. And of course, now everyone better tow the line.

Quantrill

 

Why should they? They send less tax money to the feds than they receive. They're getting fat and happy off of the Union they used to so despise. Same with nearly the rest of the Slave Power, too.

 

You didn't show me anything proving any supreme court decision. Is that your proof, a wiki statement?

Well, the ones who were slave owners were protected by the Constitution. Making you a murderer as well. But your above the law, right?

Sorry. We don't leave because the land is ours.

Compalining? Well, the main thing is to get the record straight.

Quantrill

 

Yes. You want to re-write supreme court decisions now too?

Killing in self defense is not murder.

Are you saying that if you were legally declared a slave today you would simply accept it? or would you fight for your freedom?

You are not the final arbiter of the law. The courts are. Congress is.

Both the courts and the war say otherwise.

Did I stutter?

 

No, Quantrill was active during the War.

No, the freedom railroad went through the North. The North did not enforce the fugitive slave law. When it was attempted to be enforced the citizens wouldn't allow it. Good upstading yankees.

Lincoln started the war in sending the ships to reenforce Sumter.

No, thats the yankee myth. The Reconstruction is when the Southernor had to band together and fight the blacks and yankees because it was a matter of survival. And, we won. Just makes you want to sing Dixie doesn't it?

You bet, cool, and true.

Quantrill

 

By executing POWs in front of their families.

The Underground Railroad started in the South, so I guess the southernors were ignoring the fugitive slave law as well.

Wrong answer. The Slave Power started it by firing artillery upon Fort Sumter and by illegally seizing federal munitions.

And you show you're true colors with that statement. The black people were always southernors and were trying to integrate politically into the land they lived in. Too bad people like you destroyed their chances for being politically integrated.

You are completely unable to understand such complex concepts as "sarcasm," aren't you?

 

Ok mr. intelligent. You didn't answer 'when'. Texas vs White is 1869. Thats 8 years after the War. Big difference pardner. Your talking about a reconstruction court. What a deal.

The nullification crisis is just another example of how there could be no passive resistance. The South seeks to do it through legal methods. Though it had no chance. The North threatens invasion.


Concerning Quantrill, your just making up stories now. That they killed many men in Lawerence is true. Site your source that other than an opinon on wiki, that proves your point.

Don't be too sad. Just remember, he got a lot more of yall.

The South did not wage war as the yakees, because we are not like the yankees.

Quantrill

 

I need somethng other than a wiki opinion to prove anything.

Just because one is a slave doesn't mean self defence when he murders his slave owner. The law is against you. Deal with it.

Im not talking abouit today. Im talking about the war between the States and the years leading up to it.

Yes, I know the courts are the determiner of law. Do you know the courts are the determiners of the law? Was the yankee above the law in 1861?

Was Slavery protected or not? By the law, that you love to 'keep'.

I don't know, do you?

Quantrill

 

I have never read anything to suggest that. Give reference. Be specific please.

If the underground railraod involved the yankees going and freeing slaves and taking them to the north, then it was illegal. The south would capture and return any escaped slave.

Sorry. Once we secede, whats ours is ours. If you can't take it with you, sorry about your luck. I guess you should have thought about that when there was time for negotiatians.

At that time the black people were slaves. The slave owner was protected by law. If there is going to be any integration, into the political arena, then its going to take time, take compensation, and take a plan other than just free the black man.

People like me. Or people llike the good yankee from New York who hung about 79 black people when Lincoln declared the emancipation proclamation.

No, I think I understand it pretty well.

Quantrill

 

4 years, actually, and vae victis.

Because Andrew Jackson was such a Yankee.

Duane Schultz's work Quantrill’s War: The Life and Times of William Clarke Quantrill, 1837-1865 should adequately dissuade you of your hero-worship of that bloodthirsty vagabond you so worship.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). As Quantrill's destruction of Lawerence proved, they would have eagerly done so had they actually been able to push into Union territory. The Slave Power was simply too weak to do so, however.

 

You realize that there were Northern bounty hunters who found and returned slaves (or just grabbed random black people from the north, since the Dred Scott decision allowed for that) and that there were numerous Southernors who helped slaves escape to the North, right?

The Union never gave up Fort Sumter nor its munitions. Perhaps the Slave Power should have let them be instead of firing on the Union.

Which Reconstruction was aiming to do until a bunch of butthurt spoiled losers started to engage in domestic terrorism.

Was the North devoid of such racist idiots? No, but the North wasn't plagued with insurrectionists, either.

Your words don't indicate as such.

 

I dont expect anyone who writes their own history to accept any proof that doesnt support what they want to believe. So I cant say I am surprised.

So why are you afraid to answer my questions: Are you saying that if you were legally declared a slave today you would simply accept it? or would you fight for your freedom?

Is the answer obvious because it is "yes" or because it is "no"? Or do you have a double standard for black people?

The law agrees with me.

Now you have something in common with those slaves; you have been owned. There is your non-wiki source. "Deal with it".

Apparently not. The courts and congress had the final say, and they decided.

It wasnt a new law, it was an interpretation of existing law. Law that existed at that time as well.

My evidence proves that the courts agreed with me, not you. Therefore what the Union did was not illegal...it was the attempted secession that was illegal.

 

Sorry pardner, thats 8 years after the start of the War, which is the time period we are addressing.

Because Jackson was the president and a Unionist.

Ive got a biography on Quantrill. Site me an incident you are talking about. I don't recall any.

Don't kid yourself. The North had the policy of Total War. The South did not.

Quantirll

 

So. You find some southern sympathizers in the North also. So. That doesn't mean they established the Norths policies and attitudes.

No, the South needed to get the yankees out of their backyard. They did what they needed to concerning Sumter.

Sorry, you know little of Reconstruction. Reconstruction was not about intergrating blacks into politics. It was about destroying the Southern white man.

Yea, the North is full of racist idiots. As seen in the hanging of all those blacks. Just think, I don't recall an instance in the South where so many were hung at one time. And yall hung em only because Lincoln freed em. Oh thats right, he didn't free them in the North. My mistake.

Well, I believe Im understanding pretty good.

Quantrill

 

That must be why you believe the common yankee view. You don't have to believe my view. But I encourage any to do their own history investigation. They will be surprised.

What I would do today has nothing to do with the right or wrong of that war. As I have said before, it was not over slavery. And the yankee posturing himself as the great emancipator of the black man from the evil southren man is 14 carot hogwash.

Sorry pal. The laws in 1861 agree with the Southernor. So, they do not agree with you.

Sorry again. The union between the original states was not perpetual because that union was destroyed by the Constitution of 1787. So, not much to deal with.

Well, your wrong. Slavery was protected. Protected by the Constitution. And because of Dred Scott, the Southernor was now free to take his slaves anywhere, including New York or any free state, he wanted to.

You can claim the law agrees with you, but it didn't. The Supreme Court said the Southernor was free to go anywhere with his proerty. Do you agree?


Who is the law breaker? The yankee.

Quantrill

 

Which has absolutely nothing to do with my original point. Thanks.

 

Which version of history should they investigate? The mainstream version or your version?

The courts do not agree. Their opinion supersedes yours.

Apparently not. Otherwise there would have been no war.

Black people are not property.

According to who? You dont get the final say.

 

They should avoid the lies that are commonly held to, and do their own research. Its there.

Sorry again, pardner. The original constitution which declared a 'perpetual' union was the Articles of Confederation. How about that. "confederation". That was thrown out the window in 1787.

Well you are wrong. Slavery was protected. By the Constitution. By the Dred Scott decision. By Lincoln.

In 1861 black people were slaves and slaves were property. Are you saying there was no slavery?

According to the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court. That is the final say. The yankee was the law breaker. Not the Southernor. How about that? The yankee was the rebel, not the Southernor.

Quantrill