Interesting Take on the Civil War

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Laz

I suspect Jefferson would have opposed succession.

You may be right; but he would have definitely supported secession.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

You may be right; but he would have definitely supported secession.

ya ya ya. So I can't spell. I freely admit that flaw.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Laz

ya ya ya. So I can't spell. I freely admit that flaw.

I am anxiously waiting for Joe the Bloehard to "freely admit" that he is an ignorant cocksucker!

He's also not worth a damn at picking winners in elections!

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Laz

ya ya ya. So I can't spell. I freely admit that flaw.

I'm a lousy speller too. I just couldn't resist. As far as whether Jefferson would have supported secession; who the Hell knows. I suspect he would have. He was a southerner and a slave owner.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Who is SCOUS?

think about it dipshit it will come to you sooner or later.If not ask our expert.

[Jackie S]

I suppose any State has the "right" to break away from the union if it so desires. The problem is, as the War Between The States proved, the Union also has the right to wage war against them in order to bring them back into the fold.

What is "right" and what is "wrong" was determined by brute force, as are many conflicts between waring Countrys.

I said in another post that I am a American first, and a Texan second. If, by some strange turn of events the State of Texas did actually try to secceed from The United States of America, I would have to oppose in every way possible.

And, whether we like it or not, The United States would have every right to wage total war against my State. That precident was set by the War Between The States, and settled once and for all.

Shelby Foote made an interesting observation during Ken Burns Civil War series on PBS. He said that before the War, it was common to refer to our Country as "These United States". After the War, the more common monikor became "The United States".

[awl4knot]

Does this mean that if Texas declares itself free and no longer a part of the United States,the remaining united states can declare war on Texas? That would be a fair fight, no?

Be careful what you ask for.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

think about it dipshit it will come to you sooner or later.If not ask our expert.

I was being sarcastic. Of course it's SCOTUS. You really are dumb.

[CuteOldGuy]

Sure. And Iran has a "right" to declare war on us, as does China, North Korea and Russia.

A "right" to go to war? How stupid is that?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I suppose any State has the "right" to break away from the union if it so desires. The problem is, as the War Between The States proved, the Union also has the right to wage war against them in order to bring them back into the fold.

What is "right" and what is "wrong" was determined by brute force, as are many conflicts between waring Countrys.

I said in another post that I am a American first, and a Texan second. If, by some strange turn of events the State of Texas did actually try to secceed from The United States of America, I would have to oppose in every way possible.

And, whether we like it or not, The United States would have every right to wage total war against my State. That precident was set by the War Between The States, and settled once and for all.

Shelby Foote made an interesting observation during Ken Burns Civil War series on PBS. He said that before the War, it was common to refer to our Country as "These United States". After the War, the more common monikor became "The United States".

Right and wrong is not determined by brute force. There are countless cases of invading armies conquering other countries with no right to do so; victory doesn't make it right. If Israel finally falls to the Islamists, their defeat won't be proof of the Islamists being right. If the Union had no right to force the southern states to stay in the Union, winning the Civil War didn't change that fact.

[jbravo_123]

Right is pretty much whatever each particular society or individual believes it is. Of course, having the power to back that up as I believe is Jackie's point, really helps your side when push comes to shove...

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I was being sarcastic. Of course it's SCOTUS. You really are dumb.

No you are really dumb I was being sarcastic.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

No you are really sarcastic I was being dumb.

Fixed that for you, Ekim the Inbred. It’s quaint how you avoided your period this time.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

No you are really dumb I was being sarcastic.

No you weren't.

[JD Barleycorn]

When Washington overrules and subsitutes their values for that of the states they have violated the 10th amendment which gives STATES the RIGHT to self government. Not a suggestion but a right. Though it does not say a state can secede, it does not say a state can't secede.

When democrats start talking about the good ole days and traditional values they should be very careful. The democratis party is the home of segregation, slavery, Jim Crow, violations of civil rights, putting dogs and fire hoses on peaceful protestors.

The riding in the back of the bus came from Plesy vs Ferguson out Louisiana. Louisiana was controlled by white democrats and the Chief Justice was a democratic appointee. So I guess forcing people to ride in the back of the bus is a very democratic tradition.

I know from previous posts that someone will say that the democratic party has changed. That it is now the GOP who is responsible for the creation of crack and the oppression of black people. It was not the GOP that destroyed the black family unit. It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratic Congress. So when you use that loser of an argument, tell me exactly when and how the democratic party changed?