The truth about the Confederacy

[Kade]

Ron Paul supporter my ass! But thanks for again proving you liberals don't know what rights are.

And the DOI was a letter to the king of England, not a legal contract.

You added more.

Fun times.

Government doesn't give me my rights. I know very well what rights are, and I've demonstrated that far beyond your petty inferences and almost humorous defense of inanity.

The DOI was a philosophical creed on when it was proper to revolt against your leaders.

It may not be a legal contract at all, but the truth of it's message will never be overlooked by people who care about freedom and rights.

 

[Kade]

individuals have rights.

Governments have powers.

You might want to read a dictionary

It was within the power of The Union to declare war and annex another country. You can either disagree with the reasons, are continue to sound like an idiot.

 

[ARealConservative]

It was within the power of The Union to declare war and annex another country. You can either disagree with the reasons, are continue to sound like an idiot.

It was also in the power of Hitler to annex lands and murder civilians, but let's not go calling them rights as you did. Cool?

And stop the racist insinuations, thank you very much!

 

[Kade]

It was also in the power of Hitler to annex lands and murder civilians, but let's not go calling them rights as you did. Cool?

And stop the racist insinuations, thank you very much!

And just like that, you invoke Godwin.

Hitler had the power to do what he did, and because of a bloody costly war was fought.

You can't be this stupid. I mean seriously, you really can't be this thick. The comparison is only applicable from the proper side. People have certain rights. Governments defy those rights, and people can rebel.

Somehow, you have found a way to conclude that because it was not in the Constitution, people somehow had the right to own another person.

 

[ARealConservative]

And just like that, you invoke Godwin.

Hitler had the power to do what he did, and because of a bloody costly war was fought.

You can't be this stupid. I mean seriously, you really can't be this thick. The comparison is only applicable from the proper side. People have certain rights. Governments defy those rights, and people can rebel.

Somehow, you have found a way to conclude that because it was not in the Constitution, people somehow had the right to own another person.

You are inventing my argument again.

You came in claiming it was a right to wage war with the south. This is not correct.

We might decide to wage war with Mexico to stamp out abortion. It might be determined that we were morally correct in doing so.

But don't claim these actions are rights - they are powers.

 

[Kade]

You are inventing my argument again.

You came in claiming it was a right to wage war with the south. This is not correct.

We might decide to wage war with Mexico to stamp out abortion. It might be determined that we were morally correct in doing so.

But don't claim these actions are rights - they are powers.

Is that your beef?

Fine, A country's "right" is really a power. Hopefully given to them only in the context of it's people and with great limitation.

My point still stands.

 

[sratiug]

The Northern States also had rights. They had the right to annex and defeat another sovereign country if that was the will of their people and her leaders.

A revolution is justified when the natural rights of man are violated. This philosophy was established in our country's own declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


I too am from the South; Cobb County, GA. Home of the battle of Kennesaw Mountain. Home of Wildman Dent Myers, home of the Selman v. Cobb County School District involving the teaching of creationism, home of the infamous 6th District of Georgia, Newt Gingrich's old stomping ground.

I say, without reservation, in contrast with the slanted revised history I learned in that school district, the south got what it had coming to it.

The North had no moral ground to stand on. The white southern slave owners that were fighting to preserve slavery got what was coming to them. And it spilled over to the white southern non-slave owners (a majority?), the free blacks, and then to the newly freed slaves. Most of which endured decades of subsistence farming and sharecropping, instead of sharing in the wealth they worked to create. That wealth being destroyed by the tyrant Lincoln.

The South had it coming, and the Union (pro-slavery) had it coming too. But the North needed to suffer as badly as the South did, for they were equal in sin. The victorious but honorless Union (which would have no doubt surrendered if Lee had just gone into Washington and burned it to the ground ala Sherman) set a terrible precedent that is a direct cause of our situation today.

If the North had followed Ron Paul's advice, they could've freed their own slaves. Set an example for the South. Allowed fugitive slaves to come in to the Union. Refused to buy anything produced with slave labor. But of course they did none of that.

 

[IRO-bot]

Is that your beef?

Fine, A country's "right" is really a power. Hopefully given to them only in the context of it's people and with great limitation.

My point still stands.

Wow. I don't even know what to say.

 

[ARealConservative]

Is that your beef?

Fine, A country's "right" is really a power. Hopefully given to them only in the context of it's people and with great limitation.

My point still stands.

yes your point stands.

Groups of people have power.

Great point!

 

[Kade]

The North had no moral ground to stand on. The white southern slave owners that were fighting to preserve slavery got what was coming to them. And it spilled over to the white southern non-slave owners (a majority?), the free blacks, and then to the newly freed slaves. Most of which endured decades of subsistence farming and sharecropping, instead of sharing in the wealth they worked to create. That wealth being destroyed by the tyrant Lincoln.

The South had it coming, and the Union (pro-slavery) had it coming too. But the North needed to suffer as badly as the South did, for they were equal in sin. The victorious but honorless Union (which would have no doubt surrendered if Lee had just gone into Washington and burned it to the ground ala Sherman) set a terrible precedent that is a direct cause of our situation today.

If the North had followed Ron Paul's advice, they could've freed their own slaves. Set an example for the South. Allowed fugitive slaves to come in to the Union. Refused to buy anything produced with slave labor. But of course they did none of that.

I don't really think they were as equal in sin, but I think your point in generally valid. I did not say anything different, and only injected some of my own opinion. As a sovereign nation, the Union had a "right" to invade and annex another sovereign nation. My loose term of right is the derivation of that which was given by the people.

 

[Kade]

Wow. I don't even know what to say.

Nothing has changed.