Do you think the slaves were owed reparations?

Oh man all of your posts are filled with so much ridiculousness I’m not sure where to start. Here. I’ll start with the same question I asked the other guy. If the confederates were attempting to preserve slavery then why would they not simply sign the Corwin Amendment?

 

Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened to the Palestinians & they're the ones being turned into hamburger.
How would you be more successful?

 

Second of all I’m going to address your assertion that the confederates were traitors.

If you and I enter into an agreement and we both willfully sign a contract that defines our rights and responsibilities under said agreement. Years later I come back and say, “You know I never liked this part of our agreement because I consider it to be immoral. As such I’m no longer going to uphold that part of our contract whether you like it or not.” You respond and say, “That’s fine, if you want to unilaterally alter our agreement without my consent then we want out of our partnership.”


Who is the traitor in that scenario? You or I?

If I then come back and say, “No you’re not leaving our partnership and if I have to murder your men, women and children to stop you then that’s what I’m going to do.”

Who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Furthermore, if placed in that position would you not fight back?

 

Your passive-aggressive insult missed the mark. History hasn't changed just because you decided to imagine it differently than it is.

 

No, you haven't.

 

No actually it’s not. When the union violated the constitution and refused to cease even after being ordered to do so on two separate occasions by the Supreme Court, they are then in breach of contract.

And the ONLY thing that gives the federal government any authority is the contract which they have breached. As such the federal government ceases to exist and the land which they were allowed to USE is ceded back to the state which it came from.

Therefore the north had a standing army in a foreign country and sent another army to reinforce it. An act of war by ANY measure. The south had every legal right to fire upon an invading army.

 

That is a great number of affronts to logic to pack into one thread. Glue has other uses than sniffing.

 

Oh? April doesn't come before July?

 

Did you think you were posting on another thread, replying to another poster? Got lost?

 

That's a lot of time to waste on a false analogy.

 

Wrong. The UNITED STATES had armed forces in different parts of the UNITED STATES. When violent criminals declared an illegal 'secession,' and then committed an act of war, they were duly put down like the filthy dogs that they were.

 

How is it a false analogy? That’s EXACTLY what occurred.

 

No sir. One party cannot REFUSE to uphold their obligations under the contract and then demand through threat of violence that the other side upholds theirs.

That’s ludicrous. There’s not a court on the planet in the HISTORY of the world who would rule with the party who violates the contract as not being at fault.

 

Because that is NOT what happened and NOT how any government works. Failed analogy = failed attempt at playing the apologist for scumbag traitors.

 

The Supreme Court did rule that the so-called secession was illegal, so you can stop playing pretend constitutional scholar. The scumbag rebels lost just like you have here.

 

That’s EXACTLY what happened. The SCOTUS ruled on TWO separate occasions that the North was acting unconstitutionally and they simply ignored the SCOTUS and continued to engage in unconstitutional action.

That means they are in BREACH of contract. Making the contract null and void and any powers delegated by said contract to be ceased. Including the federal government.

 

That’s funny because the SCOTUS told the northern leaders that if they brought the confederates up to trial they would have to rule in the confederates favor.

Hence why the ruling you’re referring to didn’t occur until the north had forced seating of their own justices by denying the southern states suffrage in the senate.

 

No, it's not. The FACTS of history and the findings of the highest court make it very clear. You may really, really, reeeeeeeeaaaaaaally want your analogy to work, but it is utterly false.

 

So let me see what exactly it is that you’re not understanding.

Are you asserting the SCOTUS didn’t rule the north was acting unconstitutionally TWICE?

Or are you asserting the north didn’t continue to act unconstitutionally?

Or are you asserting that the north can act unconstitutionally all they want and it’s jot a breach of contract?

Which ridiculous claim are you making?

 

Good then answer my last post. EXACTLY what are you saying didn’t happen?

 

The only one with standing relative to these events. The one with the force of law, not the insistence of bitter, wannabe larper heroes playing meaningless games on the internet. The one that reflects REALITY, not impotent wish-fulfillment.

 

I'm not misunderstanding anything about your imagination play-time.

 

What DID happen is clear. What you WANT to have happened is utterly meaningless. Time to grow up and put away the children's games.

 

I grew up on welfare as a child.... not everyone is born to a rich family

 

I’ll ask you again. EXACTLY which portion of my claim are you disputing?