Which side do YOU view as right?

Actually I really dont admire Lincoln THAT much:afro:

Oh thats good because there wasnt anything TO admire lol

(Btw Enigma I did reply to your post its just on the other page....)

Although, he was a shrew guy. Not always used for the better but he was.

ABSOLUTLY! lol

He wasnt as bad as some poeple say. NOR as good.

I wont argue not cause I dont agree but because I wont convince you lol jk.

The only way you wont convince me is if you use pure oppinion and no FACTS.

Ok then start a topic in the People section and Ill try it. lol see you there!

I might just do that.

Oh YEAH OH YEAH! Ok I now await enigma to reply to my posts which are on the other page!

About enigma's post, hm, where to begin? There are so many misguided statements there.........

I'll first say that you misquoted me, what I actually said was to the effect: "if this was a topic on religion I would have done more bible study," whereas you misquoted me as saying "morals."

About the differences between the 13 colonies and the South, you can say that they are different and that the South was wrong, enimga, but if I remember right, didn't the 13 colonies contain that particular, terrible institution called slavery? And not just in the South, but in the North as well? So, what were the Colonies' right reasons, as opposed to the South's wrong ones? You have no arguement there.... As far as treason, you're exceedingly dim-witted if you were serious in your prior post saying that the southern states should have just overthrown the government, not formed an alliance. What you're describing is known as a coup, and is wholy seperate and different than seccession. The way I see it, secession is the only good way of rebelling; usually, a rebelion means a lower class topolling the standing government and taking control by force, whereas a secession is basically leaving with all of your property in peace, and fits with Lincoln's quote, which Lee posted. In all reality, you could say that the American War for Indepence was a seccession, but you could also argue that it wasn't, based upon the fact that they didn't enjoy an equal part in the English government anyway. A coup would be a person of limited power, usually a general, siezing the government and installing himself as soul ruler. And I also agree wholeheartedly with General Lee's point, that Art. 1 Sec. 10 makes it unconstitutional for states to form alliances while in the union, so your point there is totally invalid, and infact, you helped prove that what the South did was in no way prohibited by the constitution. Thanks!

Also, you were very poor at answering to my last post, which you quoted. The only thing you could say was that my hypothetical scenario, involving the West Coast secceeding, would never happen. What part of the word "hypothetical" don't you understand? It just goes to show how much thought you care to put into the matter.....


You repeatedly stated that the South was an elitist society. Excuse me, but this is entirely an opinion, and shouldn't be treated like fact. General Lee also pointed this out..... Infact, by saying this, you sound very arrogant and ignorant. Like I said before, enimga, try to resort to facts sometimes, ok?


Yes, enimga, we all know that this country was founded on the principles that the majority rules, but the minority does not go unheard. So? What's your point? If it is that the south complained too much considering that they carried no national sway, you have no clue what you're talking about. How was it possible then, that between 1828 (the year of the founding of the party) and 1860, the White House was ruled by the Democratic Party, the party of the South and Jacksonian America? Only two Whig presidents were elected, and they both were war heroes, carried to the presidency by this post-war fame. Otherwise, 24 solid years of Democratic presidents. How can you explain this, granted that the South was in no way comparable to the north, population-wise? Maybe because, the north was also democratic, and therefore pro-slavery? We all know that the only reason slavery died out in the northern states, was that it proved to be impractical because of the colder climates. But, for the north to be Democratic is impossible, you say, even if that's what the facts show! It proves that the north really didn't care about the slaves! Which is my whole point. And it also blows enimga's theory about "the Southern minority" out of the water.

EAsy Stuart, dont poke your eye out with your bookmarker.

Just providing facts

They are allowed here you know.....

GREAT points Jeb!

enigma7patriot wrote:

The fact of the matter is that they made an alliance between themselves and formed the Confederate States. In addition to this, they were on the UNION LAND. It did not belong to them but the government. This is also explained in the constitution.

Oh really? That's news to me.... Please read the following, an excerpt from J. Davis' Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government:

"The sites of forts, arsenals, navy-yards, and other public property of the Federal Government were ceded by the States, whithin whose limits they were, subject to the condition, either expressed or implied, that they should be used solely and exclusively for the purpose for which they were granted. The ultimate ownership of the soil, or eminent domain, remains with the people of the State in which it lies, by virtue of their sovereignty. Thus, the State of Massachusetts has Declare that-

'The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Commonwealth extend to all places within the boundaries thereof, subject only to such rights of concurrent jurisdiction as have been or may be granted over any places ceded by the Commonwealth to the United States.' (Revised Statutes of Massachusetts," 1836, p. 56)

In acts of cession of the respective States, the terms and conditions on which the grant is made are expressed in various forms and with differing degrees of precision. The act of New York, granting the use of a site for the Brooklyn Navy-Yard, may serve as a specimen. It contains this following condition:

'The United States are to retain such use and jurisdiction, so long as said tract shall be applied to the defense and safety of the city and port of New York, and no longer.....But the jurisdiction hereby ceded, and the exemption from taxation hein granted, shall continue in respect to said property, and to each portion thereof, so long as the same shall remain the property of the United States, and be used for the purposes aforesaid, and no longer.'

The cession of the site of the Watervliet Arsenal is made in the same or equivalent terms, except that, instead of 'defense and safety of the city and port of New York,' etc., the language is,'defense and safety of the said State, and no longer.'


South Carolina in 1805, by legislative enactment, ceded to the United States, in Charleston Harbor and on Beaufort River, various forts and fortifications, and sites for the erection of forts on the following conditions, viz.:

'That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the Governor of this State to the Executive of the United States, repair the fortifications now existing thereon or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein; in such case this grant or cession shall be viod and of no effect.' -("Statutes at Large of South Carolina," vol. v, p. 501.)

It will hardly be contended that the conditions of this grant were fulfilled, and, if it be answered that the State did not demand the restoration of the forts or sites, the answer certainly fails after 1860, when the controversy arose, and the unfounded assertion was made that those forts and sites had been purchased with the money, and were therefore the property, of the United States. The terms of the cession sufficiently manifest that they were free-will offerings of such forts and sites as belonged to the State; and public functionaries were bound to know that, by the United States law of March 20, 1794, it was provided 'that no purchase shall be made where such lands are the property of a State.'-(Act to provide for the defense of certain ports and harbors of the United States.)"

Hope that answers your confusion, enigma. If it doesn't, please, just let me know, and I can post the rest of the passage. And if you can get access to the actual book, just go to vol. 1, p. 211. Interesting stuff, huh?

I think that my last post proves that Fort Sumter was not at all Union land, but belonged to the State of South Carolina, which of course means that the North started the war by invading and occupying Southern territory.

And where are all of the yankees now? I've been waiting almost four days, and you guys haven't responded. If you guys don't post anything by Monday morning, we should declare the South the winner lol...

General Stuart wrote:

Where are all of the yankees now? I've been waiting almost four days, and you guys haven't responded. If you guys don't post anything by Monday morning, we should declare the South the winner lol...

I was in Salinas for 4 DAYS Stuart, and if you think you can scare me away with a few hundred words, then I can only pity you. Dont worry, once I gather enough inside information all your text book knowledge will have to answer to first hand experiances(from union and confederate soldiers).

That was a weak post, Oppie. You're telling me what I have to fear in the future? Big deal lol....

weak,hah, i know your fear Stuart, your afraid of what you cant comprehend, and that's me.

HA! even weaker....chalk up another score for the Confederacy....

another score, hah, you cant get any MORE scores, you guys lost.

Read the sig Oppie VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

Whatever, I still say you guys lost:afro:

this topic was invented for REAL posts, oppie. not pitiful excuses....

then why do you keep posting hear Stuart.

JK.