Dresden, 13th of February 1945

[Lees]

How do you imagine the 13th and 14th Amendments came about?

That is my question to you, since you haven't answered.

Tell me you don't know, and then I will tell you the 'how'.

Lees

 

[Fledermaus]

That is my question to you, since you haven't answered.

Tell me you don't know, and then I will tell you the 'how'.

Lees

I answered. You haven't.

How do you imagine the 13th and 14th Amendments came about?

 

[Lees]

Please continue to lie about Lincoln's beliefs...

How do you imagine the 13th and 14th Amendments came about?

I have already proven in the Corwin Amendment. Remember? No lie.

Lees

 

[Lees]

I answered. You haven't.

How do you imagine the 13th and 14th Amendments came about?

No. You haven't answered the 'how'. You're just crawfishing.

If your scared, say your scared. And I will show you the 'how'.

Lees

 

[Fledermaus]

No. You haven't answered the 'how'. You're just crawfishing.

If your scared, say your scared. And I will show you the 'how'.

Lees

How do you imagine the 13th and 14th Amendments came about?

 

[Minerva]

I have read this non-fiction book on the issue. It’s pretty brutal.


View attachment 67555800

Tried to find a copy in my public library but they do not have one.

 

[Fledermaus]

I have already proven in the Corwin Amendment. Remember? No lie.

Lees

Irrelevant.

How do you imagine the 13th and 14th Amendments came about?

 

[Lees]

Irrelevant.

How do you imagine the 13th and 14th Amendments came about?

Why is the Corwin Amendment, where Lincoln was willing to enslave the blacks forever, irrelevant?

Does it hurt your false feelings that Lincoln was the 'great emancipator'? Does it hurt your false feelings that Lincoln didn't give a **** about the negros.

So, just because the truth doesn't coincide with that smoke they been blowin up your backside, you say it is irrelevant.

It is no wonder that you don't want to answer about the 13th and 14th Amendments. Based on your reply concerning the Corwin Amendment, once I show you the truth of the 13th and 14th Amendments, you will just say, 'irrelevant'.

Any thing that bursts your little bubble you declare 'irrelevant'. But, keep tearing down those Southern Statues and flags. 'Glory, Glory, Hallelujah....his lies are marching on'.

Lees

 

[Tigerace117]

And we aren’t told why the Irish were so mad at England. Just that they were terrorists.

We weren’t told that while the Irish starved in the potato famine England continued to grow and export other crops in Ireland.

We often cry out against responses without considering what those reponses were to.

Ironically, it was the ruthlessness of the British response in the aftermath of the Easter Rising that truly convinced the majority of the Irish populace that a full break with Britain was needed.

 

[Tigerace117]

Yankee B.S.

Abolitionist North made no distinction between escaped slaves or free slaves . No distinction between arresting a runaway slave or kidnapping a free slave. All were kidnapped in their eyes. In other words, just because they whine about blacks being kidnapped means nothing.

And, if they don't make the distinction, why should the South?

The Fugitive slave law still existed. Slavery could be illegal in Pennsylvania, but they still must return the runaway slave. Constitutional law.

Lees

The North didn’t accept the South’s belief that slavery was a good thing, no. The North also didn’t allow slavery on its territory no matter how much the South whines.

What, exactly, is a “free slave”?

Because kidnapping and enslaving civilians is a war crime, as the Nazis found out.



No it didn’t. The Union was under no obligation to aid the treasonous Slaver South they were actively at war with

 

[Fledermaus]

Why is the Corwin Amendment, where Lincoln was willing to enslave the blacks forever, irrelevant?

When was that?

Oh, that's right.

When the North sought to preserve the Union.....

A concept that superseded emancipation at that time.

Does it hurt your false feelings that Lincoln was the 'great emancipator'?

Your continued ignorance of Lincoln's thoughts on slavery results in no hurt at all.

Does it hurt your false feelings that Lincoln didn't give a **** about the negros.

How do you imagine your ignorance of Lincoln's thought on slavery would hurt me?

So, just because the truth doesn't coincide with that smoke they been blowin up your backside, you say it is irrelevant.

Your intentional ignorance is a you thing. Not a me thing.

It is no wonder that you don't want to answer about the 13th and 14th Amendments.

I have answered. Stop lying.

Based on your reply concerning the Corwin Amendment, once I show you the truth of the 13th and 14th Amendments, you will just say, 'irrelevant'.

Because it is irrelevant.

Any thing that bursts your little bubble you declare 'irrelevant'.

Another lie.

But, keep tearing down those Southern Statues and flags. 'Glory, Glory, Hallelujah....his lies are marching on'.

I am tearing down nothing.

Lees

How do you imagine the 13th and 14th Amendments came about?

 

[Fledermaus]

@Lees

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.

I think Slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union.

I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so.

We must prevent the revival of the African slave trade and the enacting by Congress of a territorial slave code.

I say now, however, as I have all the while said, that on the territorial question -- that is, the question of extending slavery under the national auspices, -- I am inflexible. I am for no compromise which assists or permits the extension of the institution on soil owned by the nation. And any trick by which the nation is to acquire territory, and then allow some local authority to spread slavery over it, is as obnoxious as any other.

 

[Bodi]

That's good. So you believe amending the Constitution is based upon the Constitution. Correct?

Did you not read and learn from my link?

Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for...

www.archives.gov

Yet you don't believe Article 4 sec. 2 should be obeyed...correct?

Not sure the reason for this Straw Man but where did you come up with that assumption?



,

 

[soap box]

Brown was backed by the Northern states big money men. They came to be known as the Secret Six. George Sterns, Gerrit smith, Thomas Higginson, Samuel Howe, Theodore Parker, and Franklin B. Sanborn

Brown had been captured for his murder of 5 men and boys at the Kansas Border. But once in those free Northern states he somehow was released. (John Brown, David Reynolds, p. 207-208) In Jan. of 1857, Brown is seen in Boston and meets with Franklin B. Sanborn who was Secretary of the Massachusetts State Kansas Committee (p. 208) Brown goes about the North seeking funding for his raid at Harpers Ferry.

So, here a man known to be guilty of murder and is free to roam the North and meet with various and preaching his hate against slavery and the South. And planning his raid on Harpers Ferry.

It was the State of Virginia that hung Brown, when it should have been the U.S. as Harprers Ferry was a Federal Arsenal. But, what the heck. He was the North's man. And after the hanging of John Brown he is glorified in the North as a great martyr for the cause. Songs are made about his 'glorious cause'.

So, yes, the first incursion by the North into Virginia, was at Harpers Ferry, led by a crazy fanatic guilty of murder, and who was supported by the North and later glorified.

Lees

In ancient Greece there were Sophists. I've met people who are experts in that method.

Your argument is based on the premise that we are the same America we were 170+ years ago. You're stuck in a year, not sure which, but not this one. You're making an argument that suggests slavery may have been justified or at least 'ok".

There's nothing that makes slavery ok.

You're talking about, and citing, an America that didn't allow women to vote, 20 year olds couldn't vote, the fastest message possible went by telegraph and a woman was scandalous who let men see her ankles. We're not the same anymore, we're not even the same country we were when I was a boy. At least Nixon felt shame. Our values and beliefs have changed. So the sovereignty of the confederacy (or whatever you're really getting at) doesn't make slavery ok.

 

[Lees]

In ancient Greece there were Sophists. I've met people who are experts in that method.

Your argument is based on the premise that we are the same America we were 170+ years ago. You're stuck in a year, not sure which, but not this one. You're making an argument that suggests slavery may have been justified or at least 'ok".

There's nothing that makes slavery ok.

You're talking about, and citing, an America that didn't allow women to vote, 20 year olds couldn't vote, the fastest message possible went by telegraph and a woman was scandalous who let men see her ankles. We're not the same anymore, we're not even the same country we were when I was a boy. At least Nixon felt shame. Our values and beliefs have changed. So the sovereignty of the confederacy (or whatever you're really getting at) doesn't make slavery ok.

You say I am 'stuck in a year'. Why? Is this not the 'history' section? Is discussing and debating 'history' being stuck in a year? Would you say I was 'stuck in a year' if my position was like those I am arguing with...like with yourself? Is trying to set the historical record straight mean 'I am stuck in a year'? I wonder why no one accuses the NAACP and blacks of being 'stuck in a year'. Why no one tells them we are sick and tierd of hearing about you being a slave. Get over it. You have been freed. No that must be repeated over and over again so they can tear down Southern Statues and Flags.

Well, slavery was legal and ok in the United States. The South was justified in using the institution of slavery...? Correct? The South was not treasonous against the Constitution. The South was not the traitor. Correct?

Lees

 

[Lees]

Did you not read and learn from my link?

Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for...

www.archives.gov

Not sure the reason for this Straw Man but where did you come up with that assumption?



,

I read what was in your reply. I seldom go to links given in a reply. If I don't have my own reference for the information in the link, I will create another tab and find it myself. And I have access to Article 5 of the Constitution.

Well, perhaps it is an assumption. But, you ally yourself with those who I am arguing with. See post #(204). You approve of tearing down Southern Monuments and high schools. See post #(215) Those I have been arguing with have supported the illegal 'underground railroad' and voicing opposition against Article 4 of the Constitution. So, I assume you also are opposed to Article 4 and the return of any runaway slave. If I am wrong in my assumption, I apologize. It just seemed like a safe assumption. But, if I am wrong, you can surely clear it up now. Do you think the underground railroad was illegal and that Article 4 should have been obeyed?

As to how the 13th and 14th Amendment, I am asking specifically how they came about. Not just how Amendments are passed in accordance to Article 5. But all that took place in passing the 13th and 14th Amendment.

Lees

 

[multivita-man]

The men who dropped the bombs did not fully know what was going to happen. They trained for what they must do after dropping, but no one has seen it before and they too were shocked. Japan survives, they are a very resilient people.

Hiroshima today: ......................................................................................... Nagasaki today:
View attachment 67566719 View attachment 67566720

You can kinda say they didn't know what would happen before dropping the first bomb. Kinda hard to make the argument that they didn't know before dropping the second one, though.

That said, we had already firebombed Tokyo, Nagoya, and other cities, killing tens or even hundreds of thousands in each instance. The bombs just did it in one fell swoop. What was probably less known at the time was the impact of radioactive fallout, which would cause cancer incidence to rise over the next few months and years.

I go back and forth on the bombings. Technically, they are war crimes, but WW2 was full of war crimes committed by all sides. That doesn't make the use of nukes right, but they did almost certainly end the war sooner than it would have ended otherwise.

 

[Lees]

When was that?

Oh, that's right.

When the North sought to preserve the Union.....

A concept that superseded emancipation at that time.



Your continued ignorance of Lincoln's thoughts on slavery results in no hurt at all.



How do you imagine your ignorance of Lincoln's thought on slavery would hurt me?



Your intentional ignorance is a you thing. Not a me thing.



I have answered. Stop lying.



Because it is irrelevant.



Another lie.



I am tearing down nothing.




How do you imagine the 13th and 14th Amendments came about?

It doesn't matter when exactly the Corwin Amendment was being considered. What matters is that Lincoln was willing to keep the negros enslaved forever if the South didn't secede. When push came to shove, he threw them under the bus.

It wasn't me who was denying the proof of the Corwin Amendment that Lincoln cared nothing for blacks. Becasue it was proof, to you it is irrelevant.

So the truth that Lincoln didn't emancipate a single slave when he could have doesn't bother you. Why did Lincoln leave blacks in the North in slavery? Doesn't that tell you something about Lincoln's thoughts on slavery?

I'm not lying. You haven't answered. How did the 13th and 14th Amendments come about?

Lees

 

[Lees]

@Lees

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.

I think Slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union.

I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so.

We must prevent the revival of the African slave trade and the enacting by Congress of a territorial slave code.

I say now, however, as I have all the while said, that on the territorial question -- that is, the question of extending slavery under the national auspices, -- I am inflexible. I am for no compromise which assists or permits the extension of the institution on soil owned by the nation. And any trick by which the nation is to acquire territory, and then allow some local authority to spread slavery over it, is as obnoxious as any other.

Please supply where this quote or quotes are taken from,and who made them. Or is this your speech?

Lees

 

[Fledermaus]

It doesn't matter when exactly the Corwin Amendment was being considered. What matters is that Lincoln was willing to keep the negros enslaved forever if the South didn't secede. When push came to shove, he threw them under the bus.

It wasn't me who was denying the proof of the Corwin Amendment that Lincoln cared nothing for blacks. Becasue it was proof, to you it is irrelevant.

So the truth that Lincoln didn't emancipate a single slave when he could have doesn't bother you. Why did Lincoln leave blacks in the North in slavery? Doesn't that tell you something about Lincoln's thoughts on slavery?

I'm not lying. You haven't answered. How did the 13th and 14th Amendments come about?

Lees

You continue to demonstrate ignorance of Lincoln's beliefs.

How do you imagine the 13th and 14th Amendments came about?

 

[Fledermaus]

Please supply where this quote or quotes are taken from,and who made them. Or is this your speech?

Lees

They are all quotes by Lincoln

Stop playing stupid.

How do you imagine the 13th and 14th Amendments came about?

 

[Bodi]

I read what was in your reply. I seldom go to links given in a reply. If I don't have my own reference for the information in the link, I will create another tab and find it myself. And I have access to Article 5 of the Constitution.

Well, perhaps it is an assumption. But, you ally yourself with those who I am arguing with. See post #(204). You approve of tearing down Southern Monuments and high schools. See post #(215) Those I have been arguing with have supported the illegal 'underground railroad' and voicing opposition against Article 4 of the Constitution. So, I assume you also are opposed to Article 4 and the return of any runaway slave. If I am wrong in my assumption, I apologize. It just seemed like a safe assumption. But, if I am wrong, you can surely clear it up now. Do you think the underground railroad was illegal and that Article 4 should have been obeyed?

As to how the 13th and 14th Amendment, I am asking specifically how they came about. Not just how Amendments are passed in accordance to Article 5. But all that took place in passing the 13th and 14th Amendment.

Lees

So you ignore evidence that you are wrong and want to continue to assume things, but won't read the facts that show your assumption incorrect?

... LOL and you want people to take your debate seriously?


m

 

[soap box]

You say I am 'stuck in a year'. Why? Is this not the 'history' section? Is discussing and debating 'history' being stuck in a year? Would you say I was 'stuck in a year' if my position was like those I am arguing with...like with yourself? Is trying to set the historical record straight mean 'I am stuck in a year'? I wonder why no one accuses the NAACP and blacks of being 'stuck in a year'. Why no one tells them we are sick and tierd of hearing about you being a slave. Get over it. You have been freed. No that must be repeated over and over again so they can tear down Southern Statues and Flags.

Well, slavery was legal and ok in the United States. The South was justified in using the institution of slavery...? Correct? The South was not treasonous against the Constitution. The South was not the traitor. Correct?

Lees

There is no sophist argument that makes slavery justified.

This is the history forum but I don't remember your comments on Dresden and that's called being off- topic. If you want to continue your sophist deception you need to go to the forum page and push the green button that says "post thread". Since you've derailed this thread, this is my last reply.

One way the nation has evolved is that we understand when a law or even an amendment is wrong. Even if the law was accepted as consent, the contemporary population recognized how to change. Notice how many amendments have been added since the 14th. We've changed.

Another evolution in the nation is conscientious objection and nonviolent resistance.

It would be equally deceptive to pretend that women are inferior and should return to only having rights common in 1859.

The question is if the Civil War and all its terrors were justified. Yes, because it ended an institution in this continent that was indefensible evil.

 

[Lees]

There is no sophist argument that makes slavery justified.

This is the history forum but I don't remember your comments on Dresden and that's called being off- topic. If you want to continue your sophist deception you need to go to the forum page and push the green button that says "post thread". Since you've derailed this thread, this is my last reply.

One way the nation has evolved is that we understand when a law or even an amendment is wrong. Even if the law was accepted as consent, the contemporary population recognized how to change. Notice how many amendments have been added since the 14th. We've changed.

Another evolution in the nation is conscientious objection and nonviolent resistance.

It would be equally deceptive to pretend that women are inferior and should return to only having rights common in 1859.

The question is if the Civil War and all its terrors were justified. Yes, because it ended an institution in this continent that was indefensible evil.

The South didn't have to justify slavery. It was accepted. It was legal. They were doing nothing wrong. They were not traitor to the Constitution. The North was.

My first comment was post #(33) where I did address the Dresden question. After that I just responded to posts addressed to me. It wasn't me that derailed the thread.

Well, there has never been a problem in amending the Constitution....by legal means. Going to war and gain the victory by war, and then amend the Constitution that you couldn't amend legally before, is a problem. And is treasonous to the Constitution.

The War Between the States was not 'nonviolent resistance'.

The War didn't settle the question of justification against slavery or secession. It just gave the victor the ability to prove they could win the war. Justification for slavery or secession must come by the rule of law. Which America always likes to boast it is a nation of. But, in 1861 that rule got tossed out the window.

The North boasted it would show legal justification by trying Jeff Davis for treason and then hanging him from a sour apple tree. They boasted they would...until the started looking into the Law. They got scared. They knew the Law would reveal that it was they who were the traitors. It was they were responsible for some 800,000 deaths. Not the South. So, instead they decided to let Jeff Davis go. They got what they wanted with the War. No need now to bother with the legality of it.

Lees

 

[Fledermaus]

The South didn't have to justify slavery. It was accepted. It was legal. They were doing nothing wrong. They were not traitor to the Constitution. The North was.

My first comment was post #(33) where I did address the Dresden question. After that I just responded to posts addressed to me. It wasn't me that derailed the thread.

Well, there has never been a problem in amending the Constitution....by legal means. Going to war and gain the victory by war, and then amend the Constitution that you couldn't amend legally before, is a problem. And is treasonous to the Constitution.

The War Between the States was not 'nonviolent resistance'.

The War didn't settle the question of justification against slavery or secession. It just gave the victor the ability to prove they could win the war. Justification for slavery or secession must come by the rule of law. Which America always likes to boast it is a nation of. But, in 1861 that rule got tossed out the window.

The North boasted it would show legal justification by trying Jeff Davis for treason and then hanging him from a sour apple tree. They boasted they would...until the started looking into the Law. They got scared. They knew the Law would reveal that it was they who were the traitors. It was they were responsible for some 800,000 deaths. Not the South. So, instead they decided to let Jeff Davis go. They got what they wanted with the War. No need now to bother with the legality of it.

Lees

You seem bothered by the fact the Federal forces retained the Union and the nation as a whole rejected slavery.

Why?

You seem to want to blame the North for the war the South started.

Why?

You tend to lie about Lincoln's beliefs on Slavery.

Why?