Syria Used Chemical Weapons 3 Times in One Week, Watchdog Says

[Napoleon]

Lincoln didn’t round up the Confederate sympathizers in numerous towns and cities across the south and massacre them, so the two aren’t even remotely comparable. The South was also fighting for slavery......not protesting a dictator.

On the other hand, the fate of African Americans would have been immeasurably better if we hadn’t been so lenient on the Confederate scum.

That’s a matter of perspective. The South certainly believed that Lincoln was a tyrant just as Syrian rebels believe Assad is. An estimated 50,000 civilians were killed in the US Civil War. How do you think that happened? I’m sure Sherman’s March To The Sea had something to do with that.

 

[Tigerace117]

That’s a matter of perspective. The South certainly believed that Lincoln was a tyrant just as Syrian rebels believe Assad is. An estimated 50,000 civilians were killed in the US Civil War. How do you think that happened? I’m sure Sherman’s March To The Sea had something to do with that.

Sherman’s March to the Sea(which, by the way, occurred before most of the Geneva Convention regulations were established, and therefore was actually total fine under international law of the time) was actually less brutal than what Assad is doing. Unlike Assad’s butchers, Sherman didn’t go out of his way to target Confederate non-combatants. He didn’t indiscriminately slaughter his way through Georgia and South Carolina, even though he could have done so without anyone saying boo. Remember, the Germans were hanging French civilians as francs-tireaurs during the Franco-Prussian War which started in 1871.

The south thinking Lincoln was a “tyrant” is idiotic.

 

[Napoleon]

Sherman’s March to the Sea(which, by the way, occurred before most of the Geneva Convention regulations were established, and therefore was actually total fine under international law of the time) was actually less brutal than what Assad is doing. Unlike Assad’s butchers, Sherman didn’t go out of his way to target Confederate non-combatants. He didn’t indiscriminately slaughter his way through Georgia and South Carolina, even though he could have done so without anyone saying boo. Remember, the Germans were hanging French civilians as francs-tireaurs during the Franco-Prussian War which started in 1871.

The south thinking Lincoln was a “tyrant” is idiotic.

Um, what made Sherman’s March To The Sea famous was the fact that it was 285 miles of indiscriminate destruction and murder. The point being that such things have been a feature of civil war since the beginning of time and should be expected. And I’m sure Assad’s supporters think characterization of him as a tyrant is idiotic too.

 

[Tigerace117]

Um, what made Sherman’s March To The Sea famous was the fact that it was 285 miles of indiscriminate destruction and murder. The point being that such things have been a feature of civil war since the beginning of time and should be expected. And I’m sure Assad’s supporters think characterization of him as a tyrant is idiotic too.

Except it wasn’t. Overwhelmingly, the accounts come in of the northern troops torching those big old plantation houses that had been built, quite literally, in the backs of African Americans.....and leaving the slavers alive to whine about it. Trying to claim it was “indiscriminate murder” is ignorant. Especially considering that Sherman was setting off unsupported deep into enemy territory, and a lot of the damage some people complain so much about would have been inflicted by any general....ever.

So in other words you have no problem with civilians being killed by drone strikes or air strikes, right? Abu Ghraib was completely fine, and so’s “enhanced interrogation”. After all, that stuff happens in war, so it’s a-ok. :roll:

 

[Yasureoktoo]

Except it wasn’t.

So in other words you have no problem with civilians being killed by drone strikes or air strikes, right? Abu Ghraib was completely fine, and so’s “enhanced interrogation”. After all, that stuff happens in war, so it’s a-ok. :roll:

Most of the casualties in Japan, by the two Atomic bombs, were civilians, but it brought the war to an end.

 

[Napoleon]

Except it wasn’t. Overwhelmingly, the accounts come in of the northern troops torching those big old plantation houses that had been built, quite literally, in the backs of African Americans.....and leaving the slavers alive to whine about it. Trying to claim it was “indiscriminate murder” is ignorant. Especially considering that Sherman was setting off unsupported deep into enemy territory, and a lot of the damage some people complain so much about would have been inflicted by any general....ever.

So in other words you have no problem with civilians being killed by drone strikes or air strikes, right? Abu Ghraib was completely fine, and so’s “enhanced interrogation”. After all, that stuff happens in war, so it’s a-ok. :roll:

I have a realistic view on what war entails particularly those that take place in densely populated areas. 50,000 civilians were massacred in the US civil war mostly by the North. So I don’t get my knickers in a twist when the same thing happens elsewhere with some high and mighty sense of self righteousness. When you start shooting at the government they shoot back and innocent people die with the rest. That’s war. So enough with the pearl clutching.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Both faced direct Western intervention.

Both were crushed.

Assad has not seen any such direct intervention against his forces.

both were crushed by imperalism, it was part of a cia plan where in 5 years, 7 countries would be taken out:iraq, Libya,Somalia,Iran,Syria, Lebanon and Sudan

 

[Tigerace117]

both were crushed by imperalism, it was part of a cia plan where in 5 years, 7 countries would be taken out:iraq, Libya,Somalia,Iran,Syria, Lebanon and Sudan

Both were under the rule of vicious dictators who brutally oppressed their own people and, in the case of Gaddafi especially, conducted terrorist attacks in the West.

But, by all means, regale us with the tales of the US invasion of Lebanon and Sudan :roll:

 

[Tigerace117]

I have a realistic view on what war entails particularly those that take place in densely populated areas. 50,000 civilians were massacred in the US civil war mostly by the North. So I don’t get my knickers in a twist when the same thing happens elsewhere with some high and mighty sense of self righteousness. When you start shooting at the government they shoot back and innocent people die with the rest. That’s war. So enough with the pearl clutching.

Again, there is no historical evidence of “massacres” of southern civilians taking place. There are however, numerous accounts of Confederates committing such massacres, such as at Fort Pillow in Tennessee and at a number of different spots in Kansas....which is where the James brothers, those great Confederate patriotsroll got their start.

Your argument is nonsensical. You claim that atrocities were committed a hundred and fifty years ago, and somehow that makes atrocities today justified.

 

[Napoleon]

Again, there is no historical evidence of “massacres” of southern civilians taking place. There are however, numerous accounts of Confederates committing such massacres, such as at Fort Pillow in Tennessee and at a number of different spots in Kansas....which is where the James brothers, those great Confederate patriotsroll got their start.

Your argument is nonsensical. You claim that atrocities were committed a hundred and fifty years ago, and somehow that makes atrocities today justified.

We don’t have precise figures of the carnage inflicted by Union soldiers but we know they were legion. History is written by the winner and their crimes are usually buried but there’s a reason Sherman wrote to Grant saying the State of Georgia would have to be repopulated. The burning and razing of the Shenandoah Valley including indiscriminate attacks on civilians doubtless cost many lives. And, of course, Sherman is on record stating that women and children must be killed. We don’t have to go as far back as 150 years ago. Atrocities are committed by all sides in every war, but we’re specifically talking about civil war.

 

[Tigerace117]

We don’t have precise figures of the carnage inflicted by Union soldiers but we know they were legion. History is written by the winner and their crimes are usually buried but there’s a reason Sherman wrote to Grant saying the State of Georgia would have to be repopulated. The burning and razing of the Shenandoah Valley including indiscriminate attacks on civilians doubtless cost many lives. And, of course, Sherman is on record stating that women and children must be killed. We don’t have to go as far back as 150 years ago. Atrocities are committed by all sides in every war, but we’re specifically talking about civil war.

Yeah, simply declaring something to be “legion” is not evidence. Anecdotes passed down by people’s relatives about how they heard from their cousin’s neighbor’s sister’s nephew’s grandfather’s dog catcher that the North was committing atrocities is, again, not evidence. The reason why we have so many accounts of people complaining about those “awful damnyankees took away our slaves and torched our plantation” is because they didn’t engage mass slaughter of civilians like Assad has.

Considering that the Shenandoah Valley is in Virginia, your little story seems a bit geographically lacking. Then again, Sherman could easily have been talking about the fact that the Confederate recruiters had gone through Georgia, like so many other states, with a fine toothed comb in the desperate search for more men and, as a result of casualties, left much of it empty.

Claims that “Sherman said X” are meaningless when you don’t have evidence of X being systematically carried out....or at all, for that matter.

 

[Napoleon]

Yeah, simply declaring something to be “legion” is not evidence. Anecdotes passed down by people’s relatives about how they heard from their cousin’s neighbor’s sister’s nephew’s grandfather’s dog catcher that the North was committing atrocities is, again, not evidence. The reason why we have so many accounts of people complaining about those “awful damnyankees took away our slaves and torched our plantation” is because they didn’t engage mass slaughter of civilians like Assad has.

Considering that the Shenandoah Valley is in Virginia, your little story seems a bit geographically lacking. Then again, Sherman could easily have been talking about the fact that the Confederate recruiters had gone through Georgia, like so many other states, with a fine toothed comb in the desperate search for more men and, as a result of casualties, left much of it empty.

Claims that “Sherman said X” are meaningless when you don’t have evidence of X being systematically carried out....or at all, for that matter.

Maybe you missed a few history classes in middle school but the Union wasn’t fighting the war to free slaves. The burning of the Shenandoah and brutalization of Southern civilians was retaliatory. General Philip Sheridan was a butcher. He wasn’t burning crops and razing the houses of civilians to free slaves. I’m fact, in one well known instance, he ordered every civilian house and town in a five mile radius to be razed because his favorite man servant was blown away in battle. And when Sherman wrote about the need to murder women and children to justify his own 285 mile path of carnage you can be sure that’s what he was doing.

 

[Tigerace117]

Maybe you missed a few history classes in middle school but the Union wasn’t fighting the war to free slaves. The burning of the Shenandoah and brutalization of Southern civilians was retaliatory. General Philip Sheridan was a butcher. He wasn’t burning crops and razing the houses of civilians to free slaves. I’m fact, in one well known instance, he ordered every civilian house and town in a five mile radius to be razed because his favorite man servant was blown away in battle. And when Sherman wrote about the need to murder women and children to justify his own 285 mile path of carnage you can be sure that’s what he was doing.

The South was fighting to keep slavery from the start, and fighting to liberate African Americans certainly was a war goal of the Union’s after the Emancipation Proclamation. There’s a reason no one ever recognized the Confederacy as an independent nation. Considering that the overwhelming majority of Confederates got off completely scot free, you crying about how “brutalized” they were is rather laughable. An equivalent situation would be letting Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann run states in Germany for years after the war.

The Shenandoah Valley Campaign was the direct result of a Confederate column being sent into the area to threaten Washington DC. It wasn’t an attempt to “terrorize southern civilians” like you seem to think. And your “woe are the slavers” story is just as meaningless as someone crying about how German civilians were forced to view what was going on at the concentration camps after the Allies liberated them.

Except, again, there’s no evidence . Sherman’s campaign was what the US should have been doing all over the south— forcing the deluded, idiotic slavers who had been spoiling for a fight since the 1830s to face the fact that there was nothing “glorious” about the war. That’s why southerners hated him so much— he destroyed their delusions, revealed their impotency to stop him from doing unto them as they had done unto so many others, and there wasn’t a damn thing they could do about it.

 

[Napoleon]

The South was fighting to keep slavery from the start, and fighting to liberate African Americans certainly was a war goal of the Union’s after the Emancipation Proclamation. There’s a reason no one ever recognized the Confederacy as an independent nation. Considering that the overwhelming majority of Confederates got off completely scot free, you crying about how “brutalized” they were is rather laughable. An equivalent situation would be letting Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann run states in Germany for years after the war.

The Shenandoah Valley Campaign was the direct result of a Confederate column being sent into the area to threaten Washington DC. It wasn’t an attempt to “terrorize southern civilians” like you seem to think. And your “woe are the slavers” story is just as meaningless as someone crying about how German civilians were forced to view what was going on at the concentration camps after the Allies liberated them.

Except, again, there’s no evidence . Sherman’s campaign was what the US should have been doing all over the south— forcing the deluded, idiotic slavers who had been spoiling for a fight since the 1830s to face the fact that there was nothing “glorious” about the war. That’s why southerners hated him so much— he destroyed their delusions, revealed their impotency to stop him from doing unto them as they had done unto so many others, and there wasn’t a damn thing they could do about it.

It’s quite a bit more nuanced than saying the South was “fighting to keep Slavery.” The Federal government was running roughshod over the States in violation of the Constitution. Like it or not, slavery was intrastate commerce. You might think Southern petiole were idiots but that doesn’t translate into a justification to be brutalized and murdered by the Federal government.

Most Syrians have also gotten off Scot free as did the Germans. That doesn’t mean you should pretend the United States was a saint in WWII or that Assad is a saint now. But if that’s your attitude towards the wanton destruction of the South and massacre of civilians then I don’t know what you’re complaining about in terms of the Syrian Civil War.

 

[Tigerace117]

It’s quite a bit more nuanced than saying the South was “fighting to keep Slavery.” The Federal government was running roughshod over the States in violation of the Constitution. Like it or not, slavery was intrastate commerce. You might think Southern petiole were idiots but that doesn’t translate into a justification to be brutalized and murdered by the Federal government.

Most Syrians have also gotten off Scot free as did the Germans. That doesn’t mean you should pretend the United States was a saint in WWII or that Assad is a saint now. But if that’s your attitude towards the wanton destruction of the South and massacre of civilians then I don’t know what you’re complaining about in terms of the Syrian Civil War.

The South explicitly said they were fighting for slavery. It was in multiple of the southern states’ official “reasons for secession” declaration. It’s rather amusing that you claim the federal government was “running roughshod over the south” considering that James Buchanan, the president before Abraham Lincoln, was one of the most pro-southern presidents in the country’s history— despite being from the north, no less— and the south had effectively controlled the federal government for thirty years at the time Lincoln was elected. Southern interests, such as expanding slavery westwards, were promoted; those of the north and west, such as a transcontinental railroad, ignored. Laws like the Fugitive Slave Act(funny how southerners didn’t care about states rights when they pushed that through) were passed; the Supreme Court, led by that idiot Taney, handed down the literal worst decision in its history in the Dred Scott case to protect slavery.

Every time a compromise over the issue was made, it was southerners who broke it, constantly pressing for more. The south kickstarted “Bleeding Kansas” by sending gangs of thugs into the region. A southern legislator literally physically attacked another lawmaker for opposing slavery on the Senate floor, and was hailed as a hero.

Claiming that the Federal government was “running roughshod” over the south is sheer ignorance.

Are you seriously arguing that the federal government had no right to put an end to (or restrict) slavery? Leaving out that Lincoln had taken no steps to do any such thing when the Confederates started shooting at Fort Sumter, that’s a bizarre interpretation.

“Wanton destruction”

Gee, maybe they shouldn’t have started a war to protect slavery if they didn’t want to face the consequences of that.

Again, you have provided no evidence that there were any massacres of civilians by the Union.

 

[Napoleon]

The South explicitly said they were fighting for slavery. It was in multiple of the southern states’ official “reasons for secession” declaration.

It’s rather amusing that you claim the federal government was “running roughshod over the south” considering that James Buchanan, the president before Abraham Lincoln, was one of the most pro-southern presidents in the country’s history— despite being from the north, no less— and the south had effectively controlled the federal government for thirty years at the time Lincoln was elected. Southern interests, such as expanding slavery westwards, were promoted; those of the north and west, such as a transcontinental railroad, ignored. Laws like the Fugitive Slave Act(funny how southerners didn’t care about states rights when they pushed that through) were passed; the Supreme Court, led by that idiot Taney, handed down the literal worst decision in its history in the Dred Scott case to protect slavery.

Every time a compromise over the issue was made, it was southerners who broke it, constantly pressing for more. The south kickstarted “Bleeding Kansas” by sending gangs of thugs into the region. A southern legislator literally attacked another lawmaker for opposing slavery on the Senate floor, and was hailed as a hero.

Claiming that the Federal government was “running roughshod” over the south is sheer ignorance.

Are you seriously arguing that the federal government had no right to put an end to (or restrict) slavery? Leaving out that Lincoln had taken no steps to do any such thing when the Confederates started shooting at Fort Sumter, that’s a bizarre interpretation.

That is a gross oversimplification of what the South explicitly said and you know it. Yes, I’m seriously pointing out the fact that the Federal government had no Constitutional authority to prohibit slavery as a matter of the 5th Amendment (very important also in the context of Northern States “freeing” the legal property of Southerners) and the 10th Amendment and it certainly didn’t have a right make it a condition of forming a new State. Slavery, with the exception of the importation of slaves, was a constitutionally protected institution. You don’t have to like that fact but it is a fact. And you can stop with the hokey notion that the North was on some noble quest to free slaves. It demonstrably was not especially considering that there were still slaves in the North.

Gee, maybe they shouldn’t have started a war to protect slavery if they didn’t want to face the consequences of that.

Maybe the Syrian people shouldn’t have started a civil war if they didn’t want to face the consequences of that.

 

[Tigerace117]

e want to face the consequences of that.

No, it’s really not. From the Southern declarations:

“The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.”

South Carolina:

“ The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

“ We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”

Texas:

“ She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy.”

Mississippi:

“ Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.”

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States | American Battlefield Trust

Yes, the north often didn’t return “fugitive” slaves to the south. Nor should they have. Slavery was not legal in the north; it was a vile institution and an instrument of tyranny. With the exception of Brazil, it was outlawed in the rest of the new world. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the institution of slavery is to be protected and enforced across the country indefinitely. Your claim that the federal government didn’t have the “right” to ensure that “new” states had to provide constitutional protections to all their people is equally bizarre.

Again, it wasn’t. Nowhere in the constitution does it outlaw the banning of slavery. As for the “there were slaves in the north” claim....that’s only true if you consider the border states— places like Kentucky and Missouri— as “the north”— and even then slavery was pretty much DOA once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.

So, again, your historical ignorance is showing.

Considering that the Syrian Civil War started due to Assad machine gunning protesters, your argument is laughable.

 

[Napoleon]

Yes, the north often didn’t return “fugitive” slaves to the south. Nor should they have. Slavery was not legal in the north; it was a vile institution and an instrument of tyranny. With the exception of Brazil, it was outlawed in the rest of the new world. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the institution of slavery is to be protected and enforced across the country indefinitely. Your claim that the federal government didn’t have the “right” to ensure that “new” states had to provide constitutional protections to all their people is equally bizarre.

Again, it wasn’t. Nowhere in the constitution does it outlaw the banning of slavery. As for the “there were slaves in the north” claim....that’s only true if you consider the border states— places like Kentucky and Missouri— as “the north”— and even then slavery was pretty much DOA once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.

You still don’t know what you’re talking about even though you managed to dig up the formal position of the States. Maybe you haven’t read the Constitution lately, but it explicitly says powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved for the States and the people and that property cannot be seized without due process. The Federal government was not given the power to regulate or end slavery beyond national importation. That rested with the States and the people and the Northern States had no Constitutional authority to free slaves - that was a violation of the 5th Amendment. The Federal government and the Northern States were acting unconstitutionally to deprive the Southern States, the people of the South, and the people in the territories of their Constitutional rights. That is the basis of their argument and it was true. The South was 100% in the right from a Constitutional standpoint. You don’t get to ignore the Constitution because you don’t like the way people exercise their rights. You need a Constitutional amendment and that’s ultimately what happened.

In terms of slavery in the Northern States - Delaware and Maryland still had slaves until the 13th Amendment was ratified and New Jersey still had slaves when the Civil War started. And yes, violent protest was met with violent response in Syria.

 

[Tigerace117]

You still don’t know what you’re talking about even though you managed to dig up the formal position of the States. Maybe you haven’t read the Constitution lately, but it explicitly says powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved for the States and the people and that property cannot be seized without due process. The Federal government was not given the power to regulate or end slavery beyond national importation. That rested with the States and the people and the Northern States had no Constitutional authority to free slaves - that was a violation of the 5th Amendment. The Federal government and the Northern States were acting unconstitutionally to deprive the Southern States, the people of the South, and the people in the territories of their Constitutional rights. That is the basis of their argument and it was true. The South was 100% in the right from a Constitutional standpoint. You don’t get to ignore the Constitution because you don’t like the way people exercise their rights. You need a Constitutional amendment and that’s ultimately what happened.

In terms of slavery in the Northern States - Delaware and Maryland still had slaves until the 13th Amendment was ratified and New Jersey still had slaves when the Civil War started. And yes, violent protest was met with violent response in Syria.

They explicitly stated they were fighting for slavery. Mississippi literally said that an “attack on slavery was an attack on civilization”. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the government can’t take steps to restrict slavery or ban it. Nowhere in the constitution, additionally, does it say that slavery is to be preserved indefinitely. As for claiming that other human beings were property.....you can cling to that delusion all you want, but even in 1860 most of the world was disgusted by it. No one was obligated to help the South continue to perpetuate it’s “peculiar institution”.

Are you seriously arguing that preventing southerners from owning other human beings is a “violation of their rights”? That’s truly absurd. How, exactly, is preventing you from violating the rights of others a “violation of your rights”? Nowhere in the constitution does it say slavery is a right either. There is no “right to own slaves”.

Delaware and Maryland aren’t the “North” either. As for New Jersey, the state abolished slavery in 1846 and the last handful of “indentured servants”— all sixteen of them— were freed by the end of the war.

 

[Napoleon]

They explicitly stated they were fighting for slavery. Mississippi literally said that an “attack on slavery was an attack on civilization”. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the government can’t take steps to restrict slavery or ban it. Nowhere in the constitution, additionally, does it say that slavery is to be preserved indefinitely. As for claiming that other human beings were property.....you can cling to that delusion all you want, but even in 1860 most of the world was disgusted by it. No one was obligated to help the South continue to perpetuate it’s “peculiar institution”.

They explicitly stated that slavery was a Constitutional rights issue and they were correct. And that’s right! The Constitution doesn’t say anything about the Federal government having the authority to regulate or end it within the United States other than banning importation. That’s why it was a 10th Amendment issue with 5th Amendment legal property rights. As I said, you don’t have to like that fact but it is a fact whether anyone finds it disgusting or not. If you don’t like the Constitution then there’s a process to amend it, but you can’t ignore it with a series of unconstitutional laws.

Are you seriously arguing that preventing southerners from owning other human beings is a “violation of their rights”? That’s truly absurd. How, exactly, is preventing you from violating the rights of others a “violation of your rights”? Nowhere in the constitution does it say slavery is a right either. There is no “right to own slaves”.

They explicitly stated that slavery was a Constitutional rights issue and they were correct. And that’s right! The Constitution doesn’t say anything about the Federal government having the authority to regulate or end it within the United States. That’s why it was a 10th Amendment issue with 5th Amendment legal property rights. As I said, you don’t have to like that fact but it is a fact whether anyone finds it disgusting or not. If you don’t like the Constitution then there’s a process to amend it, but you can’t ignore it with a series of unconstitutional laws. There was no right to own slaves after the 13th Amendment was ratified.

Delaware and Maryland aren’t the “North” either. As for New Jersey, the state abolished slavery in 1846 and the last handful of “indentured servants”— all sixteen of them— were freed by the end of the war.

When did the geographical location of Delaware and Maryland change?

 

[Tigerace117]

They explicitly stated that slavery was a Constitutional rights issue and they were correct. And that’s right! The Constitution doesn’t say anything about the Federal government having the authority to regulate or end it within the United States. That’s why it was a 10th Amendment issue with 5th Amendment legal property rights. As I said, you don’t have to like that fact but it is a fact whether anyone finds it disgusting or not. If you don’t like the Constitution then there’s a process to amend it, but you can’t ignore it with a series of unconstitutional laws. There was no right to own slaves after the 13th Amendment was ratified.



When did the geographical location of Delaware and Maryland change?

Delaware and Maryland have never been northern. They are border states. Always have been. And in 1860 Maryland especially was crawling with slaver sympathizers.

Except it wasn’t. There was no “right to own slaves” and nowhere in the constitution does it state that the “peculiar institution” is protected in perpetuity. Your argument hits two additional snags when one notices that 1) Lincoln had not actually done anything to “regulate slavery”, much Lee’s end it, when the south started shooting at Fort Sumter and 2) The southern controlled federal government happily infringed on the rights of the northern states by pushing through the Fugitive Slave Act.

Pretending human beings were “legal property” is no more valid a law than the Nuremberg Laws were. Pretending that there were constitutional protections for it is laughably false and downright hypocritical given the federal government’s role in protecting and expanding slavery to begin with— against the wishes of the northern states.

Funny, the southern states did exactly that with Jim Crow for a century. Your argument is utterly ignorant.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Both were under the rule of vicious dictators who brutally oppressed their own people and, in the case of Gaddafi especially, conducted terrorist attacks in the West.

But, by all means, regale us with the tales of the US invasion of Lebanon and Sudan :roll:

Wrong, Gaddafi is better than now

 

[Tigerace117]

Wrong, Gaddafi is better than now

Gaddafi was a mass murderer and rapist who turned his country into a pariah state.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Gaddafi was a mass murderer and rapist who turned his country into a pariah state.

Litterraly never was against that, but now there is a civil war

 

[Tigerace117]

Litterraly never was against that, but now there is a civil war

He literally was both. He was directly responsible for Lockerbie and the West Berlin night club bombing, and his habit of sexually abusing anyone who caught his eye have been throughly documented.