West Point moves to vanquish Confederate symbols from campus

[99percenter]

He renounced his citizenship, pledged loyalty to a foreign nation and the attacked the US


The definition of a traitor

Not a foreign nation. An insurgency. The csa didnt exist.

 

[Tigerace117]

We disagree.

The historical facts don’t care about your opinion, sorry.

Nowhere in the Constitution is slavery protected.

 

[vegas giants]

Not a foreign nation. An insurgency. The csa didnt exist.

It did according to them

 

[Lord of Planar]

The facts are that the south went to war to defend slavery.

That was one of at least two other issues.

The facts are that there was nothing unconstitutional about opposing slavery.

Agreed. everyone is free to support or oppose what ever they want.

See the first amendment please.

No matter how much those realities seem to trigger you.

LOL... It's arrogant to think you know my mind.

 

[Tigerace117]

That was one of at least two other issues.

Agreed. everyone is free to support or oppose what ever they want.

See the first amendment please.

LOL... It's arrogant to think you know my mind.

Oh, it’s very clear from everyone one of your posts that you are a Confederate fanboy.

So you admit there was nothing “unconstitutional” about opposing slavery. Therefore, your previous claims that the government “shit on the Constitution” by doing so are false.

Nope, the South was fighting to defend slavery.

Everything else was an excuse cooked up after the fact

 

[prometeus]

I completely agree with that. Do you think all laws are based on morality?

Some are based on public safety, societal norms, protection of individuals. Slavery is none of that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The historical facts don’t care about your opinion, sorry.

Nowhere in the Constitution is slavery protected.

Don't forget, it was clarified in law. You should read the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

 

[Tigerace117]

Don't forget, it was clarified in law. You should read the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

Gee, you mean the act which trampled all over the 10th Amendment you pretend to care so much about?

The Fugitive Slave Act was blatantly unconstitutional in the first place, so no, not an excuse. Slavery was not protected in the Constitution.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh, it’s very clear from everyone one of your posts that you are a Confederate fanboy.

Only to a fool. Again, I support the truth on these things. Facts are neutral.

So you admit there was nothing “unconstitutional” about opposing slavery. Therefore, your previous claims that the government “shit on the Constitution” by doing so are false.

see post 517.

Nope, the South was fighting to defend slavery.

Everything else was an excuse cooked up after the fact

So? It was their 10th amendment right.

 

[Tigerace117]

Only to a fool. Again, I support the truth on these things. Facts are neutral.

see post 517.

So? It was their 10th amendment right.

The truth is that the Confederacy was fighting to defend slavery. The truth is that slavery was not protected under the Constitution.

You being unable to handle those facts says it all.

Wrong. Nowhere in the 10th Amendment does it state that it’s okay to wage war against the United States to protect slavery.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Gee, you mean the act which trampled all over the 10th Amendment you pretend to care so much about?

The Fugitive Slave Act was blatantly unconstitutional in the first place, so no, not an excuse. Slavery was not protected in the Constitution.

OK... In modern terms, what you are claiming is that's it's OK to steal someones property, like maybe a $200,000 sports car, and if I go to another state with it, I am free from prosecution.

 

[prometeus]

OK... In modern terms, what you are claiming is that's it's OK to seal someones property, like maybe a $200,000 sports car, and if I go to another state with it, I am free from prosecution.

Just curious, how the **** did you come up with that moronic analogy?

 

[Tigerace117]

OK... In modern terms, what you are claiming is that's it's OK to seal someones property, like maybe a $200,000 sports car, and if I go to another state with it, I am free from prosecution.

Except it isn’t a “car”; it’s a person. Your “equivalence” is pathetic.

Furthermore, you are arguing that laws banning slavery should be ignored because people escaped from it. That’s ACTUAL trampling the 10th amendment.

 

[Ruby Wizard]

Theres a lot of talk itt about what the civil war "was about." Lets see what the primary funders of the Confederacy thought it was about:

The Causes of the Civil War

Letters from Salomon de Rothschild to his family, during his visit to America at the beginning of the Civil War.

www.jewish-history.com

The Causes of the Civil War​ by Salomon de Rothschild ​

I am writing you a separate letter on politics, which is even more confused here than in Europe, but I cannot recommend to you strongly enough to use every influence of our family and our friends to have the Republic of the Southern Confederacy recognized as soon as possible. You will tell me that my ideas have changed, but when you read my other letter, you will tell me I am right, for in this way bloodshed and an immense destruction of property would be stopped.

...

The South was a producer of raw materials, and a consumer; the North was a manufacturer. Free trade, or at least very moderate custom-duties, was the desire of the inhabitants of the South. The North was contending in favor of protection, often even of the prohibition [of imports]. By the old tariff law, the eastern states and New England furnished the other states merchandise which these latter could procure in Europe at reductions of twenty-five and thirty percent.


As soon as the Republican administration (the protector of tariffs) came to power, Congress passed the Morrill Tariff, which raised duties to an unprecedented rate. The states which had seceded responded with a very great decrease in these same tariffs, intimating their eventual, complete abolition when the peaceful state of the country should allow them freedom from recourse to extraordinary measures.


The North understood that it was lost if secession continued and made progress. Who would then come to buy the iron products of Pennsylvania and the manufactured goods of New England? It would no longer by the South, for the South would get its supplies in the European markets and would find a way to pass its purchases into the western states. From that moment on, the South no longer had a supporter in the North; Republicans and Democrats crowded around the flag of the Union. Patriotism and the old memories played some part in this; but believe me, the principal motive was the pocket.​

The Confederacy was funded by international finance specifically to economically kneecap the rising United States. The Rothschilds stayed away themselves from risky Confederate Cotton Bonds but used their influence to push them in markets like France, without which the Confederacy would have been broke.

The reason you never learn about this is because:
1) Modern Democratic economic policy is this to a T.
2) It cant be turned into a trite morality play about modern racial politics
3) Literally everyone whos "offended" by Reconciliation era statues is also ACTUALLY offended when you bring up the Rothschilds interfering in American politics. In fact Id wager almost every one of them itt would say me literally quoting what Salomon de Rothschild said, is Anti-Semetic.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Just curious, how the **** did you come up with that moronic analogy?

The slaves were legally considered property.

Period.

I agree this was wrong, but it is the fact of our laws back then.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Except it isn’t a “car”; it’s a person. Your “equivalence” is pathetic.

Furthermore, you are arguing that laws banning slavery should be ignored because people escaped from it. That’s ACTUAL trampling the 10th amendment.

But the slaves were not considered by law as free people. They were considered property for legal purposes.

 

[Tigerace117]

Theres a lot of talk itt about what the civil war "was about." Lets see what the primary funders of the Confederacy thought it was about:

The Causes of the Civil War

Letters from Salomon de Rothschild to his family, during his visit to America at the beginning of the Civil War.

www.jewish-history.com

The Confederacy was funded by international finance specifically to economically kneecap the rising United States. The Rothschilds stayed away themselves from risky Confederate Cotton Bonds but used their influence to push them in markets like France, without which the Confederacy would have been broke.

The reason you never learn about this is because:
1) Modern Democratic economic policy is this to a T.
2) It cant be turned into a trite morality play about modern racial politics
3) Literally everyone whos "offended" by Reconciliation era statues is also ACTUALLY offended when you bring up the Rothschilds interfering in American politics. In fact Id wager almost every one of them itt would say me literally quoting what Salomon de Rothschild said, is Anti-Semetic.

Oh look, a double whammie. Not just Lost Cause drivel, but anti Semitic drivel to boot.

But by all means, let’s take a look at what the CSA’s states said.

The Reasons for Secession: A Documentary Study

The root cause of the American Civil War is perhaps the most controversial topic in American history. Even before the war was over, scholars in the North and South began to analyze and interpret the reasons behind the bloodshed.

www.battlefields.org

 

[Tigerace117]

But the slaves were not considered by law as free people. They were considered property for legal purposes.

Under law, slavery was banned in the north. There could be no slavery. Therefore, the “Fugitive Slave Act” was entirely unconstitutional.

 

[Ruby Wizard]

Oh look, a double whammie. Not just Lost Cause drivel, but anti Semitic drivel to boot.

But by all means, let’s take a look at what the CSA’s states said.

The Reasons for Secession: A Documentary Study

The root cause of the American Civil War is perhaps the most controversial topic in American history. Even before the war was over, scholars in the North and South began to analyze and interpret the reasons behind the bloodshed.

www.battlefields.org

Which is exactly what I mean. You dont hate the confederacy youre someone who will defend the people who funded it to the death. Youre offended by me directly quoting the man who set up sales of Cotton Bonds that were the primary funder of the Confederacy.

 

[Tigerace117]

Which is exactly what I mean. You dont hate the confederacy youre someone who will defend the people who funded it to the death. Youre offended by me directly quoting the man who set up sales of Cotton Bonds that were the primary funder of the Confederacy.

Sorry, this isn’t Stormfront. The “but the jeeeeeeeeewwwwwwssssss” wailing is both irrelevant and meaningless.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Which is exactly what I mean. You dont hate the confederacy youre someone who will defend the people who funded it to the death. Youre offended by me directly quoting the man who set up sales of Cotton Bonds that were the primary funder of the Confederacy.

This is probably why they wanted to keep their slaves. Of course, there is that whole making a living off the backs of slaves deal too. The south did not want to have to pay people to do the work the slaves were doing.

A sad truth for the south.

 

[Ruby Wizard]

Sorry, this isn’t Stormfront. The “but the jeeeeeeeeewwwwwwssssss” wailing is both irrelevant and meaningless.

Right exactly. Salomon de Rothschild is from a protected group and it doesnt matter if he funded a secessionist movement based on Human Slavery with the goal of undermining the American Empire, you arent allowed to talk about it.

This is probably why they wanted to keep their slaves. Of course, there is that whole making a living off the backs of slaves deal too. The south did not want to have to pay people to do the work the slaves were doing.

A sad truth for the south.

How?

The people who actually orchestrated and funded this are off limits, but the descendents of ordinary people caught in the middle arent?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Under law, slavery was banned in the north. There could be no slavery. Therefore, the “Fugitive Slave Act” was entirely unconstitutional.

States rights. The north does not make law for the south.

 

[Hamish Howl]

And everyone on the side of "The North" you consider to be genocidal monsters because of the Indian Wars. All their descendents, "White Americans" are people you proudly hate today. The feeling was also mutual. You and your ancestors had strict quotas on how many of you were allowed to enter The North before the Hart Celler act.

Me and my what? What the **** are you talking about?

Whats the point of Buffalo Bill Skinsuit nationalism? This is a legit question Ive never understood people who wear their hatred for Heritage Americans on their sleeve trying to wear Abe Lincoln as a skinsuit. Cmon man, be proud of who you are.

Those last two sentences didn't sound deranged at all, my dude. Not at all psychotic and stalker-ish.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Right exactly. Salomon de Rothschild is from a protected group and it doesnt matter if he funded a secessionist movement based on Human Slavery with the goal of undermining the American Empire, you arent allowed to talk about it.


How?

The people who actually orchestrated and funded this are off limits, but the descendents of ordinary people caught in the middle arent?

JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ!!!!11