Was he really just King George III without a crown?

>>2502479
No, George had been dead for quite some time

>war were declared
>take the powers you need to maintain the rule of law
>win the war
>the people who lost the war cry forever instead of taking responsibility

Why do Americans seem to think King George III was responsible for colonial taxation?

Is it because it's easier to demonize a monarch?

Lord North is to blame for letting things get out of hand, George was an intelligent moderate.

Our David's good sling is unerring!

The slavocrats' giant he sleeeeew!

Then shout for the freedom-preferring

For Lincoln, and liberty too!

>>2502485
>the rule of Law

You mean the rule that says that if a government becomes counter to the best interests of the people that it is the duty of the people to topple such a government and install a new one which will suit their needs?

The Northern tyrants imposed laws that would cripple the Southern states and the lives of their citizens.

They had every right to overthrow the overarching federal behemoth.

>>2502484
this

>>2502505
>declares war
>loses
>WAAAAAAAH THIS IS YOUR FAULT

>>2502512
The North shouldn't have tried to resupply Fort Sumter desu

Instead of autocrats across the Atlantic the American people ended up with autocrats in Washington.

>>2502487

because he is. George the turd was an arrogant complete monarchist who believed the king should be a dictator and even had people in England against him for this.

He was also literally insane

>>2502505
>You mean the rule that says that if a government becomes counter to the best interests of the people that it is the duty of the people to topple such a government and install a new one which will suit their needs

That isn't actually a law.

By definition, revolting against any government is against the laws of that government.

Hence why Washington personally led troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

>>2502553
Lincoln had zero problem imposing his will on the men and women of the South.

He had zero problem using military force and unleashing his armies on the counties and townships of the South.

Talk about dictatorship.

>>2502519
You're seriously going to argue the american presidency, which can be removed by elected representatives, and is elected himself is autocratic because they have a lot of power.

>>2502561
>That isn't actually a law.

Oh look, yet another dork who never read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights who wants to make up shit anyway.

Go do your homework desu. Learn something.

>>2502553
>I know absolutely nothing about George III: The Post

>>2502568
Could you show me where in the Bill of Rights it says the people can legally rebel?

>>2502563
The federal behemoth was NEVER meant to be such an overarching authority on American lives.

We traded a gang in London for a gang in the District of Columbia.

And this gang makes laws which affect every single citizen regardless of local or State laws.

States were meant to be like sovereign territories which were united but not carbon copies.

The Federal authority was a mistake.

>>2502505
>Speaks of tyrants when the south rebelled literally to protect slavery
Shitty bait

>>2502579
The South singlehandedly destroyed federalism.

>MUH STATES RIGHTS
>except if it's the Fugitive Slave Act, in which case it's illegal for states to have their own laws against slavery
>MUH STATES RIGHTS
>use the state militias to commit treason
>MUH STATES RIGHTS
>use United States v. Cruikshank to systematically undermine the constitution and ignore the Bill of Rights

If it weren't for the Southern infatuation with nigger dick, the United States would look like a less communist, Muslim-y version of the EU.

>>2502485
>maintain the rule of law

He did what he had to do given the circumstances, but "maintain the rule of law" was not one of them. He suspended Habeas Corpus, the fundamental principle behind any modern democratic/republican rule of law. Still, he was much more lenient with the defeated enemy than anyone could have expected, or wanted.

>>2502631
See, it doesn't matter how faithful you are to the constitution if somebody else has the physical power to enforce another set of laws onto your territory.

>>2502588
Oh god please end the slavery meme

The North had an insane and destructive schedule for ending slavery.

It would have overturned the lives of the Southern states and not actually helped the slaves themselves, which was never the goal in the first place.

Let me ask, since the majority of ancestral slaves in modern times live in Democratically run urban reservations which at de facto killing fields, are you HAPPY with the way things turned out?

Are you so very glad that we have traded plantations for maximum security prisons?

Objectively, freeing the slaves in the way it was done has been a complete disaster for the ancestors of the slaves.

1 in 4 change of prison time bit only a 1 in 6 chance at literacy in these new urban plantations.

>>2502657
There's a simple way to determine whether a set of circumstances really is the best thing for a group of people.

See if they stick around.

If slavery was good for American blacks, it wouldn't need to be slavery. You'd just open a plantation and let the negros pour in.

>but they don't know better

Neither does the south, nobody enslaves them so they won't kill themselves with moon pies and snake handling

>>2502631
>what he had to do
Yes, just like King George III did.

They both tried to subjugate other humans to their ultimate authority.

And they both used force to do so.

>>2502681
So you really are proud of the urban plantation system of catch and release.

You're cozy with a 1 in 4 chance of prison and you're content with these urban plantations being de facto killing fields.

At least the American negroe doesn't have to sweat at all, you say.

He is much better off and safer in Chicago than he ever was in Kentucky!

>>2502657
>Oh god please end the slavery meme
No, they explicit stated in their constitution they rebelled because they wanted to keep slavery.

I don't give a shit about some Dixie muh northern aggression nonesense, South got what it deserved.

>>2502695
Americans are much more likely to die of heart disease or diabetes than to go to jail.

Should we allow Southerners to continue to live in the wild, shoving down moon pies and RC cola, sitting on the couch watching FOX?

I say no.

>>2502695
>urban plantation

ah the shit I read on this board sometimes fucking l m a o

>>2502700
The entire civilized world had Slavery.

Slavery still exists today on parts of Africa

Yet you want to unduly condemn the Southern people for their participation on a common global way of life.

You're not fair or level headed at all. You just hate the south.

At least the South never ran the largest industrial FOR PROFIT prison system the world has ever known.

A system whose majority victims are the same ancestors of slavery you claim to give a single fuck about.

Astonishing

>>2502727
>prisons are bad but slavery is good

>>2502721
They are urban plantations 100%

Built to house post-reconstruction era blacks and managed by white Democrat for almost 5 decades now with atrocious results.

Urban plantations with 1 in 5 high school literacy rates and a hyper likely chance of being shot before ending up in a for profit prison system.

>>2502727
The entire civilized world had human sacrifice and infanticide too.

Nice naturalistic fallacy, gaylord.

>>2502727
Other people having slavery justifies slavery? The south has a terrible exploitative prison system btw probably some of the worst in the country.

>>2502732
It should not have ended so damn abruptly.

That was short sighted and am I the only one who noticed that it's been a SHITTY deal for the American negroe?

Slavery should have had a coherent ad workable schedule for ending.

They created chaos and the American negroe is still suffering the effects today.

>>2502562
It's called a war. He wouldn't have won it if he was soft on the confederacy.

>>2502743
>The entire civilized world had human sacrifice
>implying

>>2502747
youre absolutely retarded if you think the south would have ever willingly stopped slavery

The Constitution guarantees the citizen of every state constitutional government which means federal law is supreme over state law. That doesn't mean carbon copy states. It means some stares cant ignore parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights they don't like. Whatever is not assigned as legal preview is left to the stares autonomy. Granted the scope and scale of the federal government has grown but that still hasn't made every state into carbon copies of each other. Look at the vast differences in state laws regarding taxation, marijuana, school funding and school choice, carbon emissions ect. California and Arizona are vastly different states to live in as a citizen and they share a border with each other.

Lincoln was not some autocratic ruler enforcing his will on the south. The Southern States seceded just because he was elected. There was no aggressive and destructive agenda. The South was unwilling to come to the table and talk about the rights of human beings and so they split before anyone could make them do so. They seceded and began hostilities just because a moderate anti-slave man won. Classic sperg over reaction. There is however no mechanism in the Constitution for allowing any process for a state to leave the Union. In fact it is entirely illegal as it would violate the constitutional rights of the citizens of those states. The state of Virginia cannot just declare that all citizens of Virginia are no longer United States citizens. It is a violation of thief rights. National citizenship of a person cannot be revoked by a state. Adding states to the union is defined clearly in the constitution. Removing them is not and would require a constitutional amendment to either establish a separation process or a specific amendment to remove a separate state.

This thread is full of bogus muh south and evil mean Lincoln.

He responded to the crisis the only way possible and in many ways the best way possible.

>>2502748
Right. A war no more or less justified as King George III's war on the colonies.

>>2502743
It's an appeal to nature you moron. Naturalistic fallacy is a (disputed) extrapolation of the is-ought problem.

If you're going to be a retarded pseud, at least be a correct retarded pseud.

>>2502751
It was an unpopular institution which would have phased out in the south like it did everywhere else WITHOUT a war.

Everyone else did it without war or force being used.

>>2502759
Wrong

>>2502479
Was he just a tall, white Pol Pot?

>>2502759
t. cletus "WE DID NUFFIN WRONG WE WOULDA DITCHED THE SLAVES ANYWAY" montgomery III

>>2502759
and the south was the holder of power before the civil war and would have taken a long as hell time (if ever willing) to ban slavery, which would have definitely left american blacks worse off than they are now

>>2502759
If they wanted a schedule to slowly phase it out, why did they just secede overnight and open fire on federal installations? Doesn't sound like people open to negotiating.

>>2502754
>There was no aggressive and destructive agenda. The South was unwilling to come to the table and talk about the rights of human beings and so they split

Untrue, the Northern politcicians routinely refused to sit down with the Southern envoys.

The governmental process had already broken down.

Then Lincoln sent ships to resupply his military forts in Southern territory.

>>2502775
A southern senator literally beat a northern senator in the middle of his speech with a cane
they were children and they were punished like them

File: Custer_Bvt_MG_Geo_A_1865_LC-BH831-365-crop.jpg (10KB, 220x275px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 220x275px

>>2502782
>14 canings that make you say fuck diplomacy and treaties and shit

>>2502479
Holy shit, D'Souza was right.

You assholes talk about the North and the South, not the Democrats v the Republicans.

The Democrats both north and south were pro-slavery; the Republicans both north and south were not.

in 1860, not one single Republican owed one single slave.

But you faggots are all "muh south" and "muh north", because you fell for the liberal bullshit line that they are not the most evil people in the country.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>>2502775
>muh sumter is southern

lol, your tired arguments will just get debunked again cletus, I don't even know why you bother anymore and the reddit spacing makes me think you're new here

>>2502790
>Admits he's familiar with Reddit.
>Mocks someone for posting like Reddit.

>>2502788
>there wasn't a general north-south divide in the 1860's
>the parties are the same as they were 150 years ago

>>2502775
Doesn't justify violating constitutional rights of US citizens by secession and denying those people thier citizenship rights. A state cannot secede from the Union without constitutional amendment, and it can never commit acts of violence against federal forces for any reason.

The political process had ground to a halt, but that doesn't justify violating the law.

>>2502790
Sumter was located I'm the South and the Confederacy had asked that all forts be removed from their lands.

Instead if doing what was normal, evacuating Fort Sumter Lincoln sent resupplies to bolster his military presence.

>>2502487

The buck stops at the top, champ

>>2502803
>why don't you let us just secede?

>>2502803
A state has ZERO legal grounds for demanding the removal of federal installations. A military fort is federal property. A state has no authority to make it leave. That would not be normal at any point in US history.

>>2502796
Exactly D'Souza's point. How idiots like you believe that two parties "switched" sides.

>>2502797
You think the original Colonies were signing a death pact? Until death do them part?

The 13 Colonies signed up to mutual benefit always knowing they could split from the rest if the rest went batty on them.

They weren't signing up for more centralized control.

Lincoln violated the very idea of Americanism when he tried to subjugate people who had split from his autocratic centralized control.

Then he sperglorded out and invaded the entire region!

>>2502817
They literally did

>>2502821
>The 13 Colonies signed up to mutual benefit always knowing they could split from the rest if the rest went batty on them.
extreme citation needed

>>2502822
Yes, the idiots literally did believe the two parties "switched".

They literally did. Which is why they are idiots.

>>2502795
>too new to know the reddit spacing meme
>an argument for not being new and from reddit

you lost again cletus, now back to whichever southern subreddit you crawled from.

>>2502822
Youtube D'Souza at Columbia. You need it. Badly.

>>2502811
Ah but they were NO LONGER members of the united states.

They were part of the Confederacy.

Ergo the United States should have removed their forts from Confederate land. Instead, Lincoln went full Tyrant.

>>2502831
And now you think being a southerner is an impediment to anonymous posting.

Are you sure you belong here? Maybe you'd be happier in your /rhugbox.

>>2502817
The Dems managed to sell the liberals on their cause with muh new deal coalition muh welfare muh great society. Disregarding that some of the most prominent opponents of desegregation were dems.

Liberalism in America has gotten stupider and stupider ever since.

>>2502832
Can you plainly make whatever point you're attempting to get across without resorting to redirecting people to watch an hour long video?

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-13 at 4.50.33 PM.png (155KB, 856x546px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 856x546px

>>2502829
note that the south voted majority democratic in 1860, now votes majority republican.

>>2502835
>NO U

he's blowing his top guys! RUN!

File: california.jpg (35KB, 480x268px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x268px

>>2502822
They literally didn't.

>>2502788
It is plenty interesting that Democrats were the bad guys but it's not like the historical event was drawn along party political lines, they just coincided. I don't really see your problem. This thread is about the war not the history of political party

>>2502852
the voting patterns of america between 1860 and 2016 have almost entirely flipped

>>2502788
>implying it wasn't always in fact federalists vs anti-federalists

America has dealt with the same question over and over again just in different forms and differing extents. desu, it still hasn't been sorted out and may never be.

>>2502839
Bullshit. Liberal/Democrat have always been the party of slavery, the party of segregation, the party of Jim Crow laws, the party of the KKK, the party that killed the GOP Civil Rights Act in the 60s and filibustered the one in '64. Al Gore's own fucking dad filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

Same people broke apart the black family, put abortion mills on their street corners, and gave them just enough gibsmedats to survive. They're on the same plantations as they used to be, under the same slave owners they used to be.

The Dixiecrats? The openly racist democrats in the South? They never became Republicans, but for Strom Thurmond.

>>2502821
Incorrect. They wet indeed entering into a union without any legs means of separation. I can point to the Constitution of the United States, ratified by those states as proof. The method of a adding states is legally defined. There is no method of legal separation defined by that constitution.

Further, upon joining the Union, all citizens of a state are endowed with constitutionally protected rights and citizenship. There is no process to reverse this. A person, born in any state, is a citizen of the United States. There is no legal authority for a state to deny a citizen of their state thier federal citizenship and rights, indeed among them constitutional government which has been defined by SCOTUS as federal supremacy of federal laws over state laws in all areas assigned to the federal authority. All other areas and rights are reserved to the states.

No state has the power to secede on its own, it would require amending the constitution to make it possible. Either by adding a process of secession or by amending to allow a specific state to secede.

It is indeed a death pact. Rights are granted at birth and cannot be taken away until death.

>>2502840
>>2502860

>>2502857
>voting patterns
Such as?

>>2502841
The black republicans under Lincoln switched to Democrat in the 1920's for gibsmedats.

The white democrats in the south switched to Republicans in the 1960-1980 range, as prosperity made Reagan's economics make sense to them.

The democrats are evil lying fucks, and you people think they're the good guys.

File: bRgO6.png (84KB, 1050x670px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1050x670px

>>2502860
>they never became republicans
then who's voting for the republicans in the south?

>>2502860
>not realizing that liberals were invariably republican before 1929

you fell for the modern definition of liberal pitched by nu media, I'm sorry anon.

File: implied-facepalm.jpg (23KB, 456x297px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 456x297px

>>2502826
How about the damn Declaration if Independence!


>Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Trump is basically Lincoln 2.0 with his amount of economic protectionism

>>2502869
see >>2502841 and >>2502871
note how the south has flipped

>>2502854
The war was between the Democrats, both south and north, and the Republicans.

Not north v south. The southern democrats had the exact same support for slavery in the north that they had in the south.

>>2502859
You still don't have it right.

It's the people who want to rule over other people v the people who want to be left the fuck alone.

Guess which group needs to enslave the other?

>>2502862
>What is Texas, the post.

>>2502862
>Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

>>2502877
I think this cannot be stressed enough. Knight of the Golden Circle were headquartered in Cincinnati Ohio for example.

>>2502874
>violating our god-given rights to own other people
i can't say im sold

>>2502833
At no point were the southern states legally separated. The secession was illegal and thus void. There was never any confederate land legally. The land of the United States was in part in rebellion but it was still the land of the United Stares.

>>2502881
>muh ideals muh states rights

kill yourself faggot

>>2502871
The non-racist democrats turned into Republicans. The working class people.

>>2502874
>things that aren't a legally binding document

News flash: the articles of confederation failed miserably.

>>2502873
Bullshit. Lincoln was a fucking Republican in the 1860's, you dipshit.

>>2502877
>>2502887
and you have to admit that the vast majority of democratic power was in the south, with the republican power in the north

>>2502889
Fuck you sound just like King George III right now...

File: ElectoralCollege1976.svg.png (35KB, 349x203px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 349x203px

>>2502876
And when did this supposed """switch""" happen?

>>2502894
>muh lincoln

and TDR was a republican in 1899, what the fuck is your point precisely?

you sound like a butthurt paleolib afraid to be labeled

>>2502887
And Stephen Douglass stood there and debated with Lincoln for however many hours stressing slavery yesterday, slavery now, slavery forever!

>>2502891
>muh ignorance of human nature and the nature of politics in general.

>>2502895
More bullshit. The south was not powerful, and slavery did not make them rich. Only a few percent of the southerners even had slaves, and slavery is the least efficient means of production possible.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-13 at 5.02.31 PM.png (137KB, 902x514px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 902x514px

>>2502903
it wasn't perfectly clean, but it did stick after 1980

>>2502904
He was a fucking Bull Moose you ignorant pleb. Neck yourself.

>>2502907
>muh everyone who insults me is just blinded to """"the light""""!!!!

how are you not just a cultist again? LOL let's run through the list

>worship of meaningless ideals
>"esoteric" knowledge (read: bullshit)
>proselytism
>telling everyone who disagrees they'll go to hell

check, check, check

cultist confirmed LOL

>>2502874
The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document that establishes any law or rights. It is entirely superseded in its authority by the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is the beginning and end of all legal actions by federal and state authority. The Declaration was important for creating the rebellion but in reality the United States of America that exists today is a legal entity that has its entire legal basis in the Constitution. There is no other governing document.

>>2502909
The south was the political powerhouse of the early United States

>>2502909
>slavery is the least efficient means of production possible

Yeah now. But not in the pre-industrial era

>>2502914
>muh progressive party is not progressive because it hurts muh worldview

bull moose didn't even come about as parlay until he got shot, you neck yourself ignorant fool.

>>2502912
>entire country votes for Reagan
>except for Georgia, West Virginia, Maryland (all southern states), Minnesota and Meme Island

>>2502920
>1860 is now "pre-industrial"

Here goes my sides again!

>>2502924
Georgia was Carter's homestate and the other two are irrelevant. You'd be absolutely retarded to claim the Republican party doesn't have a power base in the south

>>2502916
>no you can't use the document we used against us
>because we say so

Horseshit! Americanism was forged out of the Declaration. That document framed the Moral justification for the entire enterprise.

Now you say it's inadmissible?

<scoffs into his brandy>

>>2502933
>"""""""""Americanism"""""""
i love using poorly defined words completely devoid of meaning

>>2502928
Exactly. Given time slavery would have become unprofitable and been phased out.

But the North had to go full autism and end the entire enterprise by force in a decade.

Our society still reaps the bitter fruits of that decision.

>>2502940
Wow

An entire field of study you are ignorant of

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(ideology)

>>2502932
>tfw the last Democratic president before Obama who was NOT from the South was fucking JFK

>>2502933
It can only be used as a justification for taking certain actions, it does not give those actions the weight of legally binding authority.

The declaration also did not free us from England. Only a treaty signed after the war carried the weight of a legally binding separation on both parties.

>>2502941
>honestly believing it would have somehow been better if the south had waited

>>2502950
Two are remnants of the old power structures
and one happened to be from the south
the base of the democratic party has moved undeniably into new england

>>2502949
>Ideas of Americanism vary widely
waw this is a great point for you anon

>>2502955
My point of contention is this.

America now operates urban plantations in every capitol city. Commonly lawless zones without commerce or labor to fill the time of the people living there.

These plantations are overwhelmingly American negroe and are fraught with every type of societal ill that exists.

Life within these plantations is violent, lawless and miserable.

Shopkeepers do business behind layers of bulletproof glass.

This is what we have created for all our decades of effort.

>>2502966
There was exactly one Democrat president from New England in all of 20th and 21st century.

>>2502968
Erroneous. The Declaration was the framing document for the entire enterprise.

It has full moral relevance to the plight of the Confederacy and the people who decided to leave the government of the United States to ensure their own interests.

>>2502979
>FDR
>JFK
not to mention modern candidates like Clinton, Dukakis and Kerry

>>2502987
The declaration is a legally unimportant document that outlines purposely vague ideas

>>2502999
FDR was a New Yorker, dumbo.

>>2503006
Taken straight to the mouth of King George III

It captures the thinking and impetus behind the Founding Fathers.

>>2503013
Ok, let me expand my definition for autists
the northeastern seaboard (including new york) is the core of the modern democratic party

>>2503016
and you could use it to defend the north
it's purposely vague

>>2503023
>he thought New York is in New England
Literally moving the goalposts

File: 300px-William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg (17KB, 300x381px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x381px

I still can't believe Lincoln unleashed this villain.

Talk about war criminal

>>2502487
Because parliament sets the tax, Americans say their parliaments have been ovverruled which is unfair. Americans appeal to the monarch as ultimately they answer to him not parliament. Monarch says parliaments taxation is just, thus to avoid paying taxes the Americans become republicans. Really is amazing what lengths they went to to avoid tax and to colonise conquered lands
Look up the BBC article 'king George III's drafted abdication letter released' gives some good history on just how 'mad' he was

>>2503028
i admit i thought that
im not particularly interested in these quibbles, so i altered my definition to be more accurate

>>2503026
Which is ultimately why I compare President Lincoln with a British Monarch

>>2503034
>i admit i thought that
You're either not even American in which case shut the fuck up, or public schooling in this country is in some serious deep shit.

>>2503046
because youre retarded

>>2503047
im american and yes the public schools are mostly shit but im just not very interested in american geography

>>2502928
>>2502941
You guys do know it's only the Cotton Gin that keeps cotton picked by slaves a profitable enterprise, they would have been freed soon enough just had fuck all rights

>>2503047
Oh no, people outside the north east don't learn exactly what the colloquial appellation 'new england' specifically refers to. public school sux!

>>2503069
>oh no people don't know how to tie tier own shoelaces and pee standing up what's the big deal tho?
It means you're a fucking retard. Everyone knows what New England is.

>>2503057 #
You have to understand, all of America is predicated on the Declaration.

Forget legality. It wasn't legal for America to thumb their nose at England after all.

The Declaration breaks down the philosophic argument for revolt. It says we are men, dammit and we're not going to take this shit anymore.

We have value and what we say matters. It says we do not bow to Kings any longer. We will not be ruled.

That's what the Declaration says. That's what all of America is predicated on.

>>2503081
It says that about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" which you could easily say doesn't include slavery and therefore justifies the north's actions (you could also say the opposite, obviously). the declaration isn't just 'no matter what if you revolt thats ok'

>>2502898
Wow, I didn't know King George was such an articulate and reasonable individual anon.

>>2503075
>Everyone knows what New England is.
Maybe everyone in the North East. Outside of the Eastern Seaboard it's wholly irrelevant to anyone. You think kids in California or Texas or Arizona or Louisiana or Michigan or etc.. etc...grow up learning the precise boundaries of what IS or IS NOT technically New England?

>>2503093
I live in Arizona and I know where New England is, you're just stupid.

>>2503093
California here, I know what New England is you raging aspergers king.

It's the original 13 Colonies.

>>2503093
I live in Virginia.

You shouldn't be proud of ignorance.

>>2503093
You're a gigantic retard.

>>2503101
I bet you didn't learn it in school either.

>>2503109
It is taught in school since the boundaries of New England were first defined by John Smith. You learn a lot about John Smith in school you know.

>>2503093
>You think kids in California or Texas or Arizona or Louisiana or Michigan or etc.. etc...grow up learning the precise boundaries of what IS or IS NOT technically New England?
yes
t. exan

I didn't know someone thought New York is a New England state until I saw this thread

i honestly just thought 'new england' was the north east. like i'd consider new york to be 'new england'

>>2502572
It says quite clearly that rebellion is legal when used in the first tense, such as our rebellion. It's only when it used in the third tense like their rebellion that it becomes illegal.

>>2503104
>I know what New England is you raging aspergers king.

>It's the original 13 Colonies.
wew

>>2503199

Not even him, but you do realize the Declaration of Independence isn't the same fucking thing as the Bill of Rights, don't you?

Not one of the 1st ten amendments talks about rebellion, or attempts to justify it in any circumstances.

>>2503199
Damn lawyers

File: 9nohQh4.jpg (12KB, 478x361px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 478x361px

>>2503216

>>2503216
In all seriousness though. If your rights are being violated BY the people you voted AGAINST. What other option have you?

>>2503306
The 2nd Amendment secures all the rest

>>2503306
For the security of a free state.

The CSA wasn't a free state.

Checkmate, cutfags

>>2503639
Right, urban plantations

File: Robert E. Lee warned you thumbie.png (952KB, 1440x1872px) Image search: [Google]

952KB, 1440x1872px

Not even King George could match the tyranny of Lincoln.

>>2503032
William "with no pity I'll burn your city" Sherman

>>2503275
What rights was Lincoln violating by being elected?

>>2504001

State rights. Haven't you been following the thread, retard?

>>2503751
Lol

>>2503206
spook

File: 1463461043123.jpg (2MB, 2683x1524px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2683x1524px

>>2502479
Imagine a US where the South never imported slaves. It would be Americans and European immigrants.

The South ruined the chance for a white America. It wasn't even good for their economy. While the North modernized and industrialized the South filibustered expansion and state introduction because they couldn't jump off nigger dick. Farm labor was fucking cheap back then. How much did a slave cost? Would hired labor really make the cotton industry crumble?

It was the worst war in US history and it was fought over niggers. The South sent its population to die for fucking niggers. Every time you read about a battle in the Civil War remind yourself that people were dying en masse for niggers.

>>2505221
Being polite costs you nothing

>>2502657
>North wanted to abolish slavery

This is how I know you're retarded. The North wanted to admit states as free states, taking power away from crypto-feudal southern states, who bitched endlessly about their "way of life", if course they meant slavery and the wealth it brings them.

>>2502803
>military presence

He sent food to the besieged inhabitants of Sumter. Literally everyone knew that. South Carolina took shots anyways.

>>2502505
>Meanwhile the south was chimping out, enforcing laws that trample on the rights of it's citizens

The failures if the Union does not legitimize the failures of the south.

A man wants to climb a mountain, but is stopped at the foot of it by another. Yes the climb is treacherous, but ultimately the one who stopped them is the person at the bottom.

>>2503087
Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration. When he saw the French Revolution, he took back the whole "yay blood to fight tyranny" thing. He was less inclined to chimp out when he saw the logical conclusion to a modern revolution

>>2503182
No, they did not. Monarchs were still above the law and could not be brought to trial.

>>2502976

It's intentional. The same democrats that built the plantation in the south (and said it was good for the Negro as well as the slave owner) are the people who built the modern day housing projects, and for exactly the same reasons.

Look at Detroit. Under GOP leadership it was the richest city in the US.

Under Democrat leadership it is a third world shit hole.

>>2502505

>Northern tyrants

You do realize southerners (thanks to the 3/5 comprmise) had a majority in the Supreme Court, retarded influence in the legislative branch, and held the executive branch quite often. Look a thet Dredd Scott Decision and fugitive slave laws. If southerners were so horrifically oppressed, why did they have strong representation in a representative republic?

The meme of "the feds only spent money on the north" is total historical revisionism.

>B-but state rights were why

Yes, state rights to own slaves. Lincoln wanted to preserve the union and didn't think his presidential power could take slavery away. This could've been to just try to preserve the union, but when the south seceded he said "fuck it." Which would also explain why the emancipation proclamation "freed" slaves in only rebel states. They deserved to get steamrolled by Sherman.

>>2503751
Ah, the head of the Democrat Party terrorist wing, the KKK, has checked in. Good.

>>2504001
You know he suspended habeus corpus, yes? And then committed auto-genocide on the US, like Pol Pot did to Cambodia?

>>2506250
>Slaves
>Citizens

Nice bait

>>2502568
>Paraphrases the Declaration of Independence
>claims to be quoting the constitution

Sherman fucking do it again.

>>2503213
>one state breaks the law
>president tries to put a stop to that shit
>OH SHIT BETTER GO BREAK THE LAW

Get bent

>>2506311
They were people who lived, and worked in america, if they aren't citizens then fucking nobody is.

>>2506279

>by being elected.

>>2502933
It's a useful tool for rhetoric and the ideals people shoudl strive for, but we're talking about actual law here.

>>2506275
>retarded influence in the legislative branch
Having 70 votes instead of 50 does not matter when the opposite side has over 100. Only at the beginning of the united states IE shortly after the compromise was southern representation remotely on par with northern. By 1820 the south had 42% of the votes in the house. In 1833 the south had 98 out of 240 seats. The only thing that remained fairly equal was the number of slave states compared to the number of free states and even then there issues.

>>2506485
That's not the definition of a citizen you fucking idiot.

>>2506277
kek!

>>2506485
>I don't understand what citizenship means

>>2506485
You know they were made citizens by the 14th Amendment, yes?

>>2506258
[citation needed]

>>2508380
if you need a citation for that you dont belong here

>>2504069
He hadn't even done anything, though. They just chimped out right after his election.

Retard.

>>2502892
>The non-racist democrats turned into Republicans. The working class people.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA do you honest to fucking god think that the non-racists democrats turned to dog-whistling the party???

>>2506272
No

File: 1475644467129.gif (499KB, 480x269px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 480x269px

>>2502485
>Constitution is upheld and States secede
>Declare a war on said independent Nation to forcefully retake the land, fascism
>Throw anyone with dissenting opinions in Prison for upholding the 1st amendment
>Use scorched earth tactics to claim your land from the brothers and families of Americans
>Empower the Federal Government and make America more of a tyranny than Britain could have hoped to be
Yes yes what a wonderful piece of fucking shit.

>>2503216
2nd amendment does.

>>2502588
>Civil War was over slavery
t. Historically illiterate retard

>>2506488
Hitler was also elected, so is he now not an autocrat?

>>2511218
>Reading comprehension.

I'll spell it out for you, since you are apparently not very bright.

>>2504001 asks "What rights was Lincoln violating by the fact of his being elected".


>>2506279

Goes on to say how he did nasty things. But none of those were by virtue of his being elected.

The same follows with Hitler. Yes, he was a genocidal expansionist autocrat. His election was not expansionary nor genocidal nor particularly autocratic. He would go on to do those things.
I know education is bad in the south, but by God, don't they teach you fucks how to read?

>>2511242
It does not change that he did those things, or that they would have been ruled as illegal in any other political enviornment, you entire repsonse beforehand just says
>by bieng elected
Which, if you think thats consice then you are a retard.

Election does not change vilation of rights, nor does it excuse them, so idk what point you are honestly trying to make here, and moaning about reading comprehension when you think one line of greentext is a suitable or comprehensive response is laughable.

>>2504069
He violated states rights by being elected.

Understood

>>2502727
>The entire civilized world had Slavery.
Most of the civilized world was outlawing slavery in the years leading up to the civil war

>>2511380
Even before that. The big thing was seeing different races as being equal.

>>2511414
Let's be clear. By equal, we mean equal under the law.

Equality of outcome is something no government can provide.

>>2511357
I'm actually astounded three different people replied to you and had no clue what you meant. Are Southern apologists really this stupid?

>>2511446
yes

File: image.png (657KB, 600x473px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 600x473px

Friendly reminder that Sherman did nothing wrong and Atlanta deserved to be sacked harder. Furthermore, reconstruction should never have ended and the eternal dixiecuck must always be dragged kicking and screaming out of abject retardation

>>2511305
>I'm STILL being retarded!

Anon #1 makes a claim that Lincoln's election, NOT WHAT LINCOLN WOULD LATER DO, violated Southern rights and justified secession. >>2503275
>>2504001

Anon#2 points out that Lincoln violated rights AFTER southern secession.

I, Anon #3, come along and point out that those rights were not in fact violated BY LINCOLN'S ELECTION. That Lincoln would do things that would be considered a violation of rights is irrelevant for justifying southern secession, because they happened BEFORE Lincoln did any of that stuff.

Do you get it now? Or are you just stupid. It's ok if you are. I just foolishly assumed you could follow a chain of replies, but now it's all there in one post for you. If you still don't get it, you should probably see a neurologist.

>>2508316
Hol' up dat racist

>ITT: Southerners try to justify the fact their rebellion failed.

I swear the confederacy is the lightest punished rebellion in history. All of their leaders besides Longstreet should've been hung for treason, the entire region should've been put under strict military occupation till southern slave owners divided their land evenly with blacks and universal male suffrage established. Or, just deport all slaves back to Africa.

>inb4 Statist

No, just someone who understands history and that the South should've burned allot longer than it did.

>>2512363
Democracies have short attention spans.

This is also why Germany was allowed to rise again after WW1.

File: Redneck-Dixon-D-White-RTR3UMM2086568546.jpg (171KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 960x540px

Imagine being this cucked and flying a loser's flag over 150 years later

DO IT AGAIN MARCHING SHERMAN

>>2506311
>>2506752
>>2508303
If we're being arbitrary about who we count as citizens when why would it be wrong to declare Southerners non-citizens and then burn the south to the ground?

>>2512363
Why the fuck should blacks own anything? It should've been redistributed among poor white southerners.

>>2512982
It's not being "arbitrary", it was the law you fuck. Blacks were not citizens and thus were entitled to the same right as illegal Mexicans are now, and could be subject for legal deportations up until the 14th amendment.

>>2502487
>Why do Americans seem to think King George III was responsible for colonial taxation?

The current theory is that the entire revolutionary war started over a disagreement over who held the overarching "national" power in the Empire. Parliament believed that it was they who ruled in conjunction with the King and set all policy, and the Assemblies in the colonies were merely placeholders meant to handle the day to day affairs of governing but ultimately beneath Parliament in authority.

Colonists came to believe (or fabricated) that the authority of their assemblies was equal to the authority of Parliament itself, and ruled in conjunction with the King, seperatly, but still with Parliament. Thus, when Parliament began making Laws which appeared to infringe on the colonists perceived authority, they looked to the King to set Parliament straight and act as the neutral arbiter. The King being very close to Parliament and being very far away from the colonies decided to side with Parliaments view of the matter, not least of which because of the very real possibility that his head might have been removed from his body. The colonists saw this as the ultimate betrayal of principle and then used this as a pretext to secede.

>>2502485
southerners are germans of the western hemisphere

>>2513014
Ok if were sticking to the law then either the southerners are citizens and they are commuting murder of federal troops, theft of private and federal property, and all sorts of crimes indicative of a band of bandits and should be punished accordingly. If they are citizens of a sovereign nation as these people say then they are not under the protections of the constitution and thus it is completely legal to burn the south to the ground.

>>2513044
I'm not a Southcuck m8 and I'm very much pro-Union. I'm just kindly informing you that you have low IQ and have no idea how law works since nigger slaves literally were not citizens.

>>2513066
>Fell for the iq meme
>Uses the phrase nigger slaves
>Not a Southcuck

>>2513044
If the south were citizens of a sovereign nation then the union is conducting an illegal naval blockade of a foreign country and Britain can now freely intervene in the war.

The Union spent the entire war categorically refusing to consider the south not citizens.

>>2513074
My state fought on the Union side and provided some of the most significant Union commanders. I am no Southerner.

>uses the phrase nigger slaves
If you think northern people are not racist then you're in for a rude awakening.

>>2513004
poor white southerns deserve nothing, they should of band together and pulled a West Virginia instead of being traitorous cunts.

>southcucks

Was King George III elected? Then no.

>>2509886
Yes, I believe true things to be true.

>>2509888
Yes. It's quite obvious. Liberalism, the mental disorder, causes poverty and chaos.

>>2511242
So as long as you're elected, you're allowed to slaughter hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of your own people.

You are fucking retarded. I am so glad you will never breed.

File: strawman.jpg (150KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 333x500px

>>2517421

>STILL NOT GETTING IT.

I will try explaining this one last time before giving up on you as a troll.

>Lincoln was elected
>South starts secession noises
>Anon attempts to justify this on the basis that LINCOLN'S ELECTION ALONE CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS
>Hey look, he violated peoples rights!
>But that was after he was elected, not because of it, and thus cannot be used to justify southern secession.


>So as long as you're elected, you're allowed to slaughter hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of your own people.

Pic related.

>You are fucking retarded.

Pot, meet kettle.

>>2517421
The South illegally separated from the Union, a violation of the constitutional rights of U.S. Citizens on all southern states. A state cannot take away U.S. citizenship from a person and declare them citizens of some other country. The Confederacy was at all times illegal and at no time an independent country. Every action taken by the Confederacy was a violation of the U.S. Constitution to which thier states are bound. There is no mechanism in the Constitution that describes or allows a state to leave. Secession would require constitutional amendment to create such a process or separate a specific state or state. This war was not about stares rights or slavery. This was a constitutional crisis, and the Constitution, the rule of law won.

The South, initiated hostilities and engaged willingly in hostilities. They alone are responsible for the fall out of the illegal violent actions they took.

Dont ratify a Constitution witch binds you to other states in union with no legal mechanism of separation and then complain you cant separate from that union. You signed the contract and there was no release clause. Deal with it. Not only that, but then you went in violation of the terms of that contract and did so with violence. There is no excuse. The North was mean, the congress was corrupt or inept. None of that gives you excise to great the law, in this case the highest law of all, The Constitution.

>>2502817
Republicans back then were way more left-wing than current Democrats are, so yeah, the parties did change in a century and a half you mouthbreathing fucking faggot

>>2517504
At the time anything not written into the Constitution (Secession) was a guaranteed right of the States though.

>>2517504
>>2517756
On that note, since the Feds forced the Confederacy to rewrite their State Constitutions it can be argued they are not actual members of the Union to this day. Didn't ratify shit.

>>2517438
I think you're confused.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus after the south began seceding. It had nothing to do with his being elected.

And the auto-genocide followed that suspension.

>>2517504

The wrong side won the War of Northern Aggression, and we're all still paying the price.

>>2517745
Nah, not so much you cousin fucking retard.

>>2517756
>>2518718

These idiots think the Constitution grants positive rights. It's hopeless.

File: confederate1.jpg (114KB, 670x377px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 670x377px

>>2502479
>be Cletus Voltaire Beauregard
>live near Charleston, SC, on a comfy southern plantation growing cotton with twenty nigs
>in 1860
>own a pack of nigs
>watch them fuck my sister and wife nightly
>find out some niggerlover is in the election
>all my cousins are scared that he could win
>they remove him from the ballots
>election rolls around
>vote for the designated niggerloving Democrats called "southron Democrats"
>watch as the winner for my congressional district sucks a slaves cock at the celebration in the church
>orgy breaks out
>quite literally a wall of black ass on white women
>nigger lover wins election
>everyone gets pissed that they won't be able to fuck their niggers anymore and have to rely on their sisters
>secede
>no one recognizes us
>literally an organized mob of faggots
>fire upon a federal fort because "we iz independent n shieeet" according to my slave Titus Octavian "Big Guy" Caligula III
>hire a bunch of poor whites from the hills to fight for me
>sit back and continue selling cotton
>economy tanks
>food rationed to the soldiers
>money aka "Brownbacks" is worthless
>BLOCKADED by Scott
>my sons Cletus, Connor, Clackton, Claudius, Cockhole, Chadwick, Charlie, Chorlton, Cuck, Cassius, and Casanova die fighting for our new cuntry
>find out Cletus, Clackton, Cockhole, and Cassius die of diarrhea
>find out Connor, Claudius, Cockhole, Chadwick, Charlie, Chorlton, and Casanova die after getting pozzed by freed slaves
>watch as men in blue burn down my farm after years of suffering
>my wife gets fucked by my biggest slaves in front of me
>get burnt alive as the Damnyankees burn down my plantation
>My surviving son, Cuck, ends up surviving by some magic
>has kids with the girl down the street who lived in the wooden shack by the swamp
>they fuck like rabbits and have more kids
>my descendents end up squandering the remaining wealth we had
>our genes have been BLACKED and YANKED for all eternity
>mfw they still think the South will rise again

>>2518856
>fire upon a federal fort because "we iz independent n shieeet" according to my slave Titus Octavian "Big Guy" Caligula III
My fucking sides

I read the constitution fairly closely recently, identifying mistakes in language relative to the original documents which persist even on the senate.gov website. These are not capitalizations or punctuations (they're just slightly less pedantic than that); I am referring to getting actual entire words wrong (not very many, and presumably not significantly altering meaning, but still, words mean things).

Anyway I didn't know much about Habeas Corpus, but like many of you, I've been hearing for years that "Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus", a talking point that gets mouthed over and over in these kinds of discussions. So I want to take a moment on some very simple things.

First of all, the phrase is spelled HabeAs Corpus, not HabeUs Corpus. Full disclosure: this is a spelling mistake that I myself made until recently. Up until this point, exactly one other anon ITT >>2502631 has spelled the phrase correctly.

Second, the phrase "Habeas Corpus" occurs exactly one time in the US Constituion (or even in any of its amendments, for that matter): Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 2, (Sentence 1 of 1): "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Taking this by-itself, it is perfectly clear that under normal circumstances, x, a specific, normal PRIVILEGE, shall not be suspended UNLESS under specific extraordinary circumstances y and z. It is furthermore straightforward to argue that from the point of view of the United States Government, the circumstances of the American Civil War constituted such a Case of Rebellion, and almost as easy to argue the Safety point.

The most elementary point about the language is that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE HAVING SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE US GOVERNMENT, IS IN POINT OF ACTUAL FACT CONSTITUTIONALLY EMPOWERED TO SUSPEND HABEAS CORPUS UNDER THESE SPECIFIC, EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.

The tricky part, it seems to me, is exactly who that might be.

>>2502870
While Republicans switched to Democrats side too when the southern strategy was used. Looking back at the 50s 60s your see a lot of liberals on the Republican side.

>>2518884
No, white Democrats from the south switched to the GOP. The remaining liberal Republicans went to the Democrats.

>>2518894
meant for>>2518886

>>2518886
To add to this, Nixon who is seen as the father of modern conservative power base was actually one of those liberal Republicans. Ironically he's the one that killed his own group of liberal Republicans.

>>2518884

Article I is the article about CONGRESS-the house and senate, details on how they'll operate, what they may and may not do. The point being that most things in the Article, by context, are presumably to do with Congress only unless expressly specified otherwise. Wiki tells me that a judge rejected Lincoln's suspensions of Habeas Corpus on the basis that only Congress was empowered to suspend Habeas Corpus. I would not be at all surprised to learn that something like what I've just suggested (I haven't yet made any effort to look the ruling/opinion up) was that judge's rationale.

There are straightforward pushbacks on this: reading the citation I just made, by itself, it is NOT made perfectly clear, in that sentence itself, exactly who does and does not get "to suspend habeas corpus".

A FURTHER push-back is to read Article I, Section 9 in its entirety, as the next "layer-out" of the context-onion. True, most of the language seems to address itself to what types of laws may and may not be passed (the purview of the congress), but there are other more general bits of language that do not expressly and coterminously refer to the CONGRESS, especially the latter bits (read them). When the Section says that "no money shall be drawn from such-and-such unless as by laws such-and-such", this seems straightforwardly to apply to anyone who is by routine empowered to allocate US money, and of course the CONGRESS aren't the only people who do that stuff, there's a bureaucracy. Presumably the president is also empowered to get certain things from the treasury (like, say, his salary), /as enumerated by law/. These pieces of language don't all wholy and totally and only refer to the congress, is my point. And since that's the case, it is then arguable that the all-important sentence is a /general statement/ about what /the US government/ may and may not do in such-and-such case, not just congress.

>>2518886
>southern strategy
Debunked liberal bullshit myth to explain losses away. It's like you believe CNN.

>>2518884
>Habeas Corpus

Thank you.

>>2518884
Arguable, but when you as a president questionably-legally arrest an entire state government you are 100% a cunt.

File: 1456595601219.png (1MB, 1864x4327px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1864x4327px

>>2502479