Good News
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.11
- Start date
You pretended to "catch" me by taking a portion of the link out of context and when you get caught out you are stuck on this. The reality was, JD didn't get arrested for leading the war, and even if he did the actions of people showed where the center of that war was. It wasn't in the hands of the President...
This is a bit like thinking the NFL Commissioner leads the teams that make it to the Superbowl...
Taft2016
Verified User
He was held for treason after they couldn't pin the assassination on him. And he didn't have amnesty til he was released.
No, it's like saying the NFL Commissioner leads the NFL. Your analogy is like saying the Jets' coach runs the NFL.
Lee led the army. The politicians led the rebellion. Hell, the rebellion started BEFORE Lee led the army. Lee had nothing to do with any state seceding from the union. The Army of Northern Virginia had THREE commanding generals BEFORE Lee even took that over.
Last edited:
Which was a political play, because of the Amnesty they couldn't "punish" the South as a whole, so some people tried to use him as a figurehead. Your "Why was he imprisoned" only underlined you didn't know the history. He wasn't imprisoned for being President of the Confederacy. None of the charges they thought of leveling ever got traction, mostly because reconstruction was the order of the day, not symbolic punishments of a few figureheads.
No, that would be like saying one season was the whole NFL.
And again I will simply point out the reality, until Lee surrendered the war would never have been over. The reality was, regardless of who was President, it was Lee who held the heart of the south in his hands.
Yo, idiot, I am a member of the oldest largest science forum in the omniverse and Wiki is routinely cited so STFU.
Give it up Taft. You are not twisting your way out of this. You are full of shit on the entire topic, but especially this point. Concede like your hero.
Thank you.
I find it interesting that you responded to my misuse and not Rune's.
Siding with the libs again. Typical mod.
Good lord, you are as stupid as your butt-buddy.
He corrected you because you were mistaken in your usage. I wasn't. Idiot.
Taft2016
Verified User
And yet the war continued on after Lee surrendered because Joseph Johnston still had an army in the field in North Carolina, and Jefferson Davis was still at large.
Dear dunce; he stated that College Professors will not accept it, and yes shit-for-brains, wiki is NOT a credible source because it is not scholarly written and vetted.
Take your "omniverse" and shove it where you do most of your thinking and the sun never shines.
You really are one dumb MoFo; offensive and repugnant too. Get an enema; it will do your mind some good.
Last edited:
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
The sock puppet, IP, is on ignore but to respond.
I did not suggest that the Federal government was not founded by the States. IP failed to indicate what it was I lied about.
The wiki article was factually accurate, was not edited by me or recently. I bet IP is not able to edit wiki articles.
As Damo suggested, state governments have no more proper authority to violate the rights of an individual than does the Federal government. If you believe they do then you are a collectivists, statists and/or right wing fascist. The case in East Tennessee puts the lie to the idea that the South wanted local autonomy/sovereignty. They did not. They fought for the right to hold property in other men.
The right wing fascist only support "State's rights" because they have lost on the Federal stage and know it. They are losing at the state level too and are desperate to disenfranchise and strip away the rights of various groups in order to hold on to power.
Taft has ran away from his slip, but what is one to surmise other than he believes that emancipation was an act of theft. It would not be the first time I have heard right wingers suggest that here. He probably would argue that Lee's run away slave had committed a theft.
I did not suggest that the Federal government was not founded by the States. IP failed to indicate what it was I lied about.
The wiki article was factually accurate, was not edited by me or recently. I bet IP is not able to edit wiki articles.
As Damo suggested, state governments have no more proper authority to violate the rights of an individual than does the Federal government. If you believe they do then you are a collectivists, statists and/or right wing fascist. The case in East Tennessee puts the lie to the idea that the South wanted local autonomy/sovereignty. They did not. They fought for the right to hold property in other men.
The right wing fascist only support "State's rights" because they have lost on the Federal stage and know it. They are losing at the state level too and are desperate to disenfranchise and strip away the rights of various groups in order to hold on to power.
Taft has ran away from his slip, but what is one to surmise other than he believes that emancipation was an act of theft. It would not be the first time I have heard right wingers suggest that here. He probably would argue that Lee's run away slave had committed a theft.
Taft2016
Verified User
Run away from what? I must have the most posts in this thread.
Oh, and yes. A runaway slave was an act of theft. Owning a slave was legal. The Supreme Court upheld that, the same Supreme Court that liberals seem to believe is infallable.
Wrap you head around it: Slavery Was Legal.
And before you put words into my mouth, that is not to say it was right, or moral, or correct... It's to say it was LEGAL.
I certainly don't believe the Supreme Court is infallible.
You did suggest it as right, moral and correct. You said...
One could support a morally corrupt legal doctrine, which is what you have been doing throughout this thread, and then look upon it that way. But why?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The Wiki is as accurate as any other source for factual entries but not so much when it comes to politics or contentious issues. Mind you it has got much better since tools were developed to track down where edits are originating from.
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker
Taft2016
Verified User
And as I already explained, I said that to demonstrate the absurdity of framing so complex an issue on one side only.
Where have I supported it? When did I say I was pro-slavery? Why is the only tool in your toolbox to put words into my mouth and then argue with them?
There's an old saying; "When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything starts to look like the head of a nail." You need a few more tools.
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
Why don't you shut me up, you ignorant fraud.
All it demonstrates is that you think the argument that, the escape of a slave is theft, is morally worthwhile. I have considered that side many times before and found it woefully lacking. It's not complex. It does not show you are deep. It's a simple minded rationalization of a barbaric and evil practice. Slavery was/is theft of the worst kind.
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
The founders gave the people a way out when the elites take control of the federal government. Suck on it hard because it's coming and you're going to love it.
Taft2016
Verified User
No, that's not what I think. I said that was the law.
Words in my mouth again, and arguing against them.
Hammer, hammer, hammer.
Hammer, hammer, hammer.