Was he really just King George III without a crown?

>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.

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.

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.

>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.

>I know absolutely nothing about George III: The Post

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

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.

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

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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

>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.

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!

>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.

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.

>urban plantation

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

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

>prisons are bad but slavery is good

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.

The entire civilized world had human sacrifice and infanticide too.

Nice naturalistic fallacy, gaylord.

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

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.

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

>The entire civilized world had human sacrifice
>implying

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.

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

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.

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.

Wrong

Was he just a tall, white Pol Pot?

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

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

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.

>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.

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

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

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.

>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

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

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

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.

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.

The buck stops at the top, champ

>why don't you let us just secede?

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.

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

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!

They literally did

>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

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

They literally did. Which is why they are idiots.

>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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

>NO U

he's blowing his top guys! RUN!

They literally didn't.

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

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

>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.

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.

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.

...

>voting patterns
Such as?

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.

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

>not realizing that liberals were invariably republican before 1929

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

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

see and note how the south has flipped

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.

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?

>What is Texas, the post.

>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.

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

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

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.

>muh ideals muh states rights

kill yourself faggot

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

>things that aren't a legally binding document

News flash: the articles of confederation failed miserably.

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

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

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

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

>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