Alex you never got back to me about the white vote breakdown in the secession referendums that the Confederate States held prior to legally and validly removing themselves from the US.

Is it because you need more time, you stupid worthless inbred piece of ****?

FWIW, Alex is complaining here that a Civil War discussion hijacked some thread about secession. I'm unclear which thread he's referencing. It's certainly not this one, which is about racism and ALEX tried to tangent it into

A) Being about him and how mean people are too him just because he lazily paraphrases neoconfederate propaganda and pretends it's serious and original historical scholarship

with a tangent within the tangent to

B) Him sharing with everyone his middle-school understanding of history and the justification for specifically the CSA's secession therein

One horrendous outcome of a hypothetical war of secession is the death toll and collateral damage. Violent separation as an end result of a difference of constitutional opinion is one of the most questionable things I can imagine. Knowing the Federal government is likely to use violence to preserve the union puts a huge burden on justifying secession due to the cost to humanity. Sure you can argue it is the Fed's fault then, but at that point it is everyone's fault in my opinion.

The only viable option for secession to work in practicality would be one that the Union did not violently oppose. It would take an indeterminable amount of time to reach that condition politically.

Well, people other than the slaves, anyway.

If you craft a narrative of caring only about the facts to further a racist agenda, whether consciously or unconsciously, you are probably a racist.

So, invade them and stop them from doing that. That part isn't any different whether the secession is "legitimate" or not. I can't think of a horrendous outcome that isn't solved the exact same way, war. But just because you go invade another country to fix some horrible human rights violation they are guilty of doesn't mean you have to conquer them. Have we made Iraq or Afghanistan part of the USA? Germany?

I've said repeatedly that I fully support invading the South to free the slaves. That's not relevant to whether or not they get to secede.

No, it's because you've admitted outright that you have no intention of engaging with me honestly, so there's zero reason to answer your questions. It doesn't matter what I answer, you will twist it to suit your purposes. You've said so yourself.

Also, what exactly makes you consider "inbred" to be a valid insult? How is that more acceptable than a racial epithet? It's a quality that a person is born with that they have no control over. Yes, it CAN result in problems, but it seldom does unless we're talking about very immediate family.

Regardless, it's exactly the same in as calling someone some sort of ethnic slur. That's something I have certainly never done. So... which of us is the stupid, worthless piece of **** again? Seems pretty obvious that it's you.

You know, I did try to participate in a discussion about secession, but you seemed more interested in engaging Wookie and Fly.

In before "ZOMG, you're comparing minorities to inbred mutant freaks!!!!"

Wow, you really are terrible at reading, aren't you? There would be no slaves.

lol Flookie

BTW, you hijacked this thread. I just agreed to go along for the ride.

I was talking about what possible horrendous outcomes of a peaceful secession.

That's some pretty insane logic there.

And what if it's your opposition that crafts that narrative?

Does that scenario apply here?

This idea can be applied very badly. Any deduced narrative is subject to error and to be done well it needs to be kept in line via feedback.

Sometimes its a lot of work to see the real narrative being crafted but we all tend to deduce the narrative without doing the work.

The Declaration of Independence has absolutely no legal relevance to the laws of the United States.

And it's not really that I'm more interested in engaging Wookie and Fly, it's that I have no interest in talking about secession in the Civil War!! I'm only doing so to refute Flookie's position that I'm a racist, and since the point is refuting them and their lies, I do respond to them mostly. I really don't give a flying **** about anything that we're talking about here except to show that exploring ideas isn't racist, even if those ideas were ideas that some racists held.

It's a bit curious that one can support secession, wanting to be free of another's sovereignty or domain, but also advocate war whose express purpose is to bring another under one's domain

Of course.

Will this penetrate the blinding appeal of emotion from history people are misusing towards you?

Conflating racist and secessionist using an historic appeal to emotion is the flaw in the argument against you.

Your position has never been about promoting racism or excusing slavery. Many of your opponents have totally failed to even consider the possibility that is the case because they married the two concepts in their minds with historic emotion. Reinforced time after time by popular arguments and mockery.

Too much pride to be wrong, too much information available to conclude otherwise.

It provides some clue about the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution. It helps establish the reasonableness of the idea that any right to secession is conditional and not something that can be exercised unilaterally for any cause.

What the ever loving ****? You are questioning it for no other reason than "Well, Jews must be liars because Israel." You have no legitimate reason to think the Holocaust has been exaggerated, but FoldnDark, Private Investigator for racists and Neo-Nazis is on the mother****ing case with all kinds of speed.

Here's a hint: Eisen is just some ******* on the internet, but you accept his views without question. "Oh, this guy hates Jews, well then let the cockgobbling begin!" You guys question Every ****ing Thing except when some obvious anti-semitic piece of **** writes something. You guys probably believe in Santa just because you like a guy who leaves little Jewish kids with nothing.

You ****ing stupid, stupid man [sic]. You can believe Israel is committing atrocities without blowing every Neo-Nazi who asks you to shine his boots.

Again, he says that Neo Nazi historians are honest appraisers of history. At the very least, his hatred for Zionist has blinded him to some obvious disinformation.

Oh, cool, well until you educate your dumb ass, maybe you shouldn't' start with the assumption that the Holocaust must be exaggerated. If you want to learn about the Holocaust, you don't start with some random blog, start with the basic sources and work your way up.

Hey, Spank, if one person on an internet forum strongly believed that Tim Tebow was starting-caliber NFL quarterback and everyone else piled on about how that was a horrible idea, would you label that bullying?

I didn't say anything about bringing them under our domain.

1. War on them and free the slaves.
2. Let the slaves choose whether they want to stay there or come back with you or go somewhere else.
3. Allow the Southern States to hold elections that are actually democratic on whether they want to rejoin the Union.

After WWII, did we annex Germany as the 51st state? Iraq? Afghanistan?

No, you help those places rebuild and help them set up better governments that help their people make the right democratic decision for all the people. You don't conquer them.

And that's the reason I have a problem with Lincoln's state purposes for the war. It's not because I support the South in any way, shape or form. I just don't think that his motivations were morally justifiable, even though the outcome worked out a hell of a lot better than if he'd done nothing. I don't have a problem with Lincoln invading the South. I have a problem with the fact that he did it as a conqueror instead of as a liberator. The fact that he did end up also becoming a liberator only softens that to a certain degree.