150 Years Ago Today

[War Wagon]

The war in Missouri was bitterly fought but miniature in scale.

I don't have any concrete numbers to define that scale nor do I care. It doesn't matter. You will ultimately lose any debate with Truman over the Missouri civil war effort because you take the tack of dispassionate historian while I have no doubt that Tru has ancestors who died at the battle of Lexington.

[mvscal]

Emotion never trumps reason and facts in any debate. In any event, you seem to forget that I'm from Missouri as well. Hopefully some of my "St. Louis Dutch" ancestors killed some of his barefoot and toothless hillbilly ancestors.

[War Wagon]

Emotion never trumps reason and facts in any debate. In any event, you seem to forget that I'm from Missouri as well. Hopefully some of my "St. Louis Dutch" ancestors killed some of his barefoot and toothless hillbilly ancestors.

I quite remember you being 'from' Missouri.

Do you know that Missouri was settled primarily with southern Catholics? Of course you do. You probably also know that 40% of the casualties in the first two years of the war were in the "sideshow" you call Missouri.

[R-Jack]

40% of the casualties in the first two years of the war were in the "sideshow" you call Missouri.

Don't feel like you got forgotten. To this day, I still consider Missouri a "sideshow"

[mvscal]

You probably also know that 40% of the casualties in the first two years of the war were in the "sideshow" you call Missouri.

Wrong. There were about 23,000 casualities at Shiloh, 36,000 during the Seven Days, 18,000 at 2nd Bull Run, 22,000 at Antietam and there are at least a half dozen other smaller battles during that time frame.

Whoever gave you your information is totally full of shit and you're clueless.

[R-Jack]

Whoever gave you your information is totally full of shit and you're clueless.

You couldn't just give him an option, could you?

[War Wagon]

Whoever gave you your information is totally full of shit and you're clueless.

Upon further review, it was during the first year.

The point still being that the sideshow was part and parcel of the cause.

[BSmack]

mv's assesment of the reasons for secession is about as well written and concise a demolition of an opposing point of view as we are ever likely to read on this board. Rack it.

No it's not--it's just stating an opinion, then repeating it, and then calling anyone who disagrees a (enter homoerotic profanity here)...and that's it.

No, he is making declarative statements the veracity of which you, or any other person, can feel free to research and counter with opposing evidence. Of course you won't FIND that opposing evidence because mv is 100% correct in his historical analysis.

That's what you call a great take? Look, I'll demolish it with ease:

As the war raged in1862, Lincoln declared his true motivation for his complete support for it:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Thus, in his ever polished style he makes plainly clear his motivation--the preservation of the union, which would become the massive marauding imperialist empire in short order.

As for his regard for slavery, in his inauguration address he was quite clear:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

So, please, let's not pretend that Avi has actually made any sense. Or that a human rights angle was somehow at center of what Ezra Pound called "the suicide of the Anglo-Saxon race."

Of course Lincoln's "regard for slavery" is not what is at issue here. The issue is the motivation for secession by the rump legislature in Missouri and the south as a whole. Which was plainly the preservation of the slavery system as set for in the Constitution and the various compromise settlements reached thereafter.

[LTS TRN 2]

Well of course slavery was the driving issue of the secession, but the purpose and goal of the war was to preserve the giant mono-nation, maintaining the prevailing agenda of Manifest Destiny.

If the issue of secession, hypothetically, had not been based on slavery, the all-out war would still have been launched--fuck habeus corpus, etc., and similarly would have required a conscripted army. If the South had not seceded, that is, the North would not have interfered with their nefarious practice. They probably would have sought sanctions and so forth from Europe, but no attack on the South. Think about it.

And while slavery was indeed the issue which led to secession, it was only used as an official reason for war--implementing the Emancipation Proclamation--after two years of carnage.

[Dinsdale]

but the purpose and goal of the war was to preserve the giant mono-nation, maintaining the prevailing agenda of Manifest Destiny.

Uhm... Manifest Destiny was completed by the start of the Civil War, dipshit.

Washington hadn't recieved statehood at that point, but it was essentially part of Oregon at that time, and was a recognized American Territory... dipshit.


It's a troll, folks -- no one could ever be wrong 100% of the time, or so the Theory of Blind Squirrels tells us.

[mvscal]

If the South had not seceded, that is, the North would not have interfered with their nefarious practice.

The North was interfering with slavery every chance they got, dumbshit. Nor were they ever going to stop until it was gone hence secession.

You are more badly confused than usual.

[LTS TRN 2]

Easy, Dins, Glenn Beck isn't going too far. You'll have that strange teat to suckle soon.

Now look, it's not real complicated. Maintaining the Manifest Destiny paradigm was itself the goal--and that's why secession was the reason for war. Slavery was the pretext for the secession. Don't mix it up.

As for the North interfering with slavery, sure they did, but not nearly to the point of launching a massive war on that pretext. Sanctions and sanctuaries and all sorts of diplomatic angles. But simply put, no secession, no war against slavery. Not even close. Who was going to accept conscription for that war? :doh:

[mvscal]

But simply put, no secession, no war against slavery.

Who are you attempting to communicate with? Nobody here suggested that there would have been a war without secession.

[BSmack]

Well of course slavery was the driving issue of the secession.

That's all you need to say.

[Dinsdale]

Maintaining the Manifest Destiny paradigm was itself the goal

Uhm... I don't think "Manifest Destiny" means what you think it means.

Since it would appear that you have an internet browser open (no doubt Safari, given your sexual orientation), why don't you do a little search for "Era of Manifest Destiny," and get back to me...

and by "get back to me," I of course mean "STFU, you stark raving tool."

[War Wagon]

Slavery was the pretext for the secession.

Wha? :?

and here I thought it was because they really hated Lincoln.

[Dinsdale]

Slavery was the pretext for the secession.

Wha? :?

and here I thought it was because they really hated Lincoln.

Haven't you heard -- it was a big ruse by the North so they could expand all the way to the West Coast, by no later than...


uhm, the end of the upcoming Civil War.

[Truman]

Christ-in-a-tsunami, mvscal… A UT degree? Really?!

You’re folks must be right-outraged for pissing away all that money…

One can only conclude that your enrollment fulfilled some spic-quota obligation Texas had to the Fed, ‘cuz clearly you’ve proven the sheep scrotum your diploma was printed on ain’t worth wiping the shit off a Missouri mule’s ass.

Tedious, revisionist asshat.

Even funnier how you left out cognitive reasoning in your reply, mvscal. I would’ve thought the descriptive, “Ordinance of Secession,” would’ve cleared things up for you. Generally, when one withdraws formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance, they are rebelling against said organization, association, or alliance.

The collection of individuals who published that paper did not have the legal authority to withdraw Missouri from the Union. It's that simple.

Oh, so now you actually DO acknowledge that the Missouri General Assembly did, indeed, publish a paper?!

Scoreboard. Progress.

Per earlier posts, such an event never happened.

Lemme get this straight: A quorum of state’s representatives and senators elected by the citizenry of the State of Missouri passed an Ordinance of Secession duly signed by a sitting Governor ALSO elected by the state’s citizenry, and this act was illegal?!

Really?

:?

Pregnant pause while you study on what a dumbass statement you just posted...

FWIW, King George III agrees with you. So you’ve got that going for you.

BTW, the Fed attacked Missouri FIRST.

Not the other way around.

I’d say we were well within our rights to defend ourselves....

And that word is found where, exactly, in the preceding statement?

Right here:

Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers,

The entire passage refers to slavery. Since it is plainly Constitutional for the President to call for troops to suppress an armed insurrection, they can only be talking about slavery which, of course, was present in the "Government as constructed and intended by its makers." The subversions refer to the restrictions on the spread of slavery, the refusal of Northern states to cooperate with the Fugitive Slave Act and the agitation against slavery by private groups and indvidual politicians.

No, it doesn’t.

Answer the fucking question, you revisionist retard: Where, in the Ordinance, does it say the word “slavery”?

How many languages are you illiterate in, you stupid spic?

The words mean what they mean. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the same camp of a Terry or BSmack that suggests that legislation means whatever they say it means, and something as innocuous as the Commerce Clause means the Fed can compel you to buy healthcare insurance.

The Ordinance of Secession wasn’t passed until AFTER Lyons and the Union attacked the state.

This fact is flat irrefutable.

One has to think that the actions of the Fed would be enough to piss off any state to make a break for the tall grass.

Missouri’s official position was that of an armed neutral, and most certainly didn’t want any piece of Lincoln’s war.

Tough shit. That wasn't and isn't an option. Missouri was part of the Union and obliged to defend that Union. Period. The only illegal actions were those of Missouri's governor in refusing to furnish the required regiments.

"Tough shit" is that you’ve been left haemorrhaging on every point. Which part of the 10th Amendment defeats you? Missouri was obliged to defend itself - and within its rights to do so. The only illegal actions were those of Lyons declaring war on the state.

The Fed didn’t like it and usurped its authority when they began seizing arms and conscripting troops. If anyone acted unconstitutionally it was the Fed. Amendment X of the United States Constitution out front shoulda told you.

Complete, top to bottom bullshit.

I take it that you're referring to your own response. Acknowledged. The way it happened, fiction-fuck. Your side won the War.. It’s the argument that leaves you flailing...

The Charleston Mercury

Naturally this was Confederate propaganda attempting to persuade readers of the alleged legitimacy of the gathering. The reality of the Neosho conference is that it was nothing more than a collection of fugitive Confederate sympathizers shouting over their shoulders as they hauled ass to Texas where they spent the rest of the war chewing tobacco and fingering each others' assholes.

Fail. It was a quorum of duly elected officials conducting state’s business.

Again, this is irrefutable. Pity the facts cripple your mindless narrative....

...former Confederate Col. John C. Moore, who also states that a quorum was present at the session:

My you really are a credulous tard, aren't you. Well, if a former confederate says so, it must be true.

As opposed to the brain-dead, drooling Neanderthal who started this thread? Translation: Only the victors write the history.

Kill yourself, you revisionist asshat. I didn’t realize Moore’s citizenship was revoked in the terms of surrender at the conclusion of hostilities.

...The Missouri Confederate flag carried by the state's regiments that you ignorantly confused with thumpery

No, I had you confused you with Diogenes. He's another halfwitted neo-confederate revisionist. You all babble from the same script.

No, I'm fairly confident that you fucked up and confused the cross in the Missouri battle flag with a Christian icon. I’ve given you no reason to confuse me with Bi-on-his-knees. Oh, and “revisionist” is the tag I laid on you. I Know You Are But What Am I? much, Loser?

Rest easy, asshat: We’d run your sorry ass out of our town, too, for the same incest, buggery and inbreeding practiced by your ancestors before they were run out of St. Loser...

Or maybe I do. A whole bunch of others did too, apparently...

Or maybe you don't. It was Bowen's flag originally. Of course his brigade and later his division was comprised primarily of Missouri troops. Very nearly half of the Confederate regulars raised in Missouri served under his command at one time or another. Price didn't adopt the flag until 1864 during his failed raid. After that you could claim it as a Missouri battle flag in that the majority of Missouri troops would have served under it.

Pretty sure I do. Thousands of Missourians fought and died under that banner in this state and in f’urrin countries like Mississippi. The four links I posted confirmed this.

Which begs the question: What’s your point? Per your link, Bowen died of dysentery after being released from prison camp in Mississippi. It makes no mention of him being wounded. Outnumbered and outgunned, Bowen fought valorously to slow the advance of that murderous drunk in your avatar.

You’re a Charger fan, right? Barron Hilton founded your team. So does wearing a Chargers lid to a game (hypothetical, I know... Charger fans don’t GO to games) make you and every fan of that mex-i-cali abortion a fan of his skank daughter too? Go fuck yourself, Loser.

Missouri’s star in the Confederate National Flag “was simply a gesture to honor the regiments from Missouri which fought for the Confederacy.”

That is absolutely correct. Of course three times as many Missourians fought for the Union than did for the Confederacy. In any event, Missouri was little more than a sideshow to the larger war in the Western and Eastern theatres of operation.

Which ends this argument. Thanks for playing, Sparky.

If you truly subscribe to this inanity, then you are not qualified to continue this discussion.

Period.

Stop.

End of Story.

What’s next, mvscal? Auschwitz was a fairy tale? NASA faked the moon landings? Human life begins at the 2nd trimester? Man can change the climate?

Take heart mvscal: You may be wrong… But you’ll always be an asshole.

[mvscal]

Nice melt, you brainless, lying, shit smeared douchebag.



Yeah, you're done alright.

[Goober McTuber]

Just so we're clear. The war was about slavery, right?

[War Wagon]

Jesus fucking Christ Truman

I don't care who's right or wrong, that post was an old school blast from the past.

[Truman]

The "melt" card, mvscal?

Really?!

Dude.

[Truman]

The war in Missouri was bitterly fought but miniature in scale.

I don't have any concrete numbers to define that scale nor do I care. It doesn't matter. You will ultimately lose any debate with Truman over the Missouri civil war effort because you take the tack of dispassionate historian while I have no doubt that Tru has ancestors who died at the battle of Lexington.

Osceola, Wags. See the War special in the Sunday paper? Lots of those folks buried west of town are kin.

[Truman]

Hopefully some of my "St. Louis Dutch" ancestors killed some of his barefoot and toothless hillbilly ancestors.

The Union armed cooks back then? Not likely any of my ancestors died in a hail of spatulas and soup ladles...

[mvscal]

The "melt" card, mvscal?

Really?!

Absolutely. Your argument fails on every single point and all you can do is run with "Kill yourself, you revisionist spic." That's a melt.

I'll shoot down your idiocy for the hundred and first time.

1. The participants at Neosho were former legislators who merely paused briefly while fleeing the state never to return. They were hardly "doing the state's business." They were fugitive criminals.

2. There is absolutely no credible evidence to suggest that quorum was present and, given Missouri's majority support for the Union, it is extremely unlikely that there was one.

3. Even if they had one, a mere quorum was not sufficient to withdraw the state from the union since the state legislature did not have the constitutional authority to do so. What would have been required was a referendum to establish another state constitutional convention since the first state convention overwhelmingly rejected secession.

4. Lyon didn't attack Missouri. He attacked insurrectionists in Missouri. There was a war on. Whether or not you recognize that fact is irrelevent. The position of "armed neutrality" was both legally and practically impossible not to mention that it was little more than a ruse designed to buy time to gather manpower and material in support of the rebellion.

5. The fact that the word, 'slavery,' wasn't in the passage does not mean that it was not about slavery. Whenever confederates talk about "the subversion of the Constitution as intended by the founders," they are talking about the institution of slavery. Those with a broader and more in depth education understand this. You are simply an ignorant fuckhole with a pisspoor education. Again, that isn't my fault.

[Screw_Michigan]

Jesus fucking Christ Truman

I don't care who's right or wrong, that post was an old school blast from the past.

You actually read all that? :doh:

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

You actually read all that?

Of course he did. Whitey clings to the nuts of a Truman post like AP spackle on a studio mirror.

[Screw_Michigan]

I forgot. Tards of a feather stick together.

[War Wagon]

The timing of the last 3 posts couldn't be more ironically serendipitous given the discussion in the radio chat room last night about who was the pitcher vs. the catcher.

It's clear, Magoo and Screwed take turns.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Sitting at home on a Thursday night chatting about me. Riveting life you got there, Gossip Wagon.

[War Wagon]

I know, pathetic, isn't it?

At least I'm not AP.

[Moving Sale]

Southern mouths wrote a check their lazy asses couldn't cash. Hope your niggger slaves were worth the asskicking.

You are a stupid vile racist piece of shit.

[LTS TRN 2]

But simply put, no secession, no war against slavery.

Who are you attempting to communicate with? Nobody here suggested that there would have been a war without secession.

There would not have been a war only about slavery. That's the point. If the South had decided to maintain membership in the union while continuing their slave trade, the North would not have attacked. Okay? And if the Feds like Lincoln insisted on launching a war, no one in the North would have accepted conscription just to free the slaves. These are the plain facts. And thus, the maintaining of Manifest Destiny was the actual purpose and goal of the war. Of course the basic idea of Manifest Destiny had been coined, minted, and introduced in the currency of American parlance in 1845, and by 1860 was basically complete. Well...they sure as hell weren't going to allow any sort of secession--even though it may have been technically legal (and envisioned as eventually natural and necessary by the Founding Fathers).

Okay? Now, what was your feeble point in the first place? That...you don't like black people? That....George Soros is stealing your money? Why do you even try?

[Imus]

If the South . . .

If the Feds . . .

and

If your great great great grandma (from the South) momma would've run away faster from that toothless mongoloid who inseminated her with dumb-ass swamp spooge, your posts would be more readable.

[LTS TRN 2]

Oh, I think even an idiot like you can read it and see the important point. Don't sell yourself so short, you may not have much, but you've probably got more than you've been led to believe--under the hood, right?

[OCmike]

Look Southern folk, your war was not about fighting for your homeland against a bully aggressor. You fought for the right to own slaves. And unless you intentionally refuse to believe the obvious or are as dumb as a shovel-leaning city pothole filler, you know it, we know it and blacks know it.
Now, lots of people have a fucked up legacy, but eventually they own it and most people move on. It'd be nice if you retards would take the fingers out of your ears, stop going LALALALALALALA and say "yeah, that was kind of a fucked up thing to do" so we can all move on too.

[BSmack]

There would not have been a war only about slavery. That's the point. If the South had decided to maintain membership in the union while continuing their slave trade, the North would not have attacked. Okay? And if the Feds like Lincoln insisted on launching a war, no one in the North would have accepted conscription just to free the slaves.

Bingo.

Lincoln (and the citizens of the north) are so often portrayed as sympathetic to the plight of the slaves. Lincoln was no fan of blacks at all. He wanted them shipped out of the country and regularly referred to their inferiority.

Lincoln's feelings towards black folk are immaterial to the point at hand. Simply put, the south saw the election of Lincoln as an existential threat to the institution of slavery and they acted accordingly. Your treasonous ancestors were acting to protect the institution of slavery. Period.

[OCmike]

So y'all (like that? :D ) are suggesting that, had the South maintained its status as part of the US, yet retained its slaves, the North would have waged war?

I think not.

Of course not. Who gives a fuck about nonsensical hypothetical bullshit?

[mvscal]

Lincoln (and the citizens of the north) are so often portrayed as sympathetic to the plight of the slaves.

Probably because they were, dumbass.

[FLW Buckeye]

Lot of similarities to today's GOP

About as much as the rich slaveowners considered themselves Democrats...