Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iu9nbof wrote

Reply to comment by Quirfg in Vermonters—legalize eagles asshole Mallory is a Jan 6th supporter by Jsr1

Something I agree with entirely!!! Conservatives DO hate democracy!

Probably because they uphold a Republic.

Which is what the United States of America is and always has been; a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected officials.

−61

KyleShittenHouse69 t1_iu9tfqf wrote

Republics are democracies. This is a precocious 7th grader’s argument. Very stupid.

34

Quirfg t1_iu9o1jc wrote

Check out this chucklefuck and his "states rights" civil war posts.

29

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iu9ol6x wrote

“States rights” is literally the core of our government structure but okay.

−42

eye-brows t1_iu9ou0t wrote

The state's right to.... what, John? Wanna finish that sentence?

23

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iu9qdy6 wrote

States right to what? What do you want me to say?

I disagree vehemently with the concept of slavery, if that’s your question, and believe or Constitution through the rights awarded would make slavery federally illegal since it was created and signed.

I DONT think states have a right to enslave a human being, for any reason.

You idiots are trying to turn an incredibly nuanced and difficult historical time of our nation into a simple one sentence reason or answer.

The original 7 states that seceded from the Union absolutely did so over slavery. The Union actually allowed and upheld slavery in several states throughout the war. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves held within the rebelling territories, NOT in the several Union states which still had slaves.

There were 7 original secede states. The other 4 seceded AFTER Lincoln mobilized 75,000 Union soldiers to quash the rebellion by force. Those 4 states were not fighting specifically for slavery (played a factor) but their main disagreements were by the violence and overreach presented from the federal government. It rang a lot like Britain prior to the Revolutionary war.

Only ~5% of the south were slave owners. Most of the slave owners never picked up a rifle to defend the institution of slavery. Ask yourself why did the poor men of the south decide to fight and die against the Union? Was it because they just loved slavery?

Or was it because they began to see the Union (aka federal government) literally enter their states and burn and pillage the homes of their friends and families who had NO relation to slavery or even southern politics.

Union soldiers did not fight to even end slavery for the most part. The whole war was mostly fought because the “Union” could not be allowed to dissolve, too much had been lost to get to the point in which they were at.

I will never defend the south and their “right” to slavery as I don’t think anybody has a right to own human beings, and believe the Constitution to clearly outline all the human rights which would expressly disallow the practice of slavery.

−24

Quirfg t1_iu9r0ps wrote

Could this brain be any smoother, even Neil Tyson would agree this would be smoother than the earth is shrank down.

15

InternationalToe3621 t1_iu9t9ch wrote

He's just some asinine troll. If you look at his comment history, you'll see he just posts asinine shit in each state's subreddit. Probably couldn't even find Vermont on a map

12

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iu9v8qe wrote

I’m actually a landowner in VT;)

−9

InternationalToe3621 t1_iuamom2 wrote

Also in Texas and Massachusetts?

3

deadowl t1_iua601e wrote

Are you saying the attack at Fort Sumter was a Union act of aggression?

Edit to add: what about all those attacks suppressing free elections in "Bleeding Kansas" against anti-slavery settlements preceding Lincoln's election?

Another edit re: Bleeding Kansas: There's literally misinformation on abolitionist gravestones there going into the 1900s so that they wouldn't get disturbed. For instance, this guy who has close Y-DNA markers to people paternally descended from ancestors of mine.

5

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iuahwm7 wrote

No, that’s not even remotely what I am saying.

The attack on fort Sumter had nothing to do with slavery and was purely about jurisdiction at that point. The south claimed the fort as their own, and that it was there property as it was within their borders.

The attack at fort Sumter was clearly southern aggression; albeit nobody died during the “battle”. Hell, nobody even knew that the attack of Sumter would be the “beginning” of the Civil War.

1

deadowl t1_iuai2ne wrote

You've breezed over my points on what had already been going on in Kansas though.

2

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iuaiecw wrote

What happened in Kansas, I would say, was internal struggles being propagated by both political factions trying to plant their foot to gain control.

Slavery back then was a massive ethical issue for the nation. People were willing to kill both to uphold the institutions, and to abolish.

Edit: you didn’t even respond to what I had said

2

deadowl t1_iuaj4f2 wrote

Nope, I'm saying you gave an incomplete response.

1

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iuajmju wrote

Nah dude you’re just unwilling to actually engage and discuss

1

deadowl t1_iuajx0b wrote

Your words:

> Only ~5% of the south were slave owners. Most of the slave owners never picked up a rifle to defend the institution of slavery. Ask yourself why did the poor men of the south decide to fight and die against the Union? Was it because they just loved slavery?

3

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iuak5yb wrote

Can you critically read? Is that me saying the CW wasn’t fought over slavery, or that the people who actually fought the battles had nothing at all to do with slavery?

1

daemonium1 t1_iuhlehu wrote

> I will never defend the south and their “right” to slavery

You just wrote 10 paragraphs literally doing that. I suggest you really think about what you stand for in life, if you are writing manifestos defending slavery (which, again, is exactly what you are doing).

1

raincntry t1_iu9nq2i wrote

Look at the pedantic brain on Mechanicjohn12! Nice that you can be both right and wrong at the same time.

7

MoreTuple t1_iuaaneu wrote

So was the Soviet Union technically a republic. I guess you're emphasizing the republic aspect because you're ok switching to communism run by authoritarians. As long as we're a republic...

3

Mechanicjohn12 t1_iuahbbm wrote

The Soviet Union was not a republic at all.

A Republic is a form of government where leaders are freely elected to represent the constituents moving forward.

1