It's Getting Serious: Tommy makes another statement...

(Images courtesy of Facebook)





Now take that! And don't you do it again. LOL!!!





Restoring the honor!






Comments

  1. Unprovoked invasion, did the CIC of the SCV forget about Sumter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Tommy forgot a whole bunch. This new and improved Heritage defense feels just like the old Heritage defense. Charles Kelly Barrow v2.0

      Delete
    2. Sumter was provocation, Corey. Anderson moving his men there was provocation. Anderson's dispatches northward with threats to Charleston in them, knowing they would be read by authorities in Charleston, was provocation.

      Delete
    3. Right out of the Lost Cause Handbook. You missed the part about South Carolina being in a state of unconstitutional rebellion.

      So go ahead and reply and lie.

      Delete
    4. Anderson felt exposed and vulnerable in Moultrie and moved his men to a safer Federal position. No provocation there. Being surrounded by a hostile population over the Constitutional election of Lincoln to the presidency is provocation.

      Delete
    5. Perhaps Connie could give us a lesson on the legalities of property rights, and the procedure for how property ownership passes from the Federal government to a newly seceded government in a secession? I'd love to hear her explanation. Connie, let's use historical precedent as a reference. Start with the Charleston Arsenal. Good luck.

      Delete
    6. South Carolina wasn't in a state of constitutional rebellion.

      Delete
    7. Regardless of what Anderson "felt" moving his men to Sumter constituted a provocation.

      Delete
    8. Circumstances can change things like property rights. The colonies legitimately belonged to the English crown but the Declaration of Independence and the revolution changed that. How about when the feds violate property rights, as in unelected officials invoking "laws" not passed by Congress in order to imprison people for improving their own property (google Ocie Mills). The Confederacy was prepared to pay for all federal property within the seceded states. The proper procedure would have been for the feds to take the money and hand over the property....

      Delete
    9. Oh, is that how it works? I see.

      Delete
    10. "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion-no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

      Lincoln, First Inaugural, 1861

      Delete
    11. Exactly right on target, BR. Once the State of South Carolina rebelled against the lawful authority of the US government, and waged war by force of arms against the lawful government of the US, Lincoln used his constitutional authority to put down that insurrection. He had every right to do so as specified by the US Constitution.

      He did so.

      Today we have a liar like KKKonnie and the other heritage liars making claims that are outright lies. The Confederacy was illegal. They engaged in an illegal insurrection. They were traitors. They committed treason. Those are facts and that is the final word on the matter. To say otherwise is to lie.

      Delete
    12. South Carolina didn't rebel. There was nothing in the Constitution prohibiting secession. Lincoln was a liar, bigtime. Perfect example of the money-grubbing yankee attitude. Didn't care about slaves, either.

      Delete
    13. "Lincoln, First Inaugural, 1861" - Who could imagine a President of the United States trying to enforce the laws of the land and make sure the government runs as it's supposed to... like he took an oath to that or something.

      Delete
    14. "South Carolina didn't rebel." - Robert Edward Lee says they did. But, hey, what did he or anyone else at that time know? Neo-Confederates today know much better than the secessionists what their real motives were.

      Just listen, they'll tell us so.

      Delete
    15. I always love it with the nuts say secession wasn't in the Constitution. That's because they ignore why it was created and what the Founders had to say about secession like Patrick Henry who said it was not allowed in the ratification debates. Just another example of KKKonnie the Liar ignoring facts that prove her to be a liar.

      I expect her to continue lying like she always does.

      Delete
    16. How would you know, Dimmy. YOu don't read what I write, you said so

      Delete
    17. Dimmy:
      "Lincoln used his constitutional authority"

      Blockading a state that had not seceded (North Carolina) is part of constitutional authority?

      Delete
    18. Let us consult the primary sources! In this case we look at the actual words used by Lincoln.

      Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein comformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States:

      You were saying?

      Delete
  2. It's always fun to see Chastain exhibit what she believes is her vast historical knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not nearly as much fun as watching you reveal your shrivel-hearted hate...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Look at Connie, trying to explain history to a College Professor and Author and a HS History Teacher.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Shaun Winkler becomes unglued over the Sons of Confederate Veterans "pet monkey"...

Jason Kessler tells Christopher Cantwell that Chief of Police Al Thomas told him that permit or no permit, the police intend to keep counter-protesters away from Emancipation Park...