Ah, yes, I forgot the "citizenship duties" which I, bad "citizen" that I am, neglect, your religious rituals of state worship: voting, activism, "participation" in the borg to "elect" "GOOD" slavemasters....why, to do otherwise is to "mooch". There simply IS no other paradigm for civilization. Mooch or be assimilated and ruled by your betters, that is the universe and the best men can ever hope for, the greatest possible Good, the Best of All Possible Worlds.

History is judging Lincolns "morality". You are correct, I could NEVER begin to comprehend a mind that stooped to such butchery and illogic, no matter how great his oratory.

JS,
"History is judging Lincolns "morality". You are correct, I could NEVER begin to comprehend a mind that stooped to such butchery and illogic, no matter how great his oratory."
Actually you have it backwards. You take the self appointed Southern aristocrats and describe as their nobility when they are enslaving and otherwise depraving their fellow man. You describe them as victims when they high handedly attack their own country. You describe yourself as a victim when you are being asked to help choose your government.
In the end all you describe is only the inner workings of your mind. In defending the conduct of the depraved Southern Aristocracy you describe how you would like to treat your fellow man. In describing the lack of obligation on the part of the South you describe your intent to break, at your convenience, every contract you undertake. You describe nothing objective.
Ron

>>>>Actually you have it backwards. You take the self appointed Southern aristocrats and describe as their nobility when they are enslaving and otherwise depraving their fellow man.<<<<<<

The slavery issue is not why Lincoln invaded the South, he said so himself. So your outrage over the all year enslavement of the blacks as opposed to 9 months of the year enslavement of all is irrelevant.

>>>>>> You describe them as victims when they high handedly attack their own country.<<<<

You just can't get over the audacity, the "high handedness of people wanting to be out from under tyrannical central rule. Those Revolutionary War soldiers were just as "arrogant" and "highhanded" weren't they? At least England came right out and claimed ownership and called the colonists subjects instead of all that illogical crud about "self government" and how they are REALLY "free" as long as they do as they're told. The South seceded. It was Lincoln who insisted that they were not sovereign and refused to vacate sovereign soil, deliberately provoking attack (as he claimed to have done himself).

>>>>> You describe yourself as a victim when you are being asked to help choose your government.<<<<

Why on EARTH would I want to "help choose" my own slavemaster, my own robbers? What kind of pathetic, mixed up indoctrinated slave-dolt would do that? Besides, I thought we already HAD a glorious government (thanks to the Federalist Papers) second to none and as close to prefection as is attainable on earth.

>>>>>In the end all you describe is only the inner workings of your mind.>>>

??

>>>> In defending the conduct of the depraved Southern Aristocracy<<<<

I am defending the right of the soverign southern states (and any other) to secede, decentralized local rule. There is nothing "depraved" about that. Murdering half a million to invade and conquer sovereign states IS, however, depraved, especially Total War against women, children and property.

>>>> you describe how you would like to treat your fellow man.<<<<

I would like my fellow men to live as freely and safely as possible, except for those who prefer to be enslaved, like yourself.

>>>> In describing the lack of obligation on the part of the South<<<<

What "obligation"?

>>>>> you describe your intent to break, at your convenience, every contract you undertake.<<<

A blatant and ridiculous lie which you have made many times,usually claiming that I already have broken every contract I have made which is another lie. What are these contracts I have broken?

And if you are claiming I have a contract to be the property of the US central state and am required to participate in my own enslavement and worship that state then please produce that signed contract IMMEDIATELY and I will have my attorney examine its validity.

>>>> You describe nothing objective.<<<<

How on earth would you even know?

JS,
"The slavery issue is not why Lincoln invaded the South, he said so himself. So your outrage over the all year enslavement of the blacks as opposed to 9 months of the year enslavement of all is irrelevant."
Thank you, JS. You began your disquistion by demonstrating that you don't have any grasp of the facts or any ability to think logically. But you are 100% certain that you are right. Good show.
In the long run, if we consider the bigger picture, you might have a point. Lincoln invaded the South to run the Confederate Army out of the North and discourage their attempts to invade. Then to dictate to the rest of the world on the same terms as they used to deal with their slaves. Imagine threatening a free people as to the dire consequence of their casting a vote representing their conscience.
However in a more immediate sense you are wrong as usual. Slavery is the issue that the South Aristocracy used to explain their seceeding from the Union, attaching US property without negotiation at Fort Sumpter and disenfranchising anyone that might wish to vote against secession. We don't even know if Southerners were for secession as they didn't get to vote. The Southern Aristocracy pre-empted their right to vote or have any voice in the matter. My great grandfathers letters home told what happened to desenters in the South. They were found hanged.

"You just can't get over the audacity, the "high handedness of people wanting to be out from under tyrannical central rule" You don't know what the 'people' wanted. There was no vote, dissenters were hung and slaves were lashed. But the Morlocks running things were your kind of people and you support them. You lament not being able sit on the veranda in a fresh set of crinolines sipping mint juleps served you by slaves that 'know their place.' You defend a self appointed aristocracy that will not acknowledge their own contracts. That choose illegal means when legal means are at hand. Why did they do that; because to take the legal route would have meant submiting their case to the "common tradesmen" from other states. Far better to get out their horsewhips and pistols and start a war that would wreak their homeland for a hundred years. Pathetic.

"Why on EARTH would I want to "help choose" my own slavemaster, my own robbers?"
If what you describe represented the real world in the slightest you wouldn't. However after 5,000 years of living in a 'JS' world we came up with an alternative to choosing between either anarchy or tryanny as JS describes and ruling ourselves.
However the concept of self rule is so different from the previous 5,000 years that it is entirely too subtle for you and others of your ilk to grasp. You prove it here every day. You babble on in every email you write about what is in fact self rule being a tyranny. You prove only that you have no grasp on reality.
Now, take a deep breath and relax. Tomorrow when the Sun rises you will be born into a brand new world where nothing that has been said or written impinges upon your mind at all. Then you can go right back to repeating your same old nonsense as if it were brand new.
Ron

The rest of this diversion I have addressed AND refuted umpteen times.

JS,.
"The rest of this diversion I have addressed AND refuted umpteen times."
The two basic contracts are the Constitution and the Declaration of Independents. The Constitution and Congress was also your legal route to secession had you had enough respect for your fellow man not to simply order them about like you did your field slaves. You had many members in Congress anyone of them could have entered a Bill of Secession but not one person or one state had the respect required to follow legal means.
Ron
Ron