Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What we are saying is :
1- There was no need to wipe out 620,000 Americans when slavery was on its way out
2- There was no need to create the precedent that DC could dictate to the states and violate their sovereignty.
.
The idea slavery was on the way out is entirely false.
.
Great Britain, Cuba, Brazil, and the Congo ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century by real statesmen in those countries.
"Some people have objected that the United States couldn't have bought the freedom of all the slaves, because that would have cost too much," Powell writes. "But buying the freedom of the slaves was not more expensive than war. Nothing is more costly than war!" In fact, the North's financial costs of war alone would have been enough to purchase the freedom of all the slaves, and then ended slavery legally and constitutionally.
.
Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank it is identifies with that of prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honored. On the former territory no white laborers can be found, for they would be afraid of assimilating themselves to the Negroes; all the work is done by slaves; on the latter no one is idle, for the white population extend their activity and intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich soil of Kentucky are ignorant and apathetic, while those who are active and enlightened either do nothing or pass over into Ohio, where they may work without shame.
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.[1]
The idea slavery was on the way out is entirely false.
.
Great Britain, Cuba, Brazil, and the Congo ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century by real statesmen in those countries.
"Some people have objected that the United States couldn't have bought the freedom of all the slaves, because that would have cost too much," Powell writes. "But buying the freedom of the slaves was not more expensive than war. Nothing is more costly than war!" In fact, the North's financial costs of war alone would have been enough to purchase the freedom of all the slaves, and then ended slavery legally and constitutionally.
.
This countries didnt have hillbilly Democrats fighting to keep slavery.
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.[1]
Alexander Stephens - March 21, 1861
Vice president of the confederacy
The "Conerstone Address"
Anyone who is still trying to argue that the American Civil War was "not about slavery" is historically challenged.
FORCING televison, radio, print, that run political advertisements for federal elections to run FREE ads for persons who get so many names on a petition (again, set the threshold where you like) to get the money out of elections or at least get the need for the money out of elections. .
What else is your fantasy government going to "force" private businesses to do after they've shredded the Constitution? What are they going to "force" you personally to do?
You're looking for another country entirely, not The United States of America.
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.[1]
Alexander Stephens - March 21, 1861
Vice president of the confederacy
The "Conerstone Address"
Anyone who is still trying to argue that the American Civil War was "not about slavery" is historically challenged.
What he said was the truth.All you gotta do is look around and see that.
The present administration tells other nations that they should not attack its citizens if they want to separate from their parent nation, so it should be put the the test here in the United States. Texas can start it off. They must first pay back all federal monies and reimburse the federal government for any interstate highways contructed, as they were funded by the federal government.
New currency must be made and border check points set up. Texas passports must be made for citizens wanting to travel outside the new nation.
Any electrical services coming from outside Texas must be dismantled.
Anyway, there will be a lot to do. But once free of the United States, Texas can have its own original flag (perhaps the stars and bars).
I doubt they do but I really don't care what anyone thinks of me. Go ahead move to Detroit or Philly or some other lovely urban area predominately occupied by blacks and see how much ya like it...I have been there done that...never again..I happy to enjoy civilized society.Alexander Stephens - March 21, 1861
Vice president of the confederacy
The "Conerstone Address"
Anyone who is still trying to argue that the American Civil War was "not about slavery" is historically challenged.
What he said was the truth.All you gotta do is look around and see that.
Bripat, Unkotore....
Do you agree with this piece of shit?
The present administration tells other nations that they should not attack its citizens if they want to separate from their parent nation, so it should be put the the test here in the United States. Texas can start it off. They must first pay back all federal monies and reimburse the federal government for any interstate highways contructed, as they were funded by the federal government.
Says who? the federal government doesn't have a dime that it didn't get from the citizens of the 50 states, so why do any of the states owe the federal government a dime?
New currency must be made and border check points set up. Texas passports must be made for citizens wanting to travel outside the new nation.
That goes without saying. I think any sensible person would be ecstatic to be free of the federal reserve funny money.
Any electrical services coming from outside Texas must be dismantled.
Don't be an idiot. The federal government doesn't own power lines. Power companies can make whatever arrangements they want.
Anyway, there will be a lot to do. But once free of the United States, Texas can have its own original flag (perhaps the stars and bars).
Was this post supposed to have a point of some kind?
Alexander Stephens - March 21, 1861
Vice president of the confederacy
The "Conerstone Address"
Anyone who is still trying to argue that the American Civil War was "not about slavery" is historically challenged.
What he said was the truth.All you gotta do is look around and see that.
Bripat, Unkotore....
Do you agree with this piece of shit?
The present administration tells other nations that they should not attack its citizens if they want to separate from their parent nation, so it should be put the the test here in the United States. Texas can start it off. They must first pay back all federal monies and reimburse the federal government for any interstate highways contructed, as they were funded by the federal government.
Says who? the federal government doesn't have a dime that it didn't get from the citizens of the 50 states, so why do any of the states owe the federal government a dime?
That goes without saying. I think any sensible person would be ecstatic to be free of the federal reserve funny money.
Don't be an idiot. The federal government doesn't own power lines. Power companies can make whatever arrangements they want.
Anyway, there will be a lot to do. But once free of the United States, Texas can have its own original flag (perhaps the stars and bars).
Was this post supposed to have a point of some kind?
He's trying to make the point that if Texas wanted to secede then it would then be subject to treatment as a foreign country. What he doesn't realize is that Texas has it's own power grid anyway so it would be just fine. What he also doesn't realize is that Texas has the 14th largest economy on the face of the earth. Not that I would want Texas to secede, this idea that somehow Texas couldn't make it while not being apart of the U.S. is upsurd. Aside from that, Texas could then coin it's own currency and would likely immediately end up being more valuable than the U.S. Dollar...
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Legally and Constitutionally a State may not leave the Union Unilaterally. You have been shown the articles and clauses in the Constitution that forbid it. A State may only leave if Congress agrees or it successfully fights off the US Government.
Not only does the Constitution require Congressional action but the Supreme Court agrees. And yes article III clearly grants to the Supreme Court the authority and power to rule on matters between the States and the federal Government. In fact in such matters the Supreme Court has primary authority as stated in article III of the US Constitution.
Article III section 2
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Article III | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
As it states "to controversies to which the United States shall be a party"
also ' The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,..."
Further "Between a State and citizens of another State, --- between citizens of different States.."
Legally and Constitutionally a State may not leave the Union Unilaterally. You have been shown the articles and clauses in the Constitution that forbid it. A State may only leave if Congress agrees or it successfully fights off the US Government.
Not only does the Constitution require Congressional action but the Supreme Court agrees. And yes article III clearly grants to the Supreme Court the authority and power to rule on matters between the States and the federal Government. In fact in such matters the Supreme Court has primary authority as stated in article III of the US Constitution.
Article III section 2
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Article III | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
As it states "to controversies to which the United States shall be a party"
also ' The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,..."
Further "Between a State and citizens of another State, --- between citizens of different States.."
Legally and Constitutionally a State may not leave the Union Unilaterally. You have been shown the articles and clauses in the Constitution that forbid it. A State may only leave if Congress agrees or it successfully fights off the US Government.
Not only does the Constitution require Congressional action but the Supreme Court agrees. And yes article III clearly grants to the Supreme Court the authority and power to rule on matters between the States and the federal Government. In fact in such matters the Supreme Court has primary authority as stated in article III of the US Constitution.
Article III section 2
Article III | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
As it states "to controversies to which the United States shall be a party"
also ' The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,..."
Further "Between a State and citizens of another State, --- between citizens of different States.."
So not surprised you ignore facts that fit you myopic view
So not surprised you ignore facts that fit you myopic view
The melting point of lead is 621.5°. That's also a fact. It has just as much relevance to this discussion as the "facts" mentioned above.
So not surprised you ignore facts that fit you myopic view
The melting point of lead is 621.5°. That's also a fact. It has just as much relevance to this discussion as the "facts" mentioned above.
The relevant powers are quoted. You haven't a leg to stand on. The Supreme Court was given the power to run all trials involving the United States. In 1869 they ruled that a State may not unilaterally leave the Union. They had the authority and the power granted them by the Constitution to render such a verdict. The action was I believe Texas vs the US. Care to explain how that does not meet the powers and authority granted the Court by said Constitution?
As for the right before that decision, the Supremacy clause coupled with other powers granted the Congress and the federal Government clearly indicate that in order for a State to withdraw from the Union Congress must agree.
The melting point of lead is 621.5°. That's also a fact. It has just as much relevance to this discussion as the "facts" mentioned above.
The relevant powers are quoted. You haven't a leg to stand on. The Supreme Court was given the power to run all trials involving the United States. In 1869 they ruled that a State may not unilaterally leave the Union. They had the authority and the power granted them by the Constitution to render such a verdict. The action was I believe Texas vs the US. Care to explain how that does not meet the powers and authority granted the Court by said Constitution?
As for the right before that decision, the Supremacy clause coupled with other powers granted the Congress and the federal Government clearly indicate that in order for a State to withdraw from the Union Congress must agree.
So post hoc a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks ruled that Lincoln didn't violate the Constitution means secession was illegal in 1861, and I don't have a leg to stand on?
