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.
I don't know where you get your information from (well, actually, I do, it's neo-confederate sites) -- Lincoln did not sign the Corwin Amendment.No, Buchanan didn't either. It was called the Corwin Amendment because...hey, I'll give you 3 guesses to figure out who proposed it. (hint: It's in the name of the Amendment.)
I'm not going to continue with your little escapade of inaccuracies, cause it appears you are all over the map. (WTF? Pledge of Allegiance? What the hell does a Socialist composed oath written in 1892 have to do with this discussion?)
Frankly, you don't seem to be worth my time.
I'll be nicer when you're smarter. ;0
***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took office. ************
:cheers:
Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election of 1860.
Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.
No, JB, you, and along with the South, expected your perverted expectations of the Constitution to be met by reasonable Americans. A secret for you: no!
Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.
Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.
No, JB, you, and along with the South, expected your perverted expectations of the Constitution to be met by reasonable Americans. A secret for you: no!
Show me where the Constitution says the States/People are denied the right to secede.
If you can't, then they have it- that's what the 10th amendment states in plain english.
There is no room for opinion when the matter is spelled out in simple English to be derived from the most basic logical deduction.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It's been twice posted in large red text for you blind morons to see.Exactly!
Which is why Lincoln needed something else to bolster his stance on waging war. And that was Slavery.
-which he himself said he had no authority to do anything about, as I quoted, and which he still never cared about, as shown by his failure to free the slaves in the Union while attempting to force the CSA to free the slaves as though he had any authority to do so.
There was a just war to be waged against those who would enslave their fellow Man, but Lincoln and the Union never fought that war. As with WWII later on, we had no interest in fighting the just war. We sought our own war for our own reasons [preserving the strength of the union and the CSA's economic resources; Hitler's declaration's of war]- that the enemy was the same merely allowed for great propaganda to fool those who don't look past the posters and statues of a man made into a demi-god.
Nonsense.
I don't know where you get your information from (well, actually, I do, it's neo-confederate sites) -- Lincoln did not sign the Corwin Amendment.No, Buchanan didn't either. It was called the Corwin Amendment because...hey, I'll give you 3 guesses to figure out who proposed it. (hint: It's in the name of the Amendment.)
I'm not going to continue with your little escapade of inaccuracies, cause it appears you are all over the map. (WTF? Pledge of Allegiance? What the hell does a Socialist composed oath written in 1892 have to do with this discussion?)
Frankly, you don't seem to be worth my time.
I'll be nicer when you're smarter. ;0
***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took office. ************
:cheers:
He did tacitly support it and transmitted a copy of the joint resolution to amend the constitution to the Governors of the states, but he did not "sign the amendment."
Presidents play no role in the Constitutional Amendment process.
No, JB, you, and along with the South, expected your perverted expectations of the Constitution to be met by reasonable Americans. A secret for you: no!
Show me where the Constitution says the States/People are denied the right to secede.
If you can't, then they have it- that's what the 10th amendment states in plain english.
There is no room for opinion when the matter is spelled out in simple English to be derived from the most basic logical deduction.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
do you think states currently have the right to secede?
I don't expect people to simply take my word for it, however. There's been ample evidence given in this thread to show that Lincoln did not fight the Civil War to free the slaves.
Yes, there was more reasons, and it wasn't solely to free the slaves as so many believe. But slavery was most certainly a big part of it, along with preserving the union.
It wasn't fought to free the slaves at all, again, as Lincoln himself said.
Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should. And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.
Slavery was abolished in New England. That means the few that were there, were not sactioned by the state. All what? 12 of them?
New Jersey (not NE) had like 18 in 1860 who were old woman servants who were [FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]"apprentices for life," due to an arcane loophole in the law.
Regarding your continued obstinacy to deny the war was not primarily about slavery, one needs only to read the secession documents to understand: It was.
Peruse. No one could read these and not say, as Jeff Davis and VP Stephens did, it was the CORNERSTONE of the Confederacy:
[/FONT][/FONT]South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
[FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]
[/FONT][/FONT]
Nevertheless, there were slaves in NE into the mid 1800s, at least half a century after slavery was "officially" abolished. My opinion on the matter is that laws and intentions do not matter as much as facts, and the fact is that there were slaves in the northern states throughout the Civil War.
I did not say that slavery was a major issue in secession. I claimed, and still do, that it was not the primary cause of the war. There were slave states on both sides of the conflict, and until someone explains why people had to go to war with someone else to free slaves they owned I will not believe that slavery was why they went to war. That simply does not make sense to me, nor, I suspect, most people capable of critical thinking.
Your argument is that the North and West went to war to end slavery, and you are quite wrong.
No, the U.S. went to war against a rebellious section to preserve the union. The primary cause of the war was slavery. Every other cause is subsumed in slavery.
Yes.No, JB, you, and along with the South, expected your perverted expectations of the Constitution to be met by reasonable Americans. A secret for you: no!
Show me where the Constitution says the States/People are denied the right to secede.
If you can't, then they have it- that's what the 10th amendment states in plain english.
There is no room for opinion when the matter is spelled out in simple English to be derived from the most basic logical deduction.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
do you think states currently have the right to secede?
Yes, there was more reasons, and it wasn't solely to free the slaves as so many believe. But slavery was most certainly a big part of it, along with preserving the union.
It wasn't fought to free the slaves at all, again, as Lincoln himself said.
It was not originally fought with the notion of freeing slaves or of ending that hideous institution, perhaps.
But anyone who denies that slavery and the institution of slavery wasn't one of the major impetuses for the Civil War is engaging in ridiculous historical revisionism. The Southern States would never have deemed it expedient to secede from the Union were it not for the fact that their fucking diabolical institution was in danger. Had the North never given a flying fuck about Slavery, the South would certainly have been content to remain a part of the Union.
Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should. And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.
1) Yes, slavery was wrong- including when it was still practiced in the Union during the war.
2) 'Racial Guilt' is bullshit spread by the like of Sharpton to provide people with an excuse for not bettering themselves by blaming the descendent's of long dead men. My White ancestors didn't even come here until long after slavery ended, so you and all the rest of your retarded friends can fuck off and start taking responsibility for your own damned selves.
I don't care what 'the great majority of Americans' thinkThe legal reality, yes, that no right exists for states to leave the union. And that is how the great majority of Americans thought in 1861.
The legal reality, yes, that no right exists for states to leave the union. And that is how the great majority of Americans thought in 1861.
Yes.Show me where the Constitution says the States/People are denied the right to secede.
If you can't, then they have it- that's what the 10th amendment states in plain english.
There is no room for opinion when the matter is spelled out in simple English to be derived from the most basic logical deduction.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
do you think states currently have the right to secede?
They have the Constitutional right until any amendment declares otherwise and they and the People shall always have the moral right to self-determination, just as the FF had the right to throw off their own government and send the Redcoats back across the ocean.
No Jake. The Corwin Amendment existed. There were actually two "almost" 13th Amendments.No, Buchanan didn't either. It was called the Corwin Amendment because...hey, I'll give you 3 guesses to figure out who proposed it. (hint: It's in the name of the Amendment.)
I'm not going to continue with your little escapade of inaccuracies, cause it appears you are all over the map. (WTF? Pledge of Allegiance? What the hell does a Socialist composed oath written in 1892 have to do with this discussion?)
Frankly, you don't seem to be worth my time.
I'll be nicer when you're smarter. ;0
***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took office. ************
:cheers:
The poster above did not have the guts to give you the provenance of this "amendment."
So query TONA Research Committee - The Thirteenth Article of Amendment and read and chuckle. A little research will reveal that no provenance for the amendment exists.
In other words, our reactionary moon bats are flying erratically beneath the sublunary atmosphere, snapping at shadows!
Quantam Windbag and Big Fitz should be ready recruits, along with Si Modo and Mudwhistle and cmike and others. Have fun, guys.
