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.
Fuck you! Instead of debating the substance you attack the poster, typical Left wing commie motherfucker!I never claimed to have created the piece I posted. It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.No. The question was settled by the Civil War
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.
For shame.
Total bullshit.
You never cited him, nor even placed quotes around your post.
You used Walter Williams words as your own. Anyone can see it here: Walter Williams Was the Civil War about tariff revenue WashingtonExaminer.com
This entire quote of yours:
==============================
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
==============================
...was ripped off whole from that piece.
And yes, Water Williams (the man you stole from) is not only a goofbucket, he is entirely WRONG.
Admit your dishonesty and move on.
You were caught stealing -- every word of your post was stolen from another, and when called on it, you lash out like a profane toddler.Fuck you! Instead of debating the substance you attack the poster, typical Left wing commie motherfucker!I never claimed to have created the piece I posted. It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.No. The question was settled by the Civil War
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.
For shame.
Total bullshit.
You never cited him, nor even placed quotes around your post.
You used Walter Williams words as your own. Anyone can see it here: Walter Williams Was the Civil War about tariff revenue WashingtonExaminer.com
This entire quote of yours:
==============================
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
==============================
...was ripped off whole from that piece.
And yes, Water Williams (the man you stole from) is not only a goofbucket, he is entirely WRONG.
Admit your dishonesty and move on.
FUCK YOU!You were caught stealing -- every word of your post was stolen from another, and when called on it, you lash out like a profane toddler.Fuck you! Instead of debating the substance you attack the poster, typical Left wing commie motherfucker!I never claimed to have created the piece I posted. It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.
For shame.
Total bullshit.
You never cited him, nor even placed quotes around your post.
You used Walter Williams words as your own. Anyone can see it here: Walter Williams Was the Civil War about tariff revenue WashingtonExaminer.com
This entire quote of yours:
==============================
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
==============================
...was ripped off whole from that piece.
And yes, Water Williams (the man you stole from) is not only a goofbucket, he is entirely WRONG.
Admit your dishonesty and move on.
Own up to your theft, grow a damn spine and admit what you did was wrong.
Everybody is watching, you know...FUCK YOU!You were caught stealing -- every word of your post was stolen from another, and when called on it, you lash out like a profane toddler.Fuck you! Instead of debating the substance you attack the poster, typical Left wing commie motherfucker!I never claimed to have created the piece I posted. It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.
2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.
For shame.
Total bullshit.
You never cited him, nor even placed quotes around your post.
You used Walter Williams words as your own. Anyone can see it here: Walter Williams Was the Civil War about tariff revenue WashingtonExaminer.com
This entire quote of yours:
==============================
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
==============================
...was ripped off whole from that piece.
And yes, Water Williams (the man you stole from) is not only a goofbucket, he is entirely WRONG.
Admit your dishonesty and move on.
Own up to your theft, grow a damn spine and admit what you did was wrong.
(1) The Union is indivisible, so, no, the states had no right to leave without permission from the other states.can we get back on topic?(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?
(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?
(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?
or
...
(2) and (3)The wartime powers of the President competently answers both of these sets of questions.
Yet from day one the Eastern and southern states thought they could secede. How to secede is the issue you doltNat, you are not an authority on the issue.
Sorry, bud. But we can play the game. Where is secession mentioned in the document?
Says the guy who has been getting his doltish but kicked by me the last few times out.Yet from day one the Eastern and southern states thought they could secede. How to secede is the issue you doltNat, you are not an authority on the issue.
Sorry, bud. But we can play the game. Where is secession mentioned in the document?
should have known not to get too close to your foolish insanitySays the guy who has been getting his doltish but kicked by me the last few times out.Yet from day one the Eastern and southern states thought they could secede. How to secede is the issue you doltNat, you are not an authority on the issue.
Sorry, bud. But we can play the game. Where is secession mentioned in the document?
Nat wants to know where "indivisible" is in the document, so it is fair to ask where "secession" is in the document.
What's the point of discussing whether it was constitutional or not?doesn't matter one way or another now
Yes, the States that seceded did retain that power via the tenth amendment.Did the CSofA have a clause in their Constitution about a confederate state, if upset with the government, leaving the Confederacy in peace? If not, why not?
I look at it this way. If there is no right to seccede, then the civil war was a rebellion. And the Union had the authority to put it down.
If there is a right to secede, then the Confederate States attack on federal holdings were an act of war. And the Union had the authority to conquer the Confederate States and annex their territory.
So what you are asserting is that the U.S. Is NOT " a nation of laws"?What's the point of discussing whether it was constitutional or not?doesn't matter one way or another now
It wasn't legal for the 13 colonies to secede, no, but they did anyways. Discussing the "legality" of secession seems asinine.
Oh JAKE, but is does. Russia once occupied east Germany, Poland, the Ukraine and others under the former Soviet Union, and that mattered as well.doesn't matter one way or another now
in a " nation of laws" are you saying YOUR CONstitution is of no relevance,JAKE?A 'trial by arms' resulted from the bombardment on Ft Sumter. The USA won that trial. Nothing else matters.
