The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War

[James Everett]

For how long?

longer that you could live with Civil War and its aftermath

Thank your lucky stars Lincoln kept the Union together.

You wouldn't be here today.

Nor would the United States as you know it.

Yeah, be happy that Lincoln destroyed the union of States by consolidating them into a single national government as a single Soverign, be thankful for the perpetual warmongering and hegemony, be thankful for the trillions in debt that can never be paid. Be thankful for the fiat currency, and the fact that you do not hold alodial title to your property.

 

[James Everett]

The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.

do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?

Yes, I do know what my subject is. The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up. As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.

and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?

Yes. Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.

The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.

 

[Rogue 9]

James, you never did answer the question.

If the Articles government was working so well, why was a convention called to alter it?

The answer to that question is instructive, but I'm curious to see your opinion.

Also, to address this:

One last thing...
Rogue9, You state that YOUR passport shows you as a U.S. citizen; this is because YOU submitted to the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC, I would not expect any ignorant such as you who has clearly shewn himself to have no understanding of his own U.S. CONstitution to understand how to obtain a passport wherein you are a flesh and blood American citizen. I have witnessed this having been accomplished by the Late Douglas McPherson, who had more intelligence in his little toe, than you have in your feeble brain.

Charming. Tell me, did George Washington also submit to "the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC," whatever UCC is supposed to mean in this context? From his Last Will and Testament:

I, George Washington of Mount Vernon, a citizen of the United States and lately President of the same, do make, ordain and declare this instrument, which is written with my own hand and every page thereof subscribed with my name, to be my last Will and Testament, revoking all others.

That isn't exactly new language, sir.

I apologize for letting this get so out of hand; I was occupied all day and into the evening on Wednesday and I'm only just now catching up with the several pages of posts that appeared in the interval.

Rogue9,
I appologize for the delay, but some of us do actually work for a living. Also allow me first to ask you this question.....
Are you, or which one of you idiots is Woodrow Major????
As to your first question.....
"If the Articles government was working so well, why was a convention called to alter it?"
There was a split in the ideals of the Founders' one of which were the nationalists, these were those who quickly hijacked the title of federalists in order to con the people and gain favor and the upper hand, leaving the actual Federalists to be stuck with the label antifederalists.
I somehow doubt that you actually know the difference between the two systems.
These Nationalists wanted a nation of power, grandeur and splendor to rival that of King George's Great Britain.
The real federalists who were falsely labeled anti federalists were content with a simple Confederacy between the States to protect the liberty of the people.
Patrick HEnry explained it well on June 5th 1788.....
"Those Nations who have gone in search of power, grandeur and splendor, have all fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly: While they acquired those visionary blessings, THEY LOST THEIR FREEDOM.
The Articles were working fine, it all depends on what goal you are trying to achieve, Liberty: or POWER, GRANDEUR, AND SPLENDOR ?
As we can clearly see with 20/20 hindsight, YOUR U.S. has become just what Patrick Henry warned...A nation of POWER Grandeur and Splendor, all at the sacrifice of our Liberty and Privacy. Edward Snowden recently exposed mush of this.
You no longer have a union of States, what you now have is a wholly national system run by a two party duopoly which is owned by the wealthy elite, and is built on hegemony, war and a debt that will never be paid, and will ultimately cause its collapse

Wrong. The Articles of Confederation weren't working at all; the states were individually violating the Treaty of Paris, refusing to pay their debts, and not working in concert on foreign affairs; the Congress was incapable of protecting the borders or the frontier, the national currency was worthless, commerce between the states was in shambles, Rhode Island was charging tolls on the post road, Connecticut opened its ports to British shipping while the other states enforced an embargo in order to profit, rebellions threatened the state governments and Congress could do next to nothing to help, the army went unpaid, and in general there was near-total disarray in the country. The Articles mandated that the Union be perpetual, and to form a "more perfect Union" than that governed by the Articles does not imply intent to change this. An examination of the debates of the Pennsylvania legislature on ratification, just to pick one of many examples, shows this quite clearly (and, on the bargain, shows that the legislators who approved calling a convention rushed to act without the Continental Congress on the explicit premise that the Constitution was a replacement of the Articles, not an alteration of them, and the people could proceed without Congress - which was overwhelmingly in favor in any case).

George Washington stated that he was a citizen of the U.S., NOT A U.S. Citizen.....Do you see the difference?????
I will copy and paste here the difference between a U.S. Citizen, and an American citizen.....
"There appears to be general misunderstanding by people in general as to the difference between a natural person and an artificial person. This document will explain that difference.

John Joseph Smith, is a natural, flesh and blood, person, created by God.

JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is a U.S. corporate artificial person, U.S. citizen, created by the government.

In basic English grammar, a name spelled in upper and lower case, such as John Joseph Smith, is indicative of a flesh and blood man, a natural person.

Person.In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

On the other hand, a name spelled in all caps, such as JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is indicative of an artificial person.

Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons.Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

The "United States" is defined in Title 28 USC Sec. 3002(15)(A) as a "Federal corporation".

It is also a municipal corporation.

Municipal.In narrower, more common, sense, it means pertaining to a local governmental unit, commonly, a city or town or other governmental unit. In its broader sense, it means pertaining to the public or governmental affairs of a state or nation or of a people.Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

So the federal corporation United States, that pertains to the public affairs of a people, would be a municipal corporation.The federal government pertains to the affairs of its sovereign people.

Municipal corporation. A body corporate consisting of the inhabitants of a designated area created by the legislature with or without the consent of such inhabitants for governmental purposes . . .A municipal corporation has a dual character, the one public and the other private, and exercises corresponding twofold functions and duties -- one class consisting of those acts performed by it in the exercise of delegated sovereign powers for benefit of people generally, as arm of the state, enforcing general laws made in pursuance of general policy of the state, and the other consisting of acts done in exercise of power of the municipal corporation for its own benefit, or for the benefit of its citizens alone, or citizens of the municipal corporation and its immediate locality. Black's 6th Ed.

A municipal corporation is an artificial person, as shown above, and consists of the general inhabitants called citizens, and these artificial persons (citizens) were created by the legislature, not by God. A corporation can be a citizen itself, and that corporation can have its own citizens. A corporation also has it's own officers. When a corporation is dissolved, then the officers of that corporation no longer exist. A government has it's own citizens and employees. When that government is dissolved, then those citizens also cease to exist, since both officers and citizens of a corporation are both artificial persons.

Corporate citizen. Corporate status in the state of incorporation . . . Black's 6th Ed.

A municipal corporation in its broader sense, such as the United States, consists of the inhabitants (U.S. citizens) of a designated area (federal United States). And a corporation can through its legislative branch create artificial persons, who are termed citizens of the municipal corporation. Can an artificial person create a flesh and blood natural man? Can the creator create a being superior to itself? Or can an artificial person only create (make) another artificial person?

I claim that when the municipal corporation United States, creates a citizen through legislative act, that citizen is then a corporate U.S. citizen. That corporate citizen's name is spelled in all capital letters, to indicate that it is an artificial person, as distinguished from a natural person whose name is spelled in upper and lower case letters. That corporate citizen is subject to its creator, the U.S. government, and is subject to its exclusive jurisdiction.

Constitution of the United States of America
14th Amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A citizen of the United States is a corporate citizen, with corporate status, created by the corporation called United States, and is acting as their agent for the purpose of collecting revenue. This citizen has only privileges and immunities under the 14th Amendment. A natural person has inalienable rights, secured by the Constitution. A person with corporate status, would have corporate income.



COLLECTIVE ENTITY RULE


Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) This doctrine - known as the collective entity rule- has a lengthy and distinguished pedigree.

What is a "collective entity"? A collective entity is simply a corporate entity. Since the status of U.S. citizen can be created by naturalization let's see what naturalization is, and determine if a U.S. citizen is part of a collective entity.

Naturalization.The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the privileges of U.S. citizenship. In the United States collective naturalization occurs when designated groups are made citizens by treaty (as Louisiana Purchase), or by a law of Congress (as in annexation of Texas and Hawaii). Black's 6th Ed.

Person.Scope and delineation of term necessary for determining to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protections since this Amendment expressly applies to "person".

Let's review the definition of artificial person.

Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.

The 14th Amendment applies to "persons", and person in legal parlance means an artificial person, in distinction from a natural person. "Collective" "naturalization occurs when designated groups" (inhabitants) "are made (created) citizens by a law of Congress". These artificial persons were "created and devised by human laws (14th Amendment U.S. citizen) for the (revenue) purposes of society and government", and have their names spelled in all capital letters. These designated groups are "made" or created corporate citizens/employees and are distinguished from natural persons.

A natural person, with his named spelled in upper and lower case letters, has inalienable rights, and is NOT a corporate U.S. citizen. An artificial person, and corporate citizen of the United States, has his name spelled in all capital letters. A natural person cannot be an artificial person at the same time.

The theme of the collective entity rule states:
Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) quoting, United States v. White 322 U.S. 694 (1944) But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties, nor be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agentsor officers and they are bound by its obligations.

Under the collective entity rule, if John Joseph Smith contracted to be a representative or agent of the corporate citizen JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, then he would not be able to exercise his inalienable rights, which are his personal rights. John Joseph Smith (American Citizen) is contracting to be the agent of JOHN JOSEPH SMITH (U.S. citizen), thereby waiving his inalienable rights.

After the birth of John Joseph Smith, a new artificial person was created (JOHN JOSEPH SMITH), by the 14th Amendment, under the collective entity rule, and was naturalized as a corporate citizen of the United States. This did not destroy the natural person, but simply created a second separate legal entity, a legal fiction, artificial person. This legal fiction was created as an agent (U.S. citizen) of the corporate U.S. government to engage in commerce and collect revenue for the governments, federal, state, and local. You contracted to represent this artificial perosn, thereby waiving your inalienable rights.

A sovereign flesh and blood person is an American Citizen.

A corporate U.S. citizen is an artificial person and is a government agent/employee.

WHICH ONE ARE YOU?"
There has been much work posted on this subject.

That is pseudolegal gobbledygook nonsense. Incidentally, my passport also says I'm a citizen of the United States, not a U.S. citizen, the exact wording of Washington that you claim is so different. So much for that theory.

The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.

What assertions are incorrect, sir? Also, it is not intended to address the legality of secession as its primary subject, but rather the motives behind it, which are quite clear and not in serious dispute by anyone who can actually read the declarations of the secession conventions.

 

[Rogue 9]

Rotagilla , while we're at it I'd like to address one assertion you've made repeatedly: That this is the result of public school education. That is utter nonsense as well; go crack a high school history textbook sometime and you will find that they are one and all wishy-washy about why the Confederacy seceded, and they will never present the particular primary source documents that I've cited in the OP and elsewhere in the thread. Textbook publishers need to sell books, and the school boards of the Deep South, particularly Texas where book buying is centralized to the degree that the one state corners the market, will not buy textbooks that tell these truths. No public school education would result in this alone; I've put in hundreds of hours researching primary sources from the period on my own and they all point to the same conclusion.

 

[Ravi]

It was always unconstitutional.

Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
Your opinion doesn't matter here.

America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?

america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the union.

Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?

Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?

Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.

We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?

Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
Corrections will be made.

You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.

 

[Ravi]

Need more?

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.
THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

"WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.

On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ;

whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.

The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."


They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War.

Paperview, you asked.... "Need more?"
Yes, in fact we need you to post the answer to the only relevant issue. Please cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act. Everything else is irrelevant because even if all that you post is an act of war, then the Southern Confederate States were no longer part of the U.S. Hence the U.S. Cannot constitutionally force States to become a member State in the union. Hence we are indeed illegally occupied by the U.S. Which is called tyranny just as it was under the former Soviet Union. Please cite that law!!!!!!

It doesn't really matter. The South lost, wether as a conquered foreign nation or an illegally seceding group of states.

 

[James Everett]

James, you never did answer the question.

If the Articles government was working so well, why was a convention called to alter it?

The answer to that question is instructive, but I'm curious to see your opinion.

Also, to address this:

One last thing...
Rogue9, You state that YOUR passport shows you as a U.S. citizen; this is because YOU submitted to the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC, I would not expect any ignorant such as you who has clearly shewn himself to have no understanding of his own U.S. CONstitution to understand how to obtain a passport wherein you are a flesh and blood American citizen. I have witnessed this having been accomplished by the Late Douglas McPherson, who had more intelligence in his little toe, than you have in your feeble brain.

Charming. Tell me, did George Washington also submit to "the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC," whatever UCC is supposed to mean in this context? From his Last Will and Testament:

I, George Washington of Mount Vernon, a citizen of the United States and lately President of the same, do make, ordain and declare this instrument, which is written with my own hand and every page thereof subscribed with my name, to be my last Will and Testament, revoking all others.

That isn't exactly new language, sir.

I apologize for letting this get so out of hand; I was occupied all day and into the evening on Wednesday and I'm only just now catching up with the several pages of posts that appeared in the interval.

Rogue9,
I appologize for the delay, but some of us do actually work for a living. Also allow me first to ask you this question.....
Are you, or which one of you idiots is Woodrow Major????
As to your first question.....
"If the Articles government was working so well, why was a convention called to alter it?"
There was a split in the ideals of the Founders' one of which were the nationalists, these were those who quickly hijacked the title of federalists in order to con the people and gain favor and the upper hand, leaving the actual Federalists to be stuck with the label antifederalists.
I somehow doubt that you actually know the difference between the two systems.
These Nationalists wanted a nation of power, grandeur and splendor to rival that of King George's Great Britain.
The real federalists who were falsely labeled anti federalists were content with a simple Confederacy between the States to protect the liberty of the people.
Patrick HEnry explained it well on June 5th 1788.....
"Those Nations who have gone in search of power, grandeur and splendor, have all fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly: While they acquired those visionary blessings, THEY LOST THEIR FREEDOM.
The Articles were working fine, it all depends on what goal you are trying to achieve, Liberty: or POWER, GRANDEUR, AND SPLENDOR ?
As we can clearly see with 20/20 hindsight, YOUR U.S. has become just what Patrick Henry warned...A nation of POWER Grandeur and Splendor, all at the sacrifice of our Liberty and Privacy. Edward Snowden recently exposed mush of this.
You no longer have a union of States, what you now have is a wholly national system run by a two party duopoly which is owned by the wealthy elite, and is built on hegemony, war and a debt that will never be paid, and will ultimately cause its collapse

Wrong. The Articles of Confederation weren't working at all; the states were individually violating the Treaty of Paris, refusing to pay their debts, and not working in concert on foreign affairs; the Congress was incapable of protecting the borders or the frontier, the national currency was worthless, commerce between the states was in shambles, Rhode Island was charging tolls on the post road, Connecticut opened its ports to British shipping while the other states enforced an embargo in order to profit, rebellions threatened the state governments and Congress could do next to nothing to help, the army went unpaid, and in general there was near-total disarray in the country. The Articles mandated that the Union be perpetual, and to form a "more perfect Union" than that governed by the Articles does not imply intent to change this. An examination of the debates of the Pennsylvania legislature on ratification, just to pick one of many examples, shows this quite clearly (and, on the bargain, shows that the legislators who approved calling a convention rushed to act without the Continental Congress on the explicit premise that the Constitution was a replacement of the Articles, not an alteration of them, and the people could proceed without Congress - which was overwhelmingly in favor in any case).

George Washington stated that he was a citizen of the U.S., NOT A U.S. Citizen.....Do you see the difference?????
I will copy and paste here the difference between a U.S. Citizen, and an American citizen.....
"There appears to be general misunderstanding by people in general as to the difference between a natural person and an artificial person. This document will explain that difference.

John Joseph Smith, is a natural, flesh and blood, person, created by God.

JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is a U.S. corporate artificial person, U.S. citizen, created by the government.

In basic English grammar, a name spelled in upper and lower case, such as John Joseph Smith, is indicative of a flesh and blood man, a natural person.

Person.In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

On the other hand, a name spelled in all caps, such as JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is indicative of an artificial person.

Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons.Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

The "United States" is defined in Title 28 USC Sec. 3002(15)(A) as a "Federal corporation".

It is also a municipal corporation.

Municipal.In narrower, more common, sense, it means pertaining to a local governmental unit, commonly, a city or town or other governmental unit. In its broader sense, it means pertaining to the public or governmental affairs of a state or nation or of a people.Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

So the federal corporation United States, that pertains to the public affairs of a people, would be a municipal corporation.The federal government pertains to the affairs of its sovereign people.

Municipal corporation. A body corporate consisting of the inhabitants of a designated area created by the legislature with or without the consent of such inhabitants for governmental purposes . . .A municipal corporation has a dual character, the one public and the other private, and exercises corresponding twofold functions and duties -- one class consisting of those acts performed by it in the exercise of delegated sovereign powers for benefit of people generally, as arm of the state, enforcing general laws made in pursuance of general policy of the state, and the other consisting of acts done in exercise of power of the municipal corporation for its own benefit, or for the benefit of its citizens alone, or citizens of the municipal corporation and its immediate locality. Black's 6th Ed.

A municipal corporation is an artificial person, as shown above, and consists of the general inhabitants called citizens, and these artificial persons (citizens) were created by the legislature, not by God. A corporation can be a citizen itself, and that corporation can have its own citizens. A corporation also has it's own officers. When a corporation is dissolved, then the officers of that corporation no longer exist. A government has it's own citizens and employees. When that government is dissolved, then those citizens also cease to exist, since both officers and citizens of a corporation are both artificial persons.

Corporate citizen. Corporate status in the state of incorporation . . . Black's 6th Ed.

A municipal corporation in its broader sense, such as the United States, consists of the inhabitants (U.S. citizens) of a designated area (federal United States). And a corporation can through its legislative branch create artificial persons, who are termed citizens of the municipal corporation. Can an artificial person create a flesh and blood natural man? Can the creator create a being superior to itself? Or can an artificial person only create (make) another artificial person?

I claim that when the municipal corporation United States, creates a citizen through legislative act, that citizen is then a corporate U.S. citizen. That corporate citizen's name is spelled in all capital letters, to indicate that it is an artificial person, as distinguished from a natural person whose name is spelled in upper and lower case letters. That corporate citizen is subject to its creator, the U.S. government, and is subject to its exclusive jurisdiction.

Constitution of the United States of America
14th Amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A citizen of the United States is a corporate citizen, with corporate status, created by the corporation called United States, and is acting as their agent for the purpose of collecting revenue. This citizen has only privileges and immunities under the 14th Amendment. A natural person has inalienable rights, secured by the Constitution. A person with corporate status, would have corporate income.



COLLECTIVE ENTITY RULE


Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) This doctrine - known as the collective entity rule- has a lengthy and distinguished pedigree.

What is a "collective entity"? A collective entity is simply a corporate entity. Since the status of U.S. citizen can be created by naturalization let's see what naturalization is, and determine if a U.S. citizen is part of a collective entity.

Naturalization.The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the privileges of U.S. citizenship. In the United States collective naturalization occurs when designated groups are made citizens by treaty (as Louisiana Purchase), or by a law of Congress (as in annexation of Texas and Hawaii). Black's 6th Ed.

Person.Scope and delineation of term necessary for determining to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protections since this Amendment expressly applies to "person".

Let's review the definition of artificial person.

Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.

The 14th Amendment applies to "persons", and person in legal parlance means an artificial person, in distinction from a natural person. "Collective" "naturalization occurs when designated groups" (inhabitants) "are made (created) citizens by a law of Congress". These artificial persons were "created and devised by human laws (14th Amendment U.S. citizen) for the (revenue) purposes of society and government", and have their names spelled in all capital letters. These designated groups are "made" or created corporate citizens/employees and are distinguished from natural persons.

A natural person, with his named spelled in upper and lower case letters, has inalienable rights, and is NOT a corporate U.S. citizen. An artificial person, and corporate citizen of the United States, has his name spelled in all capital letters. A natural person cannot be an artificial person at the same time.

The theme of the collective entity rule states:
Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) quoting, United States v. White 322 U.S. 694 (1944) But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties, nor be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agentsor officers and they are bound by its obligations.

Under the collective entity rule, if John Joseph Smith contracted to be a representative or agent of the corporate citizen JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, then he would not be able to exercise his inalienable rights, which are his personal rights. John Joseph Smith (American Citizen) is contracting to be the agent of JOHN JOSEPH SMITH (U.S. citizen), thereby waiving his inalienable rights.

After the birth of John Joseph Smith, a new artificial person was created (JOHN JOSEPH SMITH), by the 14th Amendment, under the collective entity rule, and was naturalized as a corporate citizen of the United States. This did not destroy the natural person, but simply created a second separate legal entity, a legal fiction, artificial person. This legal fiction was created as an agent (U.S. citizen) of the corporate U.S. government to engage in commerce and collect revenue for the governments, federal, state, and local. You contracted to represent this artificial perosn, thereby waiving your inalienable rights.

A sovereign flesh and blood person is an American Citizen.

A corporate U.S. citizen is an artificial person and is a government agent/employee.

WHICH ONE ARE YOU?"
There has been much work posted on this subject.

That is pseudolegal gobbledygook nonsense. Incidentally, my passport also says I'm a citizen of the United States, not a U.S. citizen, the exact wording of Washington that you claim is so different. So much for that theory.

The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.

What assertions are incorrect, sir? Also, it is not intended to address the legality of secession as its primary subject, but rather the motives behind it, which are quite clear and not in serious dispute by anyone who can actually read the declarations of the secession conventions.

Rogue9, You have stated....
"An examination of the debates of the Pennsylvania legislature on ratification, just to pick one of many examples, shows this quite clearly (and, on the bargain, shows that the legislators who approved calling a convention rushed to act without the Continental Congress on the explicit premise that the Constitution was a replacement of the Articles, not an alteration of them, and the people could proceed without Congress - which was overwhelmingly in favor in any case)."
And further you state....
"The Articles mandated that the Union be perpetual, and to form a "more perfect Union" than that governed by the Articles does not imply intent to change this."
You posted it herein..."the Constitution was a replacement of the Articles, "
The union was to be perpetual under the Articles of Confederation, it was NOT a mandate that each State were to remain forcibly united, such would be contrary to the very definition of "union"
Union is ...
To Uni'te. i}. n.
1. To join; to concur ; to act
in concert.
When force is employed then union is replaced by tyranny.
When a man and a woman marry, that is a union. If the man or the woman no longer wish to remain united in matrimony, then that party may severe his/her ties to the other, via divorce or separation. To state otherwise would be to state that the union has become an obduction of the unwilling party.
If the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution replaced the Articles, and then did NOT state within this new CONstitution that this new agreement was that this new union would be perpetual; Then what YOU believe to be implied is irrelevant. What is enumerated is what is relevant.
We the people in order to form a more perfect union....
It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live under it. It does not say that their “posterity” will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquillity, liberty, etc.
Equally, it does not purport to be a perpetual union of States as did the Articles.
Next, as we see it was indeed a violation of the lawful authority of the Articles of Confederation, an act of rebellion to that lawful authority, in that as YOU have presented here thereof.....
The Congress without the consent of every State's legislature made claim that only nine would be needed for ratification. This was clearly a violation of Articles #XIII....
"nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
The Articles were i place for only SIX years, and were amendable upon the confirmation of every States legislature. How many Congressional sessions were held? Nine?
The Articles weren't working because as you stated....
"The Articles of Confederation weren't working at all; the states were individually violating the Treaty of Paris, refusing to pay their debts, and not working in concert on foreign affairs; the Congress was incapable of protecting the borders or the frontier, the national currency was worthless, commerce between the states was in shambles, Rhode Island was charging tolls on the post road, Connecticut opened its ports to British shipping while the other states enforced an embargo in order to profit, rebellions threatened the state governments and Congress could do next to nothing to help, the army went unpaid, and in general there was near-total disarray in the country."
Yet in the ninety years of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, we see there were far more issues proving after as many as ninety years that the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was not working, leading to the bloodiest war in history, and the destruction of federalism, the States,the union, our liberty, and a complete consolidation into a single national government system all as a result of a CONstitution that wasn't working which allowed Lincolns Rebellion to its lawful authority, creating yet another system of government without following the lawful authority in place at that time.
You now have a two party duopoly in control, rather than a union of States. There is MORE DISUNION THAN EVER, not between the States, which no longer exist outside a fictional realm, but between the two party factions that replaced the union of States One need only read the news, and view the so called Red v Blue factions, not to mention what we have going right here on this "message Board". What we Southern Confederates advocate FOR OURSELVES and OUR STATES, is a return to the Articles, so that we may begin the amendment process, and restore the true federal system and Confederacy of States. We will be more than happy to allow your continuation under your own National system.


Concering U.S. Citizen v American citizen, you state....
"That is pseudolegal gobbledygook nonsense"
Yet again, this is your opinion backed by no evidence.
In the explaination that I presented, there is posted account of law, after law, to support what you call....
"pseudolegal gobbledygook nonsense"
This is simply more gratuitous assertion on your part.
At least you did try to support your claim that the Articles were not working, unfortunately your evidence defeated your own claim.

I apologize for my short response and topical rebuttal and explanation, but I must depart, for a long road trip this morning, and will not return until late this evening.
Feel free to reply, and I will get back to you later.
I also have words to post concerning your groups inability to meet the deadline for posting the citing of the law that states that a State cannot secede from the union.
Deo Vindice......

 

[James Everett]

Need more?

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.
THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

"WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.

On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ;

whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.

The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."


They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War.

Paperview, you asked.... "Need more?"
Yes, in fact we need you to post the answer to the only relevant issue. Please cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act. Everything else is irrelevant because even if all that you post is an act of war, then the Southern Confederate States were no longer part of the U.S. Hence the U.S. Cannot constitutionally force States to become a member State in the union. Hence we are indeed illegally occupied by the U.S. Which is called tyranny just as it was under the former Soviet Union. Please cite that law!!!!!!

It doesn't really matter. The South lost, wether as a conquered foreign nation or an illegally seceding group of states.

What you are stating is that we remain under the occupation of the United States.......

 

[paperview]

 

[Discombobulated]

Need more?

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.
THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

"WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.

On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ;

whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.

The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."


They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War.

Paperview, you asked.... "Need more?"
Yes, in fact we need you to post the answer to the only relevant issue. Please cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act. Everything else is irrelevant because even if all that you post is an act of war, then the Southern Confederate States were no longer part of the U.S. Hence the U.S. Cannot constitutionally force States to become a member State in the union. Hence we are indeed illegally occupied by the U.S. Which is called tyranny just as it was under the former Soviet Union. Please cite that law!!!!!!

It doesn't really matter. The South lost, wether as a conquered foreign nation or an illegally seceding group of states.

What you are stating is that we remain under the occupation of the United States.......

And I'm stating that you are a complete fucking idiot who can't be taught.

 

[Discombobulated]

It was always unconstitutional.

Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
Your opinion doesn't matter here.

America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?

america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the union.

Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?

Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?

Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.

We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?

Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
Corrections will be made.

You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.

Not quite. If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.

 

[James Everett]

Need more?

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.
THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

"WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.

On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ;

whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.

The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."


They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War.

Paperview, you asked.... "Need more?"
Yes, in fact we need you to post the answer to the only relevant issue. Please cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act. Everything else is irrelevant because even if all that you post is an act of war, then the Southern Confederate States were no longer part of the U.S. Hence the U.S. Cannot constitutionally force States to become a member State in the union. Hence we are indeed illegally occupied by the U.S. Which is called tyranny just as it was under the former Soviet Union. Please cite that law!!!!!!

It doesn't really matter. The South lost, wether as a conquered foreign nation or an illegally seceding group of states.

What you are stating is that we remain under the occupation of the United States.......

And I'm stating that you are a complete fucking idiot who can't be taught.

Spreading your BS is not teaching. You need to sit down, shut up, listen and learn.

 

[James Everett]

It was always unconstitutional.

Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
Your opinion doesn't matter here.

America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?

america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the union.

Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?

Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?

Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.

We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?

Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
Corrections will be made.

You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.

Not quite. If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.

Unfortunately they for the north the Southerners were not traitors. They were patriots.

 

[Discombobulated]

Need more?

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.
THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

"WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.

On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ;

whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.

The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."


They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War.

Paperview, you asked.... "Need more?"
Yes, in fact we need you to post the answer to the only relevant issue. Please cite the law that states that secession is an illegal act. Everything else is irrelevant because even if all that you post is an act of war, then the Southern Confederate States were no longer part of the U.S. Hence the U.S. Cannot constitutionally force States to become a member State in the union. Hence we are indeed illegally occupied by the U.S. Which is called tyranny just as it was under the former Soviet Union. Please cite that law!!!!!!

It doesn't really matter. The South lost, wether as a conquered foreign nation or an illegally seceding group of states.

What you are stating is that we remain under the occupation of the United States.......

And I'm stating that you are a complete fucking idiot who can't be taught.

Spreading your BS is not teaching. You need to sit down, shut up, listen and learn.

You have failed completely to establish any part of your alleged premise.

 

[Discombobulated]

Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
Your opinion doesn't matter here.


america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the union.

Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?

Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?

Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.

We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?

Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
Corrections will be made.

You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.

Not quite. If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.

Unfortunately they for the north the Southerners were not traitors. They were patriots.

Looks like it's time for the next history lesson, pay attention so you can answer questions later.

South Carolina Secession Part 1 Video C-SPAN.org

 

[Discombobulated]

There never was any constitutionally legal justification for secession. But you certainly could argue that many Confederates sincerely believed they had that right.

Southern Perceptions Abraham Lincoln Video C-SPAN.org

 

[James Everett]

There never was any constitutionally legal justification for secession. But you certainly could argue that many Confederates sincerely believed they had that right.

Southern Perceptions Abraham Lincoln Video C-SPAN.org

No justification was needed, there was nor iss law to preventaState from exiting the union. You just don't get it. Do you? Do you needed justification to severe a relationship with a friend or leave your job? What is it about NO LAW that you don't understand?

 

[Discombobulated]

There never was any constitutionally legal justification for secession. But you certainly could argue that many Confederates sincerely believed they had that right.

Southern Perceptions Abraham Lincoln Video C-SPAN.org

No justification was needed, there was nor iss law to preventaState from exiting the union. You just don't get it. Do you? Do you needed justification to severe a relationship with a friend or leave your job? What is it about NO LAW that you don't understand?

What I do understand is that if want to peacefully dismember this nation you need a formalized legal process to do so.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. The Slave Power had to go.

pure idiotic lunacy!! Slavery had been around for 20,000 years. It did not have to go in 1863 as if that was some sort of deadline, and it certainly did not have to go at the cost of 800,000 lives!!

Do you realize 800,000 human beings is a lot of human beings? Do you realize most died very very slowly in great agony?? What is wrong with your ability to think?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yeah, fuck the 4 million who were property -

Conservatives believe in slow change. The Civil War was a disaster any way you look at it. President of Harvard has a book out saying the only reason Lincoln is a hero is so we don't have to face the 800,000 dead for next to nothing as he stupidly enhanced the power of the liberal federal govt 1000 times.