Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[ThoughtCrimes]

From the perspective of a southern bigot begat by the traitors of the Southern Rebellion, I guess one of that sort could see it like that through their distorted lens.

They were no more "traitors" than the colonists (patriots) in 1776 who wanted to peacefully secede from england....england wouldn't have it and they invaded....exactly the same as lincoln.

Regardless of how loud and long you protest, that will never fly. The BIG DIFFERENCE is that the founders, the Revolutionaries rebelled against the despotic rule and tyrannical governance of Crazy King George III. Where was the Southern Declaration of Independence with the list of tyrannies perpetrated by the United States against them when the South initiated their REBELLION! I'm thinking you really need to look at Article III Sec. 3 of the Constitution...better yet I'll post it for your lazy ass!

US Constitution - Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." [Emphasis Added]

You are lucky that your ancestors of the Southern Rebellion were given amnesty by swearing an Oath of Allegiance to the United States along with their traitorous conduct didn't taint your birthright by blood relationship!

Those who sided with and then took part in the Southern Rebellion were, indeed, TRAITORS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Q.E.D.

But then, "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia." HUH!
~~George O.~~

The south didn't "rebel"..the south tried to peacefully secede....There is no "rule" that you have to publish a "declaration of independence" before you secede..there was no "treason"...What drivel...
We weren't asking permission...
when the north tried to invade to reinforce the fort...which was no longer their property, the south did what any patriots do when their country is invaded..repel the invaders.
You hate the south and southerners..ok..We don't care...but to lie and spread disinformation only makes you look weak...anyone can go read the facts....and they are as stated.

When US forces attempted to "invade to reinforce the fort" [Sumter, a Federal fortification], that was an act of rebellion. You must live in an alternate universe to state otherwise!

the fort didn't belong to them any more. The south even paid the union for many federal properties and arranged safe passage for any troops or civilians there.
lincoln hoped that by sailing ships right into charleston, though...the capital city of the confederacy..he could provoke the south and that would give him the casus belli excuse he needed...
shed your anti white, anti southern bias and read some history... or try to debunk any of the quotes from the people there at the time...the whole world was watching...educate yourself on this subject.

Produce the deed, the legislative record for both the Federal and the S. Carolina regarding the sale! You won't because you can't! Here is the legislative record of S. Carolina when they sold it to the Federal Guv'ment in 1836;

"Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S."
http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

Now where is the proof that S. Carolina bought the Fort back and held title to the property. It's one thing to make a claim, but if you're going to make an outrageous claim like this one, you had better be able to back it up! So where is your proof, putz? Put up or shut up!

 

[there4eyeM]

Pretzels, anyone? The logic kind are in great supply here, provided by 'gilla..

 

[Rotagilla]

They were no more "traitors" than the colonists (patriots) in 1776 who wanted to peacefully secede from england....england wouldn't have it and they invaded....exactly the same as lincoln.

Regardless of how loud and long you protest, that will never fly. The BIG DIFFERENCE is that the founders, the Revolutionaries rebelled against the despotic rule and tyrannical governance of Crazy King George III. Where was the Southern Declaration of Independence with the list of tyrannies perpetrated by the United States against them when the South initiated their REBELLION! I'm thinking you really need to look at Article III Sec. 3 of the Constitution...better yet I'll post it for your lazy ass!

US Constitution - Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." [Emphasis Added]

You are lucky that your ancestors of the Southern Rebellion were given amnesty by swearing an Oath of Allegiance to the United States along with their traitorous conduct didn't taint your birthright by blood relationship!

Those who sided with and then took part in the Southern Rebellion were, indeed, TRAITORS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Q.E.D.

But then, "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia." HUH!
~~George O.~~

The south didn't "rebel"..the south tried to peacefully secede....There is no "rule" that you have to publish a "declaration of independence" before you secede..there was no "treason"...What drivel...
We weren't asking permission...
when the north tried to invade to reinforce the fort...which was no longer their property, the south did what any patriots do when their country is invaded..repel the invaders.
You hate the south and southerners..ok..We don't care...but to lie and spread disinformation only makes you look weak...anyone can go read the facts....and they are as stated.

When US forces attempted to "invade to reinforce the fort" [Sumter, a Federal fortification], that was an act of rebellion. You must live in an alternate universe to state otherwise!

the fort didn't belong to them any more. The south even paid the union for many federal properties and arranged safe passage for any troops or civilians there.
lincoln hoped that by sailing ships right into charleston, though...the capital city of the confederacy..he could provoke the south and that would give him the casus belli excuse he needed...
shed your anti white, anti southern bias and read some history... or try to debunk any of the quotes from the people there at the time...the whole world was watching...educate yourself on this subject.

Produce the deed, the legislative record for both the Federal and the S. Carolina regarding the sale! You won't because you can't! Here is the legislative record of S. Carolina when they sold it to the Federal Guv'ment in 1836;

"Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S."
http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

Now where is the proof that S. Carolina bought the Fort back and held title to the property. It's one thing to make a claim, but if you're going to make an outrageous claim like this one, you had better be able to back it up! So where is your proof, putz? Put up or shut up!

settle down...go back and read it until you understand....I didn't say ft sumter was one of the fed facilities that were paid for by the south...obviously lincoln needed an excuse to start a war with the south and that's why he tried to reinforce THAT fort....knowing that a fed fort in charleston harbor, the capitol of the confederacy, would be provocative, he forced the issue.
All they had to do was withdraw...

it was un-constitutional for Lincoln to interfere with the Southern states leaving the Union, to suspend the rule of law, and to attack unarmed civilians.
again..go read some real history...not the history channel or 8th grade civics class texts...

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I am always bemused by the Confederate fanboys who, after 150 years, still defend an attempted rebel country that was created for the express purpose of maintaining human slavery.

the war wasn't fought to preserve..or end...slavery...

The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861.

Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, Stephens' speech explained the fundamental differences between the constitutions of the Confederacy and that of the United States, enumerated contrasts between U.S. and Confederate ideologies and beliefs, laid out the Confederacy's causes for declaring secession, and defended the enslavement of African Americans.

Stephens' speech declared that African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had put to rest the "agitating questions" as to the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization".


Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got as far as Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, and knew it was a hit piece and skipped the rest...
The south didn't start the war. The north invaded a sovereign country....patriots always repel invader.

Of course you skip over the parts that were too damn hard for you to take and displaying your ignorance and bigotry, OH SON OF THE SOUTH!

 

[Rotagilla]

Pretzels, anyone? The logic kind are in great supply here, provided by 'gilla..

The truth is large ....and usually confusing..... to those that have been indoctrinated by anti southern lies.

 

[Rotagilla]

I am always bemused by the Confederate fanboys who, after 150 years, still defend an attempted rebel country that was created for the express purpose of maintaining human slavery.

the war wasn't fought to preserve..or end...slavery...

The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861.

Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, Stephens' speech explained the fundamental differences between the constitutions of the Confederacy and that of the United States, enumerated contrasts between U.S. and Confederate ideologies and beliefs, laid out the Confederacy's causes for declaring secession, and defended the enslavement of African Americans.

Stephens' speech declared that African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had put to rest the "agitating questions" as to the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization".


Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got as far as Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, and knew it was a hit piece and skipped the rest...
The south didn't start the war. The north invaded a sovereign country....patriots always repel invader.

Of course you skip over the parts that were too damn hard for you to take and displaying your ignorance and bigotry, OH SON OF THE SOUTH!

I've read all the anti south, anti white hit pieces I need to..I notice you won't go anywhere NEAR any of the direct quotes I posted... you won't even acknowledge them...very telling.

 

[there4eyeM]

Not North, not South; objective.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Regardless of how loud and long you protest, that will never fly. The BIG DIFFERENCE is that the founders, the Revolutionaries rebelled against the despotic rule and tyrannical governance of Crazy King George III. Where was the Southern Declaration of Independence with the list of tyrannies perpetrated by the United States against them when the South initiated their REBELLION! I'm thinking you really need to look at Article III Sec. 3 of the Constitution...better yet I'll post it for your lazy ass!

US Constitution - Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." [Emphasis Added]

You are lucky that your ancestors of the Southern Rebellion were given amnesty by swearing an Oath of Allegiance to the United States along with their traitorous conduct didn't taint your birthright by blood relationship!

Those who sided with and then took part in the Southern Rebellion were, indeed, TRAITORS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Q.E.D.

But then, "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia." HUH!
~~George O.~~

The south didn't "rebel"..the south tried to peacefully secede....There is no "rule" that you have to publish a "declaration of independence" before you secede..there was no "treason"...What drivel...
We weren't asking permission...
when the north tried to invade to reinforce the fort...which was no longer their property, the south did what any patriots do when their country is invaded..repel the invaders.
You hate the south and southerners..ok..We don't care...but to lie and spread disinformation only makes you look weak...anyone can go read the facts....and they are as stated.

When US forces attempted to "invade to reinforce the fort" [Sumter, a Federal fortification], that was an act of rebellion. You must live in an alternate universe to state otherwise!

the fort didn't belong to them any more. The south even paid the union for many federal properties and arranged safe passage for any troops or civilians there.
lincoln hoped that by sailing ships right into charleston, though...the capital city of the confederacy..he could provoke the south and that would give him the casus belli excuse he needed...
shed your anti white, anti southern bias and read some history... or try to debunk any of the quotes from the people there at the time...the whole world was watching...educate yourself on this subject.

Produce the deed, the legislative record for both the Federal and the S. Carolina regarding the sale! You won't because you can't! Here is the legislative record of S. Carolina when they sold it to the Federal Guv'ment in 1836;

"Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S."
http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

Now where is the proof that S. Carolina bought the Fort back and held title to the property. It's one thing to make a claim, but if you're going to make an outrageous claim like this one, you had better be able to back it up! So where is your proof, putz? Put up or shut up!

settle down...go back and read it until you understand....I didn't say ft sumter was one of the fed facilities that were paid for by the south...obviously lincoln needed an excuse to start a war with the south and that's why he tried to reinforce THAT fort....knowing that a fed fort in charleston harbor, the capitol of the confederacy, would be provocative, he forced the issue.
All they had to do was withdraw...

it was un-constitutional for Lincoln to interfere with the Southern states leaving the Union, to suspend the rule of law, and to attack unarmed civilians.
again..go read some real history...not the history channel or 8th grade civics class texts...

You wrote what you wrote...it's part of the record. You're a total IDIOT, and as intellectually bankrupt as I've ever encountered!

 

[Rotagilla]

The south didn't "rebel"..the south tried to peacefully secede....There is no "rule" that you have to publish a "declaration of independence" before you secede..there was no "treason"...What drivel...
We weren't asking permission...
when the north tried to invade to reinforce the fort...which was no longer their property, the south did what any patriots do when their country is invaded..repel the invaders.
You hate the south and southerners..ok..We don't care...but to lie and spread disinformation only makes you look weak...anyone can go read the facts....and they are as stated.

When US forces attempted to "invade to reinforce the fort" [Sumter, a Federal fortification], that was an act of rebellion. You must live in an alternate universe to state otherwise!

the fort didn't belong to them any more. The south even paid the union for many federal properties and arranged safe passage for any troops or civilians there.
lincoln hoped that by sailing ships right into charleston, though...the capital city of the confederacy..he could provoke the south and that would give him the casus belli excuse he needed...
shed your anti white, anti southern bias and read some history... or try to debunk any of the quotes from the people there at the time...the whole world was watching...educate yourself on this subject.

Produce the deed, the legislative record for both the Federal and the S. Carolina regarding the sale! You won't because you can't! Here is the legislative record of S. Carolina when they sold it to the Federal Guv'ment in 1836;

"Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S."
http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

Now where is the proof that S. Carolina bought the Fort back and held title to the property. It's one thing to make a claim, but if you're going to make an outrageous claim like this one, you had better be able to back it up! So where is your proof, putz? Put up or shut up!

settle down...go back and read it until you understand....I didn't say ft sumter was one of the fed facilities that were paid for by the south...obviously lincoln needed an excuse to start a war with the south and that's why he tried to reinforce THAT fort....knowing that a fed fort in charleston harbor, the capitol of the confederacy, would be provocative, he forced the issue.
All they had to do was withdraw...

it was un-constitutional for Lincoln to interfere with the Southern states leaving the Union, to suspend the rule of law, and to attack unarmed civilians.
again..go read some real history...not the history channel or 8th grade civics class texts...

You wrote what you wrote...it's part of the record. You're a total IDIOT, and as intellectually bankrupt as I've ever encountered!

I never said the csa paid for ft sumter...you made that up.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Trump never said the 14th amendment was unconstitutional, and it's obvious why. He said that O'Reilly's (misquoted) version was unconstitutional.

It's a hoot watching people try to tear him down for something he never said in the first place.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Trump never said the 14th amendment was unconstitutional. It's obvious why. He said that O'Reilly's (misquoted) version was unconstitutional.

It's a hoot watching people try to tear him down for something he never said in the first place.

But the "controversy" does give rise to questions.

If Trump becomes President, might he be intending to say:

"The 14th amendment says anchor babies are citizens if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That's open to interpretation. And my interpretation is, since they're children of citizens of another country who are here illegally, they are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction", and so they are not citizens. The 14th was clearly intended to make freed slaves who were born here or brought here legally (according to the laws at the time) citizens, not children of people who stepped across the border illegally just to drop a baby and gain a foothold in this country.

"And so, since I have sworn to uphold the Constitution, I will issue an Executive Order saying that children of illegal aliens are NOT citizens, and all the ones born here from now on, will be deported along with the illegal-alien woman who bore them, and any other illegal aliens (father?) who are with her at the time.

"There is more evidence that my interpretation is correct, than there is for saying Federal laws restricting guns are constitutional. So that's what I will do. And if anyone doesn't like it, they have to get a court ruling, which I'll appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, saying that it's NOT constitutional."



That is one way to go. Sure, the usual open-borders screamers will fight him tooth and nail, but he's used to that, and he'll carry it through anyway. Obama is using the same tactics (with less justification) in issuing Executive orders to change duly passed laws. It would make a pleasant change if President Trump were to issue some to bring U.S. policy closer to what the Constitution actually requires.

Then he can step back and, instead of trying to push through what he wants, just let the open-borders hysterics spend their efforts trying to stop him. He's the President, and they're not.

 

[EriktheRed]

Are you progressives actually going to NOW argue that an Amendment to a Constitution makes it part of that Constitution and therefore legitimate?

Cause I want to direct your attentions to Strauss v. Horton in which ALL you mofo's defended the ruling that the Amendment was "Unconstitutional".....

An Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it part of the United States Constitution- which the 14th Amendments is.

An Amendment to the California State Constitution can be found to be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution- which supercedes State's Constitution.

In fact, it does not.....

Unless of course, the 9th and 10th Amendments are not part of the Constitution.....oh wait, they are....

However, that was NOT My point.

My point is the hypocrisy of the progressives on this forum...

Its the Constitution when it suits them......Its UN-Constitutional when it suits them.

Hi, Pot.

 

[Dad2three]

I am always bemused by the Confederate fanboys who, after 150 years, still defend an attempted rebel country that was created for the express purpose of maintaining human slavery.

the war wasn't fought to preserve..or end...slavery...

The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861.

Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, Stephens' speech explained the fundamental differences between the constitutions of the Confederacy and that of the United States, enumerated contrasts between U.S. and Confederate ideologies and beliefs, laid out the Confederacy's causes for declaring secession, and defended the enslavement of African Americans.

Stephens' speech declared that African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had put to rest the "agitating questions" as to the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization".


Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got as far as Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, and knew it was a hit piece and skipped the rest...
The south didn't start the war. The north invaded a sovereign country....patriots always repel invader.

Mississippi's Declaration of Secession: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."



From Texas' Declaration: "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."


Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery

Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery

Oh stop..southerners and southern leaders knew slavery was going to fade on its own...the industrial revolution was beginning and it was easier and more efficient to use machines than farm animals. Machines didn't need to be fed, housed or clothed.

The cotton states were the ones who made sure to thumb their nose at the fed gvt by mentioning slaves in their constitutions.

The north forced the issue and the south had to address it..and they did by saying essentially that we'll handle our business and you keep out of it.
then the north invaded and the war criminal lincoln turned his armies loose on civilians.




The war was fought over unfair tariffs and taxes.
Read some history.

Sure Bubba, sure. Pretty sure however, I needed to read a few history books when I got my minor in history...




The Civil War Was About Slavery. Confederate Leaders Were Totally Clear On This

Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, said the Southern states would fight to keep “the negro” in “his place” in a hard-to-misread statement on the day the Civil War began:



Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, cited slavery as the reason for going to war in 1861 and rallied in its defense until his death in 1889. His take on the Emancipation Proclamation, reiterated in his memoirs, is quite telling:


The Confederate leaders couldn't have been clearer about what they were fighting for.


MANY more here:

The Civil War Was About Slavery. Confederate Leaders Were Very Clear.

 

[Rotagilla]

Sure Bubba, sure. Pretty sure however, I needed to read a few history books when I got my minor in history..

You should ask for your money back, "professor"...you were badly cheated.

What was your major? "african studies" or "evil white colonialist racist studies"

 

[EriktheRed]

I am always bemused by the Confederate fanboys who, after 150 years, still defend an attempted rebel country that was created for the express purpose of maintaining human slavery.

the war wasn't fought to preserve..or end...slavery...

The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861.

Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, Stephens' speech explained the fundamental differences between the constitutions of the Confederacy and that of the United States, enumerated contrasts between U.S. and Confederate ideologies and beliefs, laid out the Confederacy's causes for declaring secession, and defended the enslavement of African Americans.

Stephens' speech declared that African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had put to rest the "agitating questions" as to the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization".


Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got as far as Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, and knew it was a hit piece and skipped the rest...
The south didn't start the war. The north invaded a sovereign country....patriots always repel invader.

Mississippi's Declaration of Secession: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."



From Texas' Declaration: "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."


Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery

Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery

Oh stop..southerners and southern leaders knew slavery was going to fade on its own...the industrial revolution was beginning and it was easier and more efficient to use machines than farm animals. Machines didn't need to be fed, housed or clothed.

The cotton states were the ones who made sure to thumb their nose at the fed gvt by mentioning slaves in their constitutions.

The north forced the issue and the south had to address it..and they did by saying essentially that we'll handle our business and you keep out of it.
then the north invaded and the war criminal lincoln turned his armies loose on civilians.




The war was fought over unfair tariffs and taxes.
Read some history.

Was the Civil War About Slavery?

 

[Dad2three]

I am always bemused by the Confederate fanboys who, after 150 years, still defend an attempted rebel country that was created for the express purpose of maintaining human slavery.

the war wasn't fought to preserve..or end...slavery...

The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861.

Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, Stephens' speech explained the fundamental differences between the constitutions of the Confederacy and that of the United States, enumerated contrasts between U.S. and Confederate ideologies and beliefs, laid out the Confederacy's causes for declaring secession, and defended the enslavement of African Americans.

Stephens' speech declared that African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had put to rest the "agitating questions" as to the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization".


Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got as far as Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, and knew it was a hit piece and skipped the rest...
The south didn't start the war. The north invaded a sovereign country....patriots always repel invader.

Mississippi's Declaration of Secession: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."



From Texas' Declaration: "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."


Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery

Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery

Oh stop..southerners and southern leaders knew slavery was going to fade on its own...the industrial revolution was beginning and it was easier and more efficient to use machines than farm animals. Machines didn't need to be fed, housed or clothed.

The cotton states were the ones who made sure to thumb their nose at the fed gvt by mentioning slaves in their constitutions.

The north forced the issue and the south had to address it..and they did by saying essentially that we'll handle our business and you keep out of it.
then the north invaded and the war criminal lincoln turned his armies loose on civilians.




The war was fought over unfair tariffs and taxes.
Read some history.

Dummy Wrote: "Oh stop..southerners and southern leaders knew slavery was going to fade on its own...the industrial revolution was beginning and it was easier and more efficient to use machines than farm animals. Machines didn't need to be fed, housed or clothed."



1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

"With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery."


5 Things That Caused the U.S. Civil War



Slavery led to secession, which led to the Civil War

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Trump never said the 14th amendment was unconstitutional. It's obvious why. He said that O'Reilly's (misquoted) version was unconstitutional.

It's a hoot watching people try to tear him down for something he never said in the first place.

But the "controversy" does give rise to questions.

If Trump becomes President, might he be intending to say:

"The 14th amendment says anchor babies are citizens if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That's open to interpretation. And my interpretation is, since they're children of citizens of another country who are here illegally, they are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction", and so they are not citizens. The 14th was clearly intended to make freed slaves who were born here or brought here legally (according to the laws at the time) citizens, not children of people who stepped across the border illegally just to drop a baby and gain a foothold in this country.

"And so, since I have sworn to uphold the Constitution, I will issue an Executive Order saying that children of illegal aliens are NOT citizens, and all the ones born here from now on, will be deported along with the illegal-alien woman who bore them, and any other illegal aliens (father?) who are with her at the time.

"There is more evidence that my interpretation is correct, than there is for saying Federal laws restricting guns are constitutional. So that's what I will do. And if anyone doesn't like it, they have to get a court ruling, which I'll appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, saying that it's NOT constitutional."



That is one way to go. Sure, the usual open-borders screamers will fight him tooth and nail, but he's used to that, and he'll carry it through anyway. Obama is using the same tactics (with less justification) in issuing Executive orders to change duly passed laws. It would make a pleasant change if President Trump were to issue some to bring U.S. policy closer to what the Constitution actually requires.

Then he can step back and, instead of trying to push through what he wants, just let the open-borders hysterics spend their efforts trying to stop him. He's the President, and they're not.

IF that should come to pass, AND IF a case is attempted to be made that the alleged "anchor babies" are not subject to US jurisdiction, then what would the be the legal basis, the AUTHORITY to deport undocumented foreign nationals and/or their child born within the sovereign borders of the US. The jurisdiction argument is self defeating in that it ignores the obvious conundrum of the faulty logic employed!

 

[Dad2three]

Trump never said the 14th amendment was unconstitutional. It's obvious why. He said that O'Reilly's (misquoted) version was unconstitutional.

It's a hoot watching people try to tear him down for something he never said in the first place.

But the "controversy" does give rise to questions.

If Trump becomes President, might he be intending to say:

"The 14th amendment says anchor babies are citizens if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That's open to interpretation. And my interpretation is, since they're children of citizens of another country who are here illegally, they are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction", and so they are not citizens. The 14th was clearly intended to make freed slaves who were born here or brought here legally (according to the laws at the time) citizens, not children of people who stepped across the border illegally just to drop a baby and gain a foothold in this country.

"And so, since I have sworn to uphold the Constitution, I will issue an Executive Order saying that children of illegal aliens are NOT citizens, and all the ones born here from now on, will be deported along with the illegal-alien woman who bore them, and any other illegal aliens (father?) who are with her at the time.

"There is more evidence that my interpretation is correct, than there is for saying Federal laws restricting guns are constitutional. So that's what I will do. And if anyone doesn't like it, they have to get a court ruling, which I'll appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, saying that it's NOT constitutional."



That is one way to go. Sure, the usual open-borders screamers will fight him tooth and nail, but he's used to that, and he'll carry it through anyway. Obama is using the same tactics (with less justification) in issuing Executive orders to change duly passed laws. It would make a pleasant change if President Trump were to issue some to bring U.S. policy closer to what the Constitution actually requires.

Then he can step back and, instead of trying to push through what he wants, just let the open-borders hysterics spend their efforts trying to stop him. He's the President, and they're not.

Trump disagreed, and said that “many lawyers are saying that’s not the way it is in terms of this.”

“What happens is, they’re in Mexico, they’re going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby,” Trump said, telling O’Reilly that the lawyers said, “It’s not going to hold up in court, it’s going to have to be tested"

Trump to O'Reilly: 14th Amendment is unconstitutional

Yeah, it's NOT his opinion, he's just arguing for the "many lawyers"? Fukkin simple brained followers of the worst of the worst. Palin, Trump, Cruz, etc...

 

[Rotagilla]

Dummy Wrote: "Oh stop..southerners and southern leaders knew slavery was going to fade on its own...the industrial revolution was beginning and it was easier and more efficient to use machines than farm animals. Machines didn't need to be fed, housed or clothed."



1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

"With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery."

ummm..hey professor...the invention of the cotton gin in 1793 had nothing to do with the beginning of the war of northern aggression in 1861.
As I said southern leaders knew slavery was a dying practice...and with the beginning of the industrial revolution even FEWER slaves were going to be imported...Too inefficient and high maintenance...
but the south wasn't in the mood to hear what outsiders far away thought....especially coupled with the ridiculously high tariffs imposed on the south, they had had enough gvt interference.

 

[Rotagilla]

the war wasn't fought to preserve..or end...slavery...

The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861.

Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, Stephens' speech explained the fundamental differences between the constitutions of the Confederacy and that of the United States, enumerated contrasts between U.S. and Confederate ideologies and beliefs, laid out the Confederacy's causes for declaring secession, and defended the enslavement of African Americans.

Stephens' speech declared that African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had put to rest the "agitating questions" as to the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization".


Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got as far as Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, and knew it was a hit piece and skipped the rest...
The south didn't start the war. The north invaded a sovereign country....patriots always repel invader.

Mississippi's Declaration of Secession: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."



From Texas' Declaration: "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."


Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery

Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery

Oh stop..southerners and southern leaders knew slavery was going to fade on its own...the industrial revolution was beginning and it was easier and more efficient to use machines than farm animals. Machines didn't need to be fed, housed or clothed.

The cotton states were the ones who made sure to thumb their nose at the fed gvt by mentioning slaves in their constitutions.

The north forced the issue and the south had to address it..and they did by saying essentially that we'll handle our business and you keep out of it.
then the north invaded and the war criminal lincoln turned his armies loose on civilians.




The war was fought over unfair tariffs and taxes.
Read some history.

Dummy Wrote: "Oh stop..southerners and southern leaders knew slavery was going to fade on its own...the industrial revolution was beginning and it was easier and more efficient to use machines than farm animals. Machines didn't need to be fed, housed or clothed."



1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

"With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery."


5 Things That Caused the U.S. Civil War



Slavery led to secession, which led to the Civil War

invading the south is what caused the war...the south tried to peacefully withdraw...