Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Rotagilla]

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

Andrew Jackson Denounces Nullification in a Presidential Proclamation

Author: Andrew Jackson
Date:1832


I consider then the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNION, CONTRADICTED EXPRESSLY BY THE LETTER OF THE CONSTITUTION, UNAUTHORIZED BY ITS SPIRIT, INCONSISTENT WITH EVERY PRINCIPLE ON WHICH IT WAS FOUNDED, AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE GREAT OBJECT FOR WHICH IT WAS FORMED....




....The States "retained all the power they did not grant. But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation
Digital History

1832 when he said that.

things had changed drastically by 1861..the fed gvt was out of control and oppressive tariffs and taxes forced the south to follow the lead of the colonies in 1776.

Refute these words of wisdom if you can;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Declaration of Independence
1776
____________________________________________________________________________

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln

KEEP IGNORING THE OBVIOUS OH LOW INFORMED ONE


. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.

High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.

Five myths about why the South seceded

Morrill Tariff 1860, professor.

The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession.

OOPS

Morrill Tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was a key element of the platform of the new Republican Party, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth by limiting competition from lower-wage industries in Europe.

cherry picked a huge article, didn't you?..LMAO..that's dishonest.

The Morrill Tariff was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Buchanan left office and Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. The new law made some significant changes in how duties were assessed on goods entering the country, and it also raised rates.

The new tariff had been written and sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill, a Congressman from Vermont. And it was widely believed that the new law favored industries based in the northeast and would penalize the southern states, which were more dependent on goods imported from Europe.


Here's another one;
By Mike Scruggs-

Most Americans believe the U. S. “Civil War” was over slavery. They have to an enormous degree been miseducated. The means and timing of handling the slavery question were at issue, although not in the overly simplified moral sense that lives in postwar and modern propaganda. But had there been no Morrill Tariff there might never have been a war. The conflict that cost of the lives of 650,000 Union and Confederate soldiers and perhaps as many as 50,000 Southern civilians and impoverished many millions for generations might never have been.

A smoldering issue of unjust taxation that enriched Northern manufacturing states and exploited the agricultural South was fanned to a furious blaze in 1860. It was the Morrill Tariff that stirred the smoldering embers of regional mistrust and ignited the fires of Secession in the South. This precipitated a Northern reaction and call to arms that would engulf the nation in the flames of war for four years.

Prior to the U. S. “Civil War” there was no U. S. income tax. In 1860, approximately 95% of U. S. government revenue was raised by a tariff on imported goods. A tariff is a tax on selected imports, most commonly finished or manufactured products. A high tariff is usually legislated not only to raise revenue, but also to protect domestic industry form foreign competition. By placing such a high, protective tariff on imported goods it makes them more expensive to buy than the same domestic goods. This allows domestic industries to charge higher prices and make more money on sales that might otherwise be lost to foreign competition because of cheaper prices (without the tariff) or better quality. This, of course, causes domestic consumers to pay higher prices and have a lower standard of living. Tariffs on some industrial products also hurt other domestic industries that must pay higher prices for goods they need to make their products. Because the nature and products of regional economies can vary widely, high tariffs are sometimes good for one section of the country, but damaging to another section of the country. High tariffs are particularly hard on exporters since they must cope with higher domestic costs and retaliatory foreign tariffs that put them at a pricing disadvantage. This has a depressing effect on both export volume and profit margins. High tariffs have been a frequent cause of economic disruption, strife and war.

 

[Syriusly]

So, NO you can't refute the LOGIC or sources they used. Thanks anyways Bubba

I don't NEED to refute ANYthing the washington post says..if that's your best historical source, withdraw now before you look any worse...

I notice you STILL won't go anywhere near any of the DIRECT QUOTES I posted...not interested some rehashed, revisionist washington post nonsense...

You mean like the STATES themselves, the leaders themselves saying it was slavery dummy??? LOL

not every state mentioned slavery in its constitution...someone with a minor in history should at least know that.

..and calling me names may make you feel better about yourself (personally, I think you're projecting) but it really doesn't help your argument...

So NO, you will not address S. Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, ETC? lol




. It was in South Carolina that the Civil War began, when the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter. The state’s casus belli was neither vague nor hard to comprehend:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

In citing slavery, South Carolina was less an outlier than a leader, setting the tone for other states, including Mississippi:


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.


Louisiana:

As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.



Alabama:


Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.




Texas:

...in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

None of this was new. In 1858, the eventual president of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis threatened secession should a Republican be elected to the presidency:

I say to you here as I have said to the Democracy of New York, if it should ever come to pass that the Constitution shall be perverted to the destruction of our rights so that we shall have the mere right as a feeble minority unprotected by the barrier of the Constitution to give an ineffectual negative vote in the Halls of Congress, we shall then bear to the federal government the relation our colonial fathers did to the British crown, and if we are worthy of our lineage we will in that event redeem our rights even if it be through the process of revolution.



It is difficult for modern Americans to understand such militant commitment to the bondage of others. But at $3.5 billion, the four million enslaved African Americans in the South represented the country’s greatest financial asset. And the dollar amount does not hint at the force of enslavement as a social institution. By the onset of the Civil War, Southern slaveholders believed that African slavery was one of the great organizing institutions in world history, superior to the “free society” of the North.


What This Cruel War Was Over

you keep posting these opinion columns from publications like washpo and the atlantic...nothing of any historical significance..I'm beginning to think you're dodging.

no..the war was started when northern troops invaded the south..That's why they were "fired on"..

How did 'Northern troops'- i.e. American troops- who were in Fort Sumter prior to South Carolina's attempt to secede- and were in Fort Sumter after South Carolina's attempt secede- 'invade' the south?

 

[Rotagilla]

I don't NEED to refute ANYthing the washington post says..if that's your best historical source, withdraw now before you look any worse...

I notice you STILL won't go anywhere near any of the DIRECT QUOTES I posted...not interested some rehashed, revisionist washington post nonsense...

You mean like the STATES themselves, the leaders themselves saying it was slavery dummy??? LOL

not every state mentioned slavery in its constitution...someone with a minor in history should at least know that.

..and calling me names may make you feel better about yourself (personally, I think you're projecting) but it really doesn't help your argument...

So NO, you will not address S. Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, ETC? lol




. It was in South Carolina that the Civil War began, when the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter. The state’s casus belli was neither vague nor hard to comprehend:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

In citing slavery, South Carolina was less an outlier than a leader, setting the tone for other states, including Mississippi:


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.


Louisiana:

As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.



Alabama:


Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.




Texas:

...in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

None of this was new. In 1858, the eventual president of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis threatened secession should a Republican be elected to the presidency:

I say to you here as I have said to the Democracy of New York, if it should ever come to pass that the Constitution shall be perverted to the destruction of our rights so that we shall have the mere right as a feeble minority unprotected by the barrier of the Constitution to give an ineffectual negative vote in the Halls of Congress, we shall then bear to the federal government the relation our colonial fathers did to the British crown, and if we are worthy of our lineage we will in that event redeem our rights even if it be through the process of revolution.



It is difficult for modern Americans to understand such militant commitment to the bondage of others. But at $3.5 billion, the four million enslaved African Americans in the South represented the country’s greatest financial asset. And the dollar amount does not hint at the force of enslavement as a social institution. By the onset of the Civil War, Southern slaveholders believed that African slavery was one of the great organizing institutions in world history, superior to the “free society” of the North.


What This Cruel War Was Over

you keep posting these opinion columns from publications like washpo and the atlantic...nothing of any historical significance..I'm beginning to think you're dodging.

no..the war was started when northern troops invaded the south..That's why they were "fired on"..

How did 'Northern troops'- i.e. American troops- who were in Fort Sumter prior to South Carolina's attempt to secede- and were in Fort Sumter after South Carolina's attempt secede- 'invade' the south?

south carolina didn't "attempt" to secede..they DID secede.

For the fourth or fifth time today;
The south offered to pay for all fed installations that were in the south and offered safe transit for any troops and civilians to leave.
The north intended to reinforce and resupply the fort...an act of war and an invasion.

The roster of the Regular Army was altered considerably by Davis' action in creating a Confederate Army. Of the active officer corps numbering 1,080, 286 resigned or were dismissed and entered the Confederate service. (At least 26 enlisted men are known to have violated their oaths.) West Point graduates on the active list numbered 824; of these, 184 were among the officers who offered their swords to the Confederacy. Of the approximately 900 graduates then in civil life, 114 returned to the Union Army and 99 others sought southern commissions. General in Chief Scott and Col. George H. Thomas of Virginia were southerners who fought for the Union. More serious than their numbers, however, was the high caliber of the officers who joined the Confederacy; many were regimental commanders and three had commanded at departmental level.



With military preparations under way, Davis dispatched commissioners to Washington a few days after Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, 1861, to treat for the speedy takeover of Forts Sumter and Pickens. Informally reassured that the forts would not be provisioned without proper notice, the envoys returned to Montgomery expecting an uneventful evacuation of Sumter. President Lincoln had to move cautiously, for he knew Sumter's supplies were giving out. As each March day passed, Sumter aggravated the harshness of Lincoln's dilemma. In case of war, the fort had no strategic value. If Lincoln reinforced it, Davis would have his act of provocation and Lincoln might drive eight more slaveholding states out of the Union. If Sumter was not succored, the North might cool its enthusiasm for the Union concept and become accustomed to having a confederation south of the Mason-Dixon line.



President Lincoln spent a fortnight listening to the conflicting counsel of his constitutional advisers, and made up his own mind on March 29 to resupply Fort Sumter with provisions only. No effort would be made to increase its military power. By sea he soon dispatched a token expedition and on April 8 notified South Carolina's governor of his decision. The next move was up to the local Confederate commander, Brig. Gen. Pierre G. T. Beauregard. On the 11th, Maj. Robert Anderson, Sumter's commander, politely but firmly rejected a formal surrender demand. At 4:30 the next morning Confederate batteries began a 34-hour bombardment. Anderson's go-man garrison returned it in earnest, but Sumter's guns were no match for the concentric fire from Confederate artillery.
Chapter 9: The Civil War, 1861

Incidentally no one was killed in the shelling of the fort.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I mean this circus is the best ever. You thought Ross Perot was good, with the Dana Carvey impersonation. Trump is f'ing epicly f'd up. And he is leading!!

He's going to build a wall between the Constitution and the Amendments in the Constitution. And he'll make the founding fathers pay for it.

What a bad bad tie for John Stewart to leave his show. ARgggggg!

 

[Syriusly]

Andrew Jackson Denounces Nullification in a Presidential Proclamation

Author: Andrew Jackson
Date:1832


I consider then the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNION, CONTRADICTED EXPRESSLY BY THE LETTER OF THE CONSTITUTION, UNAUTHORIZED BY ITS SPIRIT, INCONSISTENT WITH EVERY PRINCIPLE ON WHICH IT WAS FOUNDED, AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE GREAT OBJECT FOR WHICH IT WAS FORMED....




....The States "retained all the power they did not grant. But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation
Digital History

1832 when he said that.

things had changed drastically by 1861..the fed gvt was out of control and oppressive tariffs and taxes forced the south to follow the lead of the colonies in 1776.

Refute these words of wisdom if you can;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Declaration of Independence
1776
____________________________________________________________________________

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln

KEEP IGNORING THE OBVIOUS OH LOW INFORMED ONE


. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.

High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.

Five myths about why the South seceded

Morrill Tariff 1860, professor.

The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession.

OOPS

Morrill Tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was a key element of the platform of the new Republican Party, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth by limiting competition from lower-wage industries in Europe.

cherry picked a huge article, didn't you?..LMAO..that's dishonest.

The Morrill Tariff was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Buchanan left office and Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. The new law made some significant changes in how duties were assessed on goods entering the country, and it also raised rates.

The new tariff had been written and sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill, a Congressman from Vermont. And it was widely believed that the new law favored industries based in the northeast and would penalize the southern states, which were more dependent on goods imported from Europe.


Here's another one;
By Mike Scruggs-

A smoldering issue of unjust taxation that enriched Northern manufacturing states and exploited the agricultural South was fanned to a furious blaze in 1860. It was the Morrill Tariff that stirred the smoldering embers of regional mistrust and ignited the fires of Secession in the South. This precipitated a Northern reaction and call to arms that would engulf the nation in the flames of war for four years.r.

Despite any evidence of course.

South Carolina doesn't mention the tariff once in its causes for secession- I believe it mentions slavery 18 times.

The Morrill Tariff was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861,

On February 4, 1861, in Montgomery, Alabama, a convention consisting of delegates from South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Louisiana met to form a new constitution and government modeled on that of the United States.[14] On February 8, 1861, South Carolina officially joined the Confederate States of America.

The Slave states seceded before the Morrill Tariff was even signed into law.

 

[Syriusly]

You mean like the STATES themselves, the leaders themselves saying it was slavery dummy??? LOL

not every state mentioned slavery in its constitution...someone with a minor in history should at least know that.

..and calling me names may make you feel better about yourself (personally, I think you're projecting) but it really doesn't help your argument...

So NO, you will not address S. Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, ETC? lol




. It was in South Carolina that the Civil War began, when the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter. The state’s casus belli was neither vague nor hard to comprehend:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

In citing slavery, South Carolina was less an outlier than a leader, setting the tone for other states, including Mississippi:


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.


Louisiana:

As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.



Alabama:


Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.




Texas:

...in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

None of this was new. In 1858, the eventual president of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis threatened secession should a Republican be elected to the presidency:

I say to you here as I have said to the Democracy of New York, if it should ever come to pass that the Constitution shall be perverted to the destruction of our rights so that we shall have the mere right as a feeble minority unprotected by the barrier of the Constitution to give an ineffectual negative vote in the Halls of Congress, we shall then bear to the federal government the relation our colonial fathers did to the British crown, and if we are worthy of our lineage we will in that event redeem our rights even if it be through the process of revolution.



It is difficult for modern Americans to understand such militant commitment to the bondage of others. But at $3.5 billion, the four million enslaved African Americans in the South represented the country’s greatest financial asset. And the dollar amount does not hint at the force of enslavement as a social institution. By the onset of the Civil War, Southern slaveholders believed that African slavery was one of the great organizing institutions in world history, superior to the “free society” of the North.


What This Cruel War Was Over

you keep posting these opinion columns from publications like washpo and the atlantic...nothing of any historical significance..I'm beginning to think you're dodging.

no..the war was started when northern troops invaded the south..That's why they were "fired on"..

How did 'Northern troops'- i.e. American troops- who were in Fort Sumter prior to South Carolina's attempt to secede- and were in Fort Sumter after South Carolina's attempt secede- 'invade' the south?

south carolina didn't "attempt" to secede..they DID secede..

Clearly South Carolina did not.

Since it is still part of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

You mean like the STATES themselves, the leaders themselves saying it was slavery dummy??? LOL

not every state mentioned slavery in its constitution...someone with a minor in history should at least know that.

..and calling me names may make you feel better about yourself (personally, I think you're projecting) but it really doesn't help your argument...

So NO, you will not address S. Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, ETC? lol




. It was in South Carolina that the Civil War began, when the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter. The state’s casus belli was neither vague nor hard to comprehend:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

In citing slavery, South Carolina was less an outlier than a leader, setting the tone for other states, including Mississippi:


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.


Louisiana:

As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.



Alabama:


Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.




Texas:

...in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

None of this was new. In 1858, the eventual president of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis threatened secession should a Republican be elected to the presidency:

I say to you here as I have said to the Democracy of New York, if it should ever come to pass that the Constitution shall be perverted to the destruction of our rights so that we shall have the mere right as a feeble minority unprotected by the barrier of the Constitution to give an ineffectual negative vote in the Halls of Congress, we shall then bear to the federal government the relation our colonial fathers did to the British crown, and if we are worthy of our lineage we will in that event redeem our rights even if it be through the process of revolution.



It is difficult for modern Americans to understand such militant commitment to the bondage of others. But at $3.5 billion, the four million enslaved African Americans in the South represented the country’s greatest financial asset. And the dollar amount does not hint at the force of enslavement as a social institution. By the onset of the Civil War, Southern slaveholders believed that African slavery was one of the great organizing institutions in world history, superior to the “free society” of the North.


What This Cruel War Was Over

you keep posting these opinion columns from publications like washpo and the atlantic...nothing of any historical significance..I'm beginning to think you're dodging.

no..the war was started when northern troops invaded the south..That's why they were "fired on"..

How did 'Northern troops'- i.e. American troops- who were in Fort Sumter prior to South Carolina's attempt to secede- and were in Fort Sumter after South Carolina's attempt secede- 'invade' the south?

south carolina didn't "attempt" to secede..they DID secede.

For the fourth or fifth time today;
The south offered to pay for all fed installations that were in the south and offered safe transit for any troops and civilians to leave.
The north intended to reinforce and resupply the fort...an act of war and an invasion.


President Lincoln spent a fortnight listening to the conflicting counsel of his constitutional advisers, and made up his own mind on March 29 to resupply Fort Sumter with provisions only. No effort would be made to increase its military power..

No attempt was made to reinforce the Fort- your own citations note that.

There was no invasion- the State of South Carolina chose to attack American troops- and that would have been an act of war- if they were anything other than rebels.

 

[Rotagilla]

1832 when he said that.

things had changed drastically by 1861..the fed gvt was out of control and oppressive tariffs and taxes forced the south to follow the lead of the colonies in 1776.

Refute these words of wisdom if you can;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Declaration of Independence
1776
____________________________________________________________________________

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln

KEEP IGNORING THE OBVIOUS OH LOW INFORMED ONE


. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.

High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.

Five myths about why the South seceded

Morrill Tariff 1860, professor.

The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession.

OOPS

Morrill Tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was a key element of the platform of the new Republican Party, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth by limiting competition from lower-wage industries in Europe.

cherry picked a huge article, didn't you?..LMAO..that's dishonest.

The Morrill Tariff was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Buchanan left office and Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. The new law made some significant changes in how duties were assessed on goods entering the country, and it also raised rates.

The new tariff had been written and sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill, a Congressman from Vermont. And it was widely believed that the new law favored industries based in the northeast and would penalize the southern states, which were more dependent on goods imported from Europe.


Here's another one;
By Mike Scruggs-

A smoldering issue of unjust taxation that enriched Northern manufacturing states and exploited the agricultural South was fanned to a furious blaze in 1860. It was the Morrill Tariff that stirred the smoldering embers of regional mistrust and ignited the fires of Secession in the South. This precipitated a Northern reaction and call to arms that would engulf the nation in the flames of war for four years.r.

Despite any evidence of course.

South Carolina doesn't mention the tariff once in its causes for secession- I believe it mentions slavery 18 times.

The Morrill Tariff was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861,

On February 4, 1861, in Montgomery, Alabama, a convention consisting of delegates from South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Louisiana met to form a new constitution and government modeled on that of the United States.[14] On February 8, 1861, South Carolina officially joined the Confederate States of America.

The Slave states seceded before the Morrill Tariff was even signed into law.

what?..you think it was a secret tariff and no one knew it was coming?
These tariffs impacted the south much m ore than the north...they were DESIGNED that way on purpose.
It was just another unfair tax among many as a means of REDISTRIBUTING southerners money to the north.


spin it however you like. the cause of the war of northern aggression wasn't fought to free or retain slaves.

even lincoln said he couldn't care less about them..

 

[Rotagilla]

not every state mentioned slavery in its constitution...someone with a minor in history should at least know that.

..and calling me names may make you feel better about yourself (personally, I think you're projecting) but it really doesn't help your argument...

So NO, you will not address S. Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, ETC? lol




. It was in South Carolina that the Civil War began, when the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter. The state’s casus belli was neither vague nor hard to comprehend:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

In citing slavery, South Carolina was less an outlier than a leader, setting the tone for other states, including Mississippi:


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.


Louisiana:

As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.



Alabama:


Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.




Texas:

...in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

None of this was new. In 1858, the eventual president of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis threatened secession should a Republican be elected to the presidency:

I say to you here as I have said to the Democracy of New York, if it should ever come to pass that the Constitution shall be perverted to the destruction of our rights so that we shall have the mere right as a feeble minority unprotected by the barrier of the Constitution to give an ineffectual negative vote in the Halls of Congress, we shall then bear to the federal government the relation our colonial fathers did to the British crown, and if we are worthy of our lineage we will in that event redeem our rights even if it be through the process of revolution.



It is difficult for modern Americans to understand such militant commitment to the bondage of others. But at $3.5 billion, the four million enslaved African Americans in the South represented the country’s greatest financial asset. And the dollar amount does not hint at the force of enslavement as a social institution. By the onset of the Civil War, Southern slaveholders believed that African slavery was one of the great organizing institutions in world history, superior to the “free society” of the North.


What This Cruel War Was Over

you keep posting these opinion columns from publications like washpo and the atlantic...nothing of any historical significance..I'm beginning to think you're dodging.

no..the war was started when northern troops invaded the south..That's why they were "fired on"..

How did 'Northern troops'- i.e. American troops- who were in Fort Sumter prior to South Carolina's attempt to secede- and were in Fort Sumter after South Carolina's attempt secede- 'invade' the south?

south carolina didn't "attempt" to secede..they DID secede..

Clearly South Carolina did not.

Since it is still part of the United States.

what?...now you're saying the southern states didn't secede? You did go to public school, didn't you?..the indoctrination is strong.
..ok..that's it..I'm done with you now....I get it...you're just an agitator and you'll say anything for attention..

 

[imawhosure]

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.

At least you stay on topic, your words are correct as I have heard 2 constitutional scholars insist that jurisdiction used in the 14th amendment was NOT used as area; as proven by what the author of the amendment had to say.

This is going to be a bloodbath when more people discover that the illegals and their children, do not have a leg to stand on. Pressure is now going to mount, since nearly 70% of the people want this fixed ASAP, and the democrats who now have a LEGAL path to stop this from happening, will be in the unenviable position of breaking the law.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.t.

That is what the Confederate fanboys keep saying.

Meanwhile- rebel troops fired on American soldiers- which started the war.

No one forced South Carolina to decide to plunge America into a Civil War.

the north invaded a sovereign nation, the C.S.A.
.All patriots repel invasions.Just like the colonists did when the english invaded to try to force them to remain colonies ..read some history yankee fanboy.

The United States put down a rebellion of slave states after rebel troops attacked American soldiers.

A side benefit of keeping the Union intact was the end of slavery in the United States.

There was no rebellion..the south tried to peacefully withdraw. The north sent troops to invade.
the CSA, then a sovereign country, fired on the northern invaders.

I feel much better after my nap! So.........

Are you now claiming that the Southern States that seceded from the United States did such lawfully? Is that what you are claiming? If so cite the Article, Section and Clause(s) in the Constitution that would allow a State to sever its ties Lawfully and within the four corners of that binding Contract!

There never was a lawful way to breach what had been mutually agreed to. You are abjectly ignorant about that Contract. BUT just in case my 70 years of education and knowledge absorption has gone astray, regale us with your wisdom of that Bond and how it can be or was severed lawfully in the 1860's and what reparations were paid upon severance of The Contract. You know, like the Federal assumption of all war debts from the Revolutionary War, the Federally financed infrastructure like post roads, ports, waterworks, bridges, defense costs, federal property, et al.

Don't be shy now! Article, Section and Clause(s) for each and every rebellious State that seceded, Son of the South! Display your brilliance and show up the Naysayers, the Uppity Rabble, those haughty Yankees!

Here's a hint for you laddy buck! Under the Constitution an attempt to secede under arms is OPEN REBELLION. You're just going to have to live with that!

 

[Syriusly]

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.

This is going to be a bloodbath when more people discover that the illegals and their children, do not have a leg to stand on. Pressure is now going to mount, since nearly 70% of the people want this fixed ASAP, and the democrats who now have a LEGAL path to stop this from happening, will be in the unenviable position of breaking the law.

'the democrats'?

Who controls Congress again?

The courts and the Executive Branch have agreed that children born in the United States are citizens for at least 20 years.

If you want to change that- then all you need to do is change the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

So NO, you will not address S. Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, ETC? lol




. It was in South Carolina that the Civil War began, when the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter. The state’s casus belli was neither vague nor hard to comprehend:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

In citing slavery, South Carolina was less an outlier than a leader, setting the tone for other states, including Mississippi:


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.


Louisiana:

As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.



Alabama:


Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.




Texas:

...in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

None of this was new. In 1858, the eventual president of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis threatened secession should a Republican be elected to the presidency:

I say to you here as I have said to the Democracy of New York, if it should ever come to pass that the Constitution shall be perverted to the destruction of our rights so that we shall have the mere right as a feeble minority unprotected by the barrier of the Constitution to give an ineffectual negative vote in the Halls of Congress, we shall then bear to the federal government the relation our colonial fathers did to the British crown, and if we are worthy of our lineage we will in that event redeem our rights even if it be through the process of revolution.



It is difficult for modern Americans to understand such militant commitment to the bondage of others. But at $3.5 billion, the four million enslaved African Americans in the South represented the country’s greatest financial asset. And the dollar amount does not hint at the force of enslavement as a social institution. By the onset of the Civil War, Southern slaveholders believed that African slavery was one of the great organizing institutions in world history, superior to the “free society” of the North.


What This Cruel War Was Over

you keep posting these opinion columns from publications like washpo and the atlantic...nothing of any historical significance..I'm beginning to think you're dodging.

no..the war was started when northern troops invaded the south..That's why they were "fired on"..

How did 'Northern troops'- i.e. American troops- who were in Fort Sumter prior to South Carolina's attempt to secede- and were in Fort Sumter after South Carolina's attempt secede- 'invade' the south?

south carolina didn't "attempt" to secede..they DID secede..

Clearly South Carolina did not.

Since it is still part of the United States.

what?...now you're saying the southern states didn't secede?..

I am saying the rebel slave states attempted to secede.

They failed.

And their attempt to secede led to the end of legal slavery in the United States years before it would have happened otherwise.

 

[Rotagilla]

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.t.

That is what the Confederate fanboys keep saying.

Meanwhile- rebel troops fired on American soldiers- which started the war.

No one forced South Carolina to decide to plunge America into a Civil War.

the north invaded a sovereign nation, the C.S.A.
.All patriots repel invasions.Just like the colonists did when the english invaded to try to force them to remain colonies ..read some history yankee fanboy.

The United States put down a rebellion of slave states after rebel troops attacked American soldiers.

A side benefit of keeping the Union intact was the end of slavery in the United States.

There was no rebellion..the south tried to peacefully withdraw. The north sent troops to invade.
the CSA, then a sovereign country, fired on the northern invaders.

I feel much better after my nap! So.........

Are you now claiming that the Southern States that seceded from the United States did such lawfully? Is that what you are claiming? If so cite the Article, Section and Clause(s) in the Constitution that would allow a State to sever its ties Lawfully and within the four corners of that binding Contract!

There never was a lawful way to breach what had been mutually agreed to. You are abjectly ignorant about that Contract. BUT just in case my 70 years of education and knowledge absorption has gone astray, regale us with your wisdom of that Bond and how it can be or was severed lawfully in the 1860's and what reparations were paid upon severance of The Contract. You know, like the Federal assumption of all war debts from the Revolutionary War, the Federally financed infrastructure like post roads, ports, waterworks, bridges, defense costs, federal property, et al.

Don't be shy now! Article, Section and Clause(s) for each and every rebellious State that seceded, Son of the South! Display your brilliance and show up the Naysayers, the Uppity Rabble, those haughty Yankees!

don't be ridiculous...there is no "clause"..so therefore, obviously, it wasn't illegal.
cite the clause, paragraph article or section showing it is "forbidden" to secede?
..and why on earth is it so important to force people at gunpoint to come to heel?
You're ok with killing americans who want to exercise their right of self government?...we didn't put up with it in 1776...

 

[Syriusly]

KEEP IGNORING THE OBVIOUS OH LOW INFORMED ONE


. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.

High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.

Five myths about why the South seceded

Morrill Tariff 1860, professor.

The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession.

OOPS

Morrill Tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was a key element of the platform of the new Republican Party, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth by limiting competition from lower-wage industries in Europe.

cherry picked a huge article, didn't you?..LMAO..that's dishonest.

The Morrill Tariff was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Buchanan left office and Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. The new law made some significant changes in how duties were assessed on goods entering the country, and it also raised rates.

The new tariff had been written and sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill, a Congressman from Vermont. And it was widely believed that the new law favored industries based in the northeast and would penalize the southern states, which were more dependent on goods imported from Europe.


Here's another one;
By Mike Scruggs-

A smoldering issue of unjust taxation that enriched Northern manufacturing states and exploited the agricultural South was fanned to a furious blaze in 1860. It was the Morrill Tariff that stirred the smoldering embers of regional mistrust and ignited the fires of Secession in the South. This precipitated a Northern reaction and call to arms that would engulf the nation in the flames of war for four years.r.

Despite any evidence of course.

South Carolina doesn't mention the tariff once in its causes for secession- I believe it mentions slavery 18 times.

The Morrill Tariff was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861,

On February 4, 1861, in Montgomery, Alabama, a convention consisting of delegates from South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Louisiana met to form a new constitution and government modeled on that of the United States.[14] On February 8, 1861, South Carolina officially joined the Confederate States of America.

The Slave states seceded before the Morrill Tariff was even signed into law.

w
spin it however you like. the cause of the war of northern aggression wasn't fought to free or retain slaves.

even lincoln said he couldn't care less about them..

Oh certainly the North didn't fight the rebel slave states over slavery.

However, the Rebellion by the slave states was intended to protect their right to slavery- their right to own human property- and their right to force Northern states to return their human property.

 

[imawhosure]

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.

This is going to be a bloodbath when more people discover that the illegals and their children, do not have a leg to stand on. Pressure is now going to mount, since nearly 70% of the people want this fixed ASAP, and the democrats who now have a LEGAL path to stop this from happening, will be in the unenviable position of breaking the law.

'the democrats'?

Who controls Congress again?

The courts and the Executive Branch have agreed that children born in the United States are citizens for at least 20 years.

If you want to change that- then all you need to do is change the U.S. Constitution.

Sorry, over ruled. Courts have no jurisdiction, it is in article 1. Congress has jurisdiction.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

This is going to be a bloodbath when more people discover that the illegals and their children, do not have a leg to stand on. Pressure is now going to mount, since nearly 70% of the people want this fixed ASAP, and the democrats who now have a LEGAL path to stop this from happening, will be in the unenviable position of breaking the law.

'the democrats'?

Who controls Congress again?

The courts and the Executive Branch have agreed that children born in the United States are citizens for at least 20 years.

If you want to change that- then all you need to do is change the U.S. Constitution.

Nope.

Just need an executive order.....

 

[imawhosure]

In fact, the President has no jurisdiction either, read article 1. Now he may not enforce the law, but that is expected, which is exactly why we are ALL going to fight tooth and nail to keep you lefties out this time around, and then it is ADIOS illegals!

 

[Vastator]

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.

This is going to be a bloodbath when more people discover that the illegals and their children, do not have a leg to stand on. Pressure is now going to mount, since nearly 70% of the people want this fixed ASAP, and the democrats who now have a LEGAL path to stop this from happening, will be in the unenviable position of breaking the law.

'the democrats'?

Who controls Congress again?

The courts and the Executive Branch have agreed that children born in the United States are citizens for at least 20 years.

If you want to change that- then all you need to do is change the U.S. Constitution.

You do realize the U.S. Constitution has been changed before...?

 

[imawhosure]

Now all you lefties go ahead and tell these nice people that when it is actually finally said that..........yes, it means that children born here to illegals are NOT citizens.........you disagree when 70% of the American people are for it. And when you post it, make sure you tell everyone which democrat you support and agrees with you-)