Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Preacher]

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

The south tried to do it peacefully...lincoln had to have his war, though...

Here's what the lying POS said;

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
Jan 12, 1848


The south was invaded and forced to fight..Lincoln purposely sent ships to charleston with reinforcements because he knew it would be provocative to have foreign ships invade. He needed a cassus belli as an excuse to wage total war on fellow americans who merely wanted to legally withdraw.

No one was fooled at the time, either...



"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861


"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

CONServative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa were/ARE fukking traitors!

This retard is from marxistfornia what the fuck would he know about the constitution or freedom for that matter. Hell all we needed to know is he is from marxistfornia to not even waste an argument on such a mental midget.

 

[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.....

Nope- Lincoln specifically didn't attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter- he even made sure the governor of South Carolina was notified that Fort Sumter would not be reinforced- but would only be re-supplied.

I guess your Confederate fanboy fiction just changes the facts to be convenient.

incorrect..he SAID he wasn't going to reinforce.
So now along with a fort full of (potentially) enemy, there were federal gunboats in charleston harbor ....more invaders in a foreign country's waterway ...clearly a provocation...and he knew it..He even said so.
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861


.ha.. he also said in his first inaugural address that he wouldn't invade the south and he also said he wouldn't interfere with slavery..both outright lies. Want me to post his address again for you?
Besides, he didn't care about the slaves either way and he said so...
So we know lincoln was a liar and an opportunist..typical politician... The south was naive enough to take him as an honest man..That was their mistake.


The South seceded basically over Free Trade.
The North couldn't compete with the cheaper and better European goods coming into Southern ports, so they imposed the Morrill tariffs in 1860.
The poor Whites of the South couldn't afford Northern goods or to pay the tariffs, so they ignored them.
The Federal government controlled by the North sent troops and tariff collectors to Southern ports. This was intolerable to the economic well being of the South, so they seceded from the Federal Union and ordered the evacuation of all Federal officers and troops from the Confederacy.
Lincoln ordered Fort Sumter not to comply and sent ships to resupply them. The South bombarded them into surrendering before supplies could arrive. No lives were lost.

The jewish bankers and manufacturers of the North went into a tizzy and ordered Lincoln to force the South back into the Union.
After 2 years of war, the South was winning, even though they were greatly outmanned.
Morale was low and desertions were high in the North. There were anti-draft riots. Nobody wanted to fight for the bankers.
That's when Lincoln changed his strategy and said the war was to free the poor oppressed slaves of the South and issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
European support for the South wavered after that because they were anti-slavery. The South suddenly became the bad guys.
Lincoln used his new, "moral high ground" as an excuse to commit immoral atrocities against Southern cities and citizens.


"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.


The whole world saw through the charade;


"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861


"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

 

[Unkotare]

This retard is from .....

R-word | Spread the Word to End the Word

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

a peripheral, but not the main reason

 

[Dad2three]

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".

I also already said several times that not every state mentions slavery in their constitution. You know that (maybe) but you keep ignoring it....I think it was mostly or all of the cotton states. The north made it such an inflammatory issue that those states particularly wanted to thumb their nose at the fd gvt.
this quote from davis WAS helpful, though;

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.

Well said.

Now...let's see if I can get you to address these 2 passages and get your thoughts on them? you've dodged them all day long..I wonder why?

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 in Congress




from his first inaugural address;

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read;

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.

All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other.
To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous.

Somebody was lying, weren't they?...and his name was lincoln.

If out of context quotes without using logic and honesty is your thing, you must be a right winger!

Yes, Ignore the states I listed as well as Jeff Davis and their VP, lol

 

[Dad2three]

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".

I also already said several times that not every state mentions slavery in their constitution. You know that (maybe) but you keep ignoring it....I think it was mostly or all of the cotton states. The north made it such an inflammatory issue that those states particularly wanted to thumb their nose at the fd gvt.
this quote from davis WAS helpful, though;

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.

Well said.

Now...let's see if I can get you to address these 2 passages and get your thoughts on them? you've dodged them all day long..I wonder why?

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 in Congress




from his first inaugural address;

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read;

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.

All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other.
To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous.

Somebody was lying, weren't they?...and his name was lincoln.

NOTHING on your debunked tariff BS? lol

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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...

Don't think I'm going to fall for the logical fallacy of negative proof. Trying to prove a negative is for fools! But following your same line of "logic", the Constitution doesn't state I can't pop a .44 round in your head either, but it would be unlawful just the same.

Now to prove that secession to form a compact with other secessionist states to create the Confederate States of America (CSA) is an easy job. S. Carolina's Declaration of Secession was dated Dec 24, 1860, followed by a host of others. The CSA was formed Feb 4, 1861, the CSA's traitors constitution was adopted Mar 11, 1861 and Fort Sumpter was attacked by the secessionist traitors on Apr 12, 1861.

The Confederate states conspired and formed an alliance, a confederation. Here is Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution:

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." [Emphasis Added]

The underlined passages above are violations of the US Constitution by the secessionist States. I'll hold off on the contract aspect as it relates to secession for now because it's almost dinner time. Later Gomer!

 

[SwimExpert]

Yeah I couldnt make this up if I tried.

Except that it is made up. Trump said that birthright citizenship for anchor babies is not constitutionally mandated. He never said that the 14th amendment is unconstitutional.

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah I couldnt make this up if I tried.

Except that it is made up. Trump said that birthright citizenship for anchor babies is not constitutionally mandated. He never said that the 14th amendment is unconstitutional.

Nah he JUST argued SOME attorneys say it's not/ LOVE how he argues for attorneys! HINT: He said it WOULD be found unconstitutional in court, even though it never has! THAT'S not taking a position on it right? *shaking head*

 

[SwimExpert]

Yeah I couldnt make this up if I tried.

Except that it is made up. Trump said that birthright citizenship for anchor babies is not constitutionally mandated. He never said that the 14th amendment is unconstitutional.

Nah he JUST argued SOME attorneys say it's not/ LOVE how he argues for attorneys! HINT: He said it WOULD be found unconstitutional in court, even though it never has! THAT'S not taking a position on it right? *shaking head*

Congratulations, you're as stupid as Rabbi. Nowhere does Trump say anything about the 14th amendment being unconstitutional. He says that birthright citizenship by anchor babies is not guaranteed by the constitution. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

 

[OKTexas]

But they can request that the issue be revisited. The next president will likely be nominating 3-4 justices.

Abortion, Gay RIGHTS,. now the rights got the 14th to get rid of. Boy is this going to be fun!!! lol

Go back an read post #88, it was never the intent of the 14th to grant citizenship to foreigners, aliens or diplomats. The court took that one upon themselves like they so often do, ignoring original intent. The court can reverse it.

They can, but why would they?

BTW can you cite a case where the supreme court has granted citizenship to the children of criminal aliens?

The Supreme Court doesn't 'grant' citizenship to anyone.

However the Supreme Court has recognized that a child born to illegal alien parents in the United States is a citizen because he/she was born in the United States.


INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

Due process case, not citizenship. Try again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah I couldnt make this up if I tried.

Except that it is made up. Trump said that birthright citizenship for anchor babies is not constitutionally mandated. He never said that the 14th amendment is unconstitutional.

Nah he JUST argued SOME attorneys say it's not/ LOVE how he argues for attorneys! HINT: He said it WOULD be found unconstitutional in court, even though it never has! THAT'S not taking a position on it right? *shaking head*

Congratulations, you're as stupid as Rabbi. Nowhere does Trump say anything about the 14th amendment being unconstitutional. He says that birthright citizenship by anchor babies is not guaranteed by the constitution. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Which is just as ignorant, stupid, and wrong as saying the 14th Amendment is 'un-Constitutional,' and given the fact there's no such thing as an 'anchor baby.'

 

[OKTexas]

Abortion, Gay RIGHTS,. now the rights got the 14th to get rid of. Boy is this going to be fun!!! lol

Go back an read post #88, it was never the intent of the 14th to grant citizenship to foreigners, aliens or diplomats. The court took that one upon themselves like they so often do, ignoring original intent. The court can reverse it.

They can, but why would they?

BTW can you cite a case where the supreme court has granted citizenship to the children of criminal aliens?

The Supreme Court doesn't 'grant' citizenship to anyone.

However the Supreme Court has recognized that a child born to illegal alien parents in the United States is a citizen because he/she was born in the United States.


INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

I don't think citizenship was an issue. The Court merely assumed. And, I believe our statutory immigration laws specify birthright citizenship.

Frankly, I doubt the supreme court would want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. But, it might be that a Roberts court would just defer to the legislature, which is what he did with Obamacare and criticized 5 other justices for not doing in the gay marriage case.

Immigration law does not specify birthright citizenship for illegals.

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah I couldnt make this up if I tried.

Except that it is made up. Trump said that birthright citizenship for anchor babies is not constitutionally mandated. He never said that the 14th amendment is unconstitutional.

Nah he JUST argued SOME attorneys say it's not/ LOVE how he argues for attorneys! HINT: He said it WOULD be found unconstitutional in court, even though it never has! THAT'S not taking a position on it right? *shaking head*

Congratulations, you're as stupid as Rabbi. Nowhere does Trump say anything about the 14th amendment being unconstitutional. He says that birthright citizenship by anchor babies is not guaranteed by the constitution. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Yep, after all, he doesn't have enough to do but argue the point of view of "lawyers" who believe those babies aren't citizens right? Not that HE believes it? lol

Of course the correct interpretation IS from SCOTUS ruling saying IF you are born on US soil (few exceptions) YOU ARE A US CITIZEN!

 

[Dad2three]

Go back an read post #88, it was never the intent of the 14th to grant citizenship to foreigners, aliens or diplomats. The court took that one upon themselves like they so often do, ignoring original intent. The court can reverse it.

They can, but why would they?

BTW can you cite a case where the supreme court has granted citizenship to the children of criminal aliens?

The Supreme Court doesn't 'grant' citizenship to anyone.

However the Supreme Court has recognized that a child born to illegal alien parents in the United States is a citizen because he/she was born in the United States.


INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

I don't think citizenship was an issue. The Court merely assumed. And, I believe our statutory immigration laws specify birthright citizenship.

Frankly, I doubt the supreme court would want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. But, it might be that a Roberts court would just defer to the legislature, which is what he did with Obamacare and criticized 5 other justices for not doing in the gay marriage case.

Immigration law does not specify birthright citizenship for illegals.

Good thing SCOTUS said the 14th did then right?

 

[Mustang]

Yeah I couldnt make this up if I tried. This is a "gutcheck" post. If you try to defend Trump's statement it is proof positive you are a complete moron and abject ignoramus. I dont care what your political leanings.
Donald Trump says 14th Amendment is unconstitutional

Conservatives will LOVE it. Why? Because it's nonsensical!

 

[Bfgrn]

Trump is standing on the Dred Scott decision in 1857...

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Ah ..hem...yeahhhh but the outcomes were different. I could be wrong..but...

 

[OKTexas]

They can, but why would they?

BTW can you cite a case where the supreme court has granted citizenship to the children of criminal aliens?

The Supreme Court doesn't 'grant' citizenship to anyone.

However the Supreme Court has recognized that a child born to illegal alien parents in the United States is a citizen because he/she was born in the United States.


INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

I don't think citizenship was an issue. The Court merely assumed. And, I believe our statutory immigration laws specify birthright citizenship.

Frankly, I doubt the supreme court would want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. But, it might be that a Roberts court would just defer to the legislature, which is what he did with Obamacare and criticized 5 other justices for not doing in the gay marriage case.

Immigration law does not specify birthright citizenship for illegals.

Good thing SCOTUS said the 14th did then right?

SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals.

 

[JQPublic1]

Trump is standing on the Dred Scott decision in 1857...

Dred Scott was before the South seceded. Trump needs to stand on his head to keep his two-PAY in place.