Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Rotagilla]

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

"Judge" Perez was a Huey Long protégé on the take fixing elections and such and a corrupt bigoted segregationist in LA. His "thoughts" on the Constitutionality of Amendment XIV are, like the Sears catalog of the day, useful mostly only in the outhouse!

A bad choice of source upon which to base that con argument. It is so easily disproven by the weight of evidence over time.

He wasn't the only source..and despite your smears you can't deny what he said is true
That's why you resort to the standard lib fallback position of namecalling and insults....but don't address the issue...keep trying to distract.

I can say and did say what "Judge" Perez wrote is Bullshit! I can find all sorts of revisionist claptrap any time...it's a big world beyond the red clay of Georgia! There are a bunch of papers out in the great beyond declaring Amendment XVI is unconstitutional, too, but most folks are still paying their income tax! How about the flat earthers...ya gonna jump on board with that when it suits?

Your "Judge" Perez wrote in that "paper" of his that Georgia, for instance, had rejected Amendment XIV in Nov 1866, and Georgia had. But the good "Judge" and segregationist bigot failed to also note that Georgia had then ratified it on July 21, 1868 among other southern States doing the same.

If one is not a neoconservative, bigot upholding the precepts of the Traitors of the Southern Rebellion, that automatically makes one a "lib"? It's possible I was a voting Republican before you were born...but I don't know our age difference, and it's beside the point because I don't buzz around any political hive as a mindless functionary or drone upholding neo fascist principles!

georgia was ruled by provisional military governors sent by the fed gvmt to continue to punish the south and more importantly to make sure any laws they wanted passed were rammed through...like the 14th amendment...

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

not legally ratified according to the procedures outlined to pass an amendment.
Do your own research..

 

[candycorn]

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

"Judge" Perez was a Huey Long protégé on the take fixing elections and such and a corrupt bigoted segregationist in LA. His "thoughts" on the Constitutionality of Amendment XIV are, like the Sears catalog of the day, useful mostly only in the outhouse!

A bad choice of source upon which to base that con argument. It is so easily disproven by the weight of evidence over time.

He wasn't the only source..and despite your smears you can't deny what he said is true
That's why you resort to the standard lib fallback position of namecalling and insults....but don't address the issue...keep trying to distract.

I can say and did say what "Judge" Perez wrote is Bullshit! I can find all sorts of revisionist claptrap any time...it's a big world beyond the red clay of Georgia! There are a bunch of papers out in the great beyond declaring Amendment XVI is unconstitutional, too, but most folks are still paying their income tax! How about the flat earthers...ya gonna jump on board with that when it suits?

Your "Judge" Perez wrote in that "paper" of his that Georgia, for instance, had rejected Amendment XIV in Nov 1866, and Georgia had. But the good "Judge" and segregationist bigot failed to also note that Georgia had then ratified it on July 21, 1868 among other southern States doing the same.

If one is not a neoconservative, bigot upholding the precepts of the Traitors of the Southern Rebellion, that automatically makes one a "lib"? It's possible I was a voting Republican before you were born...but I don't know our age difference, and it's beside the point because I don't buzz around any political hive as a mindless functionary or drone upholding neo fascist principles!

georgia was ruled by provisional military governors sent by the fed gvmt to continue to punish the south and more importantly to make sure any laws they wanted passed were rammed through...like the 14th amendment...

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

not legally ratified according to the procedures outlined to pass an amendment.
Do your own research..

Translation: Yeah we all know it was ratified but Donald Trump said otherwise so we have to pretend it wasn't.

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

 

[Rotagilla]

"Judge" Perez was a Huey Long protégé on the take fixing elections and such and a corrupt bigoted segregationist in LA. His "thoughts" on the Constitutionality of Amendment XIV are, like the Sears catalog of the day, useful mostly only in the outhouse!

A bad choice of source upon which to base that con argument. It is so easily disproven by the weight of evidence over time.

He wasn't the only source..and despite your smears you can't deny what he said is true
That's why you resort to the standard lib fallback position of namecalling and insults....but don't address the issue...keep trying to distract.

I can say and did say what "Judge" Perez wrote is Bullshit! I can find all sorts of revisionist claptrap any time...it's a big world beyond the red clay of Georgia! There are a bunch of papers out in the great beyond declaring Amendment XVI is unconstitutional, too, but most folks are still paying their income tax! How about the flat earthers...ya gonna jump on board with that when it suits?

Your "Judge" Perez wrote in that "paper" of his that Georgia, for instance, had rejected Amendment XIV in Nov 1866, and Georgia had. But the good "Judge" and segregationist bigot failed to also note that Georgia had then ratified it on July 21, 1868 among other southern States doing the same.

If one is not a neoconservative, bigot upholding the precepts of the Traitors of the Southern Rebellion, that automatically makes one a "lib"? It's possible I was a voting Republican before you were born...but I don't know our age difference, and it's beside the point because I don't buzz around any political hive as a mindless functionary or drone upholding neo fascist principles!

georgia was ruled by provisional military governors sent by the fed gvmt to continue to punish the south and more importantly to make sure any laws they wanted passed were rammed through...like the 14th amendment...

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

not legally ratified according to the procedures outlined to pass an amendment.
Do your own research..

Translation: Yeah we all know it was ratified but Donald Trump said otherwise so we have to pretend it wasn't.

or you could just post that you don't have any idea what you're talking about but as a hyperpartisan you have a need to disparage trump and anyone who supports his america first policies.

 

[Slyhunter]

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

Not 3/4 of the states willingly voted for it by their elected leaders. We forced governors on them that were unelected.

 

[Rotagilla]

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

Not 3/4 of the states willingly voted for it by their elected leaders. We forced governors on them that were unelected.

precisely...anyone who knows how to read can go look it up for themselves.

..instead they resort to their standard fallback position of "nuh uh you're a traitor and a racist"

..LMAO...

 

[Rotagilla]

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

Not 3/4 of the states willingly voted for it by their elected leaders. We forced governors on them that were unelected.

it was ratified..we don't deny that..the point is it wasn't ratified legally because the south had provisional military governors who rubber stamped anything the fed gvt sent them..of course it was "ratified"....just not legally or according to the process required to amend the constitution.

 

[Claudette]

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

Not 3/4 of the states willingly voted for it by their elected leaders. We forced governors on them that were unelected.

it was ratified..we don't deny that..the point is it wasn't ratified legally because the south had provisional military governors who rubber stamped anything the fed gvt sent them..of course it was "ratified"....just not legally or according to the process required to amend the constitution.

Yet they have been following this law, that isn't a law and never has been.

 

[Rotagilla]

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

Not 3/4 of the states willingly voted for it by their elected leaders. We forced governors on them that were unelected.

it was ratified..we don't deny that..the point is it wasn't ratified legally because the south had provisional military governors who rubber stamped anything the fed gvt sent them..of course it was "ratified"....just not legally or according to the process required to amend the constitution.

Yet they have been following this law, that isn't a law and never has been.

which leads to the question "Why"?

 

[Claudette]

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

Not 3/4 of the states willingly voted for it by their elected leaders. We forced governors on them that were unelected.

it was ratified..we don't deny that..the point is it wasn't ratified legally because the south had provisional military governors who rubber stamped anything the fed gvt sent them..of course it was "ratified"....just not legally or according to the process required to amend the constitution.

Yet they have been following this law, that isn't a law and never has been.

which leads to the question "Why"?

Excellent Question. WHY??

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

"Judge" Perez was a Huey Long protégé on the take fixing elections and such and a corrupt bigoted segregationist in LA. His "thoughts" on the Constitutionality of Amendment XIV are, like the Sears catalog of the day, useful mostly only in the outhouse!

A bad choice of source upon which to base that con argument. It is so easily disproven by the weight of evidence over time.

He wasn't the only source..and despite your smears you can't deny what he said is true
That's why you resort to the standard lib fallback position of namecalling and insults....but don't address the issue...keep trying to distract.

I can say and did say what "Judge" Perez wrote is Bullshit! I can find all sorts of revisionist claptrap any time...it's a big world beyond the red clay of Georgia! There are a bunch of papers out in the great beyond declaring Amendment XVI is unconstitutional, too, but most folks are still paying their income tax! How about the flat earthers...ya gonna jump on board with that when it suits?

Your "Judge" Perez wrote in that "paper" of his that Georgia, for instance, had rejected Amendment XIV in Nov 1866, and Georgia had. But the good "Judge" and segregationist bigot failed to also note that Georgia had then ratified it on July 21, 1868 among other southern States doing the same.

If one is not a neoconservative, bigot upholding the precepts of the Traitors of the Southern Rebellion, that automatically makes one a "lib"? It's possible I was a voting Republican before you were born...but I don't know our age difference, and it's beside the point because I don't buzz around any political hive as a mindless functionary or drone upholding neo fascist principles!

georgia was ruled by provisional military governors sent by the fed gvmt to continue to punish the south and more importantly to make sure any laws they wanted passed were rammed through...like the 14th amendment...

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

not legally ratified according to the procedures outlined to pass an amendment.
Do your own research..

Yawn! Get another turd to recycle OR use your own mind!

 

[Rotagilla]

"Judge" Perez was a Huey Long protégé on the take fixing elections and such and a corrupt bigoted segregationist in LA. His "thoughts" on the Constitutionality of Amendment XIV are, like the Sears catalog of the day, useful mostly only in the outhouse!

A bad choice of source upon which to base that con argument. It is so easily disproven by the weight of evidence over time.

He wasn't the only source..and despite your smears you can't deny what he said is true
That's why you resort to the standard lib fallback position of namecalling and insults....but don't address the issue...keep trying to distract.

I can say and did say what "Judge" Perez wrote is Bullshit! I can find all sorts of revisionist claptrap any time...it's a big world beyond the red clay of Georgia! There are a bunch of papers out in the great beyond declaring Amendment XVI is unconstitutional, too, but most folks are still paying their income tax! How about the flat earthers...ya gonna jump on board with that when it suits?

Your "Judge" Perez wrote in that "paper" of his that Georgia, for instance, had rejected Amendment XIV in Nov 1866, and Georgia had. But the good "Judge" and segregationist bigot failed to also note that Georgia had then ratified it on July 21, 1868 among other southern States doing the same.

If one is not a neoconservative, bigot upholding the precepts of the Traitors of the Southern Rebellion, that automatically makes one a "lib"? It's possible I was a voting Republican before you were born...but I don't know our age difference, and it's beside the point because I don't buzz around any political hive as a mindless functionary or drone upholding neo fascist principles!

georgia was ruled by provisional military governors sent by the fed gvmt to continue to punish the south and more importantly to make sure any laws they wanted passed were rammed through...like the 14th amendment...

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

not legally ratified according to the procedures outlined to pass an amendment.
Do your own research..

Yawn! Get another turd to recycle OR use your own mind!

it's been resolved the amendment wasn't ratified legally...there is ample proof...typical hyperpartisan lib...when cornered by facts go vulgar.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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

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

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

US Constitution - Article III, Section 3:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dad2three]

I cannot tell how this even more makes me want Trump to be the face of the Republican Party

Hey boy.....this country was founded for White people only. Read the 1790 Naturalization Act boy. Read it boy. Publish it boy. One more time......this country was founded for White people.

Good Boy, The GOP's base speaks up. Keep it up Bubba

 

[Rotagilla]

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

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

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

US Constitution - Article III, Section 3:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dad2three]

I've not seen in any article I've read where Trump said the "14th Amendment is unconstitutional".

Now I know media loves, loves, loves to put out fabrications in their headlines because that's all many bother to read being a headline society.

This is done purposefully and repetitively. Especially in politics.

OK, so if Trump is accepting the 14th is constitutional, given that it unequivocally protects birthright citizenship,

what IS he claiming?

That people that are here ILLEGALLY and have a baby cannot hide under the protection of the 14th amendment.

They must be here legally

So despite the fact that the 14th Amendment makes no such specific stipulation,

the anti-birthright people want the Court to 'read into' the Amendment such language, in a sort of judicial activist action of legislating from the bench?

okay...

I don't think it's activist. the 14th doesn't specify either way as to being here legally or non-legally. The legislative history can actually support either position, as senators at the time actually had differing opinions. The Wiki article on birthright citizenship has some links.

Fed Dist Courts and Courts of appeal have ruled for birthright citizenship for kids whose parents are not here legally. But, I think the only sup court case was Wong Kim Ark, which involved Chinese nationals who were LEGALLY here.

LEGALLY HERE? lol Yeah, they were "legally" here *shaking head*



Wong Kim Ark (黃金德 was born in San Francisco. Various sources state or imply his year of birth as being 1873,1871, or 1868.[His father (Wong Si Ping) and mother (Wee Lee) were immigrants from China and were not United States citizens.



In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

• is born in the United States
• of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
• whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
• whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is, of course, no reasonable comparison between the colonies' relationship to an empire and the Perpetual Union which the states that attempted to secede had voluntarily joined. Again, the very definitions of reason and rational thought are challenged by such twisting of logic.

 

[Dad2three]

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

And Democrats fought it's ratification tooth & nail.

Yep, it was the PROGRESSIVE-Liberal GOPers fighting for it right? Those CONservative Dems fought it like they fought ending slavery. You know about IDEOLOGY versus party labels that changed over time right Bubs? lol

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

 

[Dad2three]

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!