Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The "perpetual union" evaporated when the Founding Fathers threw the Articles of Confederation into the waste bin and drew up the Constitution.
False. The constitution affirms that it was ordained to improve the Union.
Furthermore, there's no such thing as a perpetual contract or a perpetual treaty. Both treaties and contracts are only valid so long as all parties agree to abide by them.
That's funny because all the speeches and hubris the Southern politician were spewing at the time were all about how the Republicans were going to not allow slavery in new States, abolish interstate slave trade, and take away slavery in all existing states.
For the South, it was all about keeping the institution of slavery intact.
As soon as they lost the election of 1860 most of the Confederate state seceded.
Nobody is going to secede. Can't happen.
To secede, a State or States, would have to be pretty goddam angry and pretty goddam hostile to leave and form their own Country.
The USA isn't going to tolerate a hostile neighbor.
Just ain't gonna happen.
Bunch of fucking bullshit, wasting time with this mental masturbation.
Grow up, people
Nobody is going to secede. Can't happen.
To secede, a State or States, would have to be pretty goddam angry and pretty goddam hostile to leave and form their own Country.
The USA isn't going to tolerate a hostile neighbor.
Just ain't gonna happen.
Bunch of fucking bullshit, wasting time with this mental masturbation.
Grow up, people
Nobody is going to secede. Can't happen.
To secede, a State or States, would have to be pretty goddam angry and pretty goddam hostile to leave and form their own Country.
The USA isn't going to tolerate a hostile neighbor.
Just ain't gonna happen.
Bunch of fucking bullshit, wasting time with this mental masturbation.
Grow up, people
The US tolerates Mexico.
Nobody is going to secede. Can't happen.
To secede, a State or States, would have to be pretty goddam angry and pretty goddam hostile to leave and form their own Country.
The USA isn't going to tolerate a hostile neighbor.
Just ain't gonna happen.
Bunch of fucking bullshit, wasting time with this mental masturbation.
Grow up, people
The Gettysburg Address is the biggest lie ever uttered by a U.S. President. If anyone was fighting for government "of the people, by the people and for the people," it was the Confederacy. Lincoln was a tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. The entire purpose of the war was to prevent people from having the government they wanted.
Really you sound like the poor men who charged into canister fire at Gettysburg. .
Plenty of Yankee carpet baggers endured canon fire, and they weren't even doing it to protect their homes. They were doing it solely so A tyrant could impose his rule on people who didn't want to be ruled.
The carpetbaggers happened because of one thing, Booth killed Lincoln. Had that not happened the history of the south would have been much better.
But the way, whose homes were the confederates at Gettysburg protecting?
Everyone is ruled, what Lincoln was doing was freeing millions from the bondage of corporate southern democrats. What was the ONE thing that Lincoln did in 1863? That's right the emancipation proclamation, freeing the slaves from the bondage of the rich aristocrat southern democrat.
In my opinion no carpet bagger endured canister. They, as were the rich southerner, sent in the poor to die for their way of life.
Men talked into a war by the rich southern democrat aristocrats. Why? To protect their 4 billion dollar slavery industry. Anyone who claims that the war was about freedom either is deluding themselves, doesn't know the definitions, or think black men are not men.
You're using the same arguments that libturds use to justify raising taxes and more spending. The fact that plenty of non-slave owners enlisted for service in the Confederacy is the proof that the war was not only about slavery. One thing the war wasn't about was freeing the slaves. For one thing, there were a number of slave states fighting on the Union side. For another, Lincoln stated many times he had no desire to abolish slavery. He even promised to support and amendment that would have enshrined slavery in the Constitution. The Gettysburg address was a big fat lie.
I am not going to provide you with the reasoning the southern states gave for leaving the Union you can google that yourself. The primary reason that the left, by the own words, was slavery. It was not just because they wanted to be slave masters it was economic. The slave industry was huge business and when the cotton gin was invented the need for more and more slaves actually increased. I will agree with you that the civil war was economic and that economics was over slavery. Slaves were property pure and simple. And I believe that the rich democrat aristocrats of the south figured if they had their own country then they could control the flow of slavery and control the paths to freedom the slaves were using. Never the less the rich plantation owners talked a whole bunch of men to charge canister to preserve the rich man's way of life. Quite fantastic that they were able to do so and that is why I said you sounded like on of those poor men. What Lincoln did say is he would preserve the union even if it meant not stopping slavery. Which he actually did both.
The war was about nothing but slavery it is in their state constitution and their reasoning for seceding. As soon as an abolitionists president was elected the states parted company it wasn't for any other reason.
Wrong. That may have been one of the reasons Southern states seceded, but it wasn't the only reason, and it wasn't the reason Lincoln invaded the Confederacy. As I mentioned above, Lincoln did not oppose slavery. He was by no means an abolitionist. He said many times that his reason for invading was to "preserver the union." In other words, his purpose was to impose Northern hegemony on the Confederate states.
That's funny because all the speeches and hubris the Southern politician were spewing at the time were all about how the Republicans were going to not allow slavery in new States, abolish interstate slave trade, and take away slavery in all existing states.
Again, your perspective is limited due to your partisan tunnel vision.
If we see a society based on automobiles as unsustainable, then gasoline is an ancillary issue.
Slavery was the fuel that the Southern Aristocracy used to keep the wheels chugging along. You mistake cause with effect. The entire structure of the Antebellum South was corrupt and in a state of rapid decay, the fuel that drove the system was not the cause. With no change other than the abolition of slavery, the only respite would be establishment of sharecroppers as a replacement for slaves - which in fact DID happen.
For the South, it was all about keeping the institution of slavery intact.
Nonsense. For the South, it was all about keeping the ruling class in power. Slaves were simply a means of cheap labor. One that turned out to be all too easy to replace.
As soon as they lost the election of 1860 most of the Confederate state seceded.
The war was well underway by then - though shooting had not yet begun. Just as the civil war we are currently in, is well underway - despite the fact that bullets have yet to fly.
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.
Preceded by:
"The last clause of Resolution 6. [FN11] authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration"
we can gain some more insight into what "delinquent" means through the remarks of George Mason:
"Will the militia march from one State to another, in order to collect the arrears of taxes from the delinquent members of the Republic? Will they maintain an army for this purpose? Will not the citizens of the invaded State assist one another till they rise as one Man, and shake off the Union altogether. Rebellion is the only case in which the military force of the State can be properly exerted agst. its Citizens"
Article 1, Section 1: Records of the Federal Convention
As you can see, "delinquent" refers to taxes rather than secession.
Exactly. How does that support your claim about secession?
Nobody is going to secede. Can't happen.
To secede, a State or States, would have to be pretty goddam angry and pretty goddam hostile to leave and form their own Country.
The USA isn't going to tolerate a hostile neighbor.
Just ain't gonna happen.
Bunch of fucking bullshit, wasting time with this mental masturbation.
Grow up, people
It doesn't have to a hostile neighbor.
Little Switzerland is in the middle of Europe , refused to be part of the EU, they have their own currency and they are doing mighty fine.
.
Secession is rebellion. Delinquency in collecting taxes is not secession. It's called the English language.
Nobody is going to secede. Can't happen.
To secede, a State or States, would have to be pretty goddam angry and pretty goddam hostile to leave and form their own Country.
The USA isn't going to tolerate a hostile neighbor.
Just ain't gonna happen.
Bunch of fucking bullshit, wasting time with this mental masturbation.
Grow up, people
It doesn't have to a hostile neighbor.
Little Switzerland is in the middle of Europe , refused to be part of the EU, they have their own currency and they are doing mighty fine.
.
Theirs is a unique situation made so by their history, tradition and geography.
You aren't going to replicate the conditions here that exist there which make their independence possible.
It doesn't have to a hostile neighbor.
Little Switzerland is in the middle of Europe , refused to be part of the EU, they have their own currency and they are doing mighty fine.
.
Theirs is a unique situation made so by their history, tradition and geography.
You aren't going to replicate the conditions here that exist there which make their independence possible.
There is no unique situation.
Just admit that you and your ilk are assholes determined to meddle in whatever state declares its independence.
.
I think Texas, New Mexico, and California should all secede and join Mexico.
That'd really piss Arpaio off.
Spell it 'secession', and we can go from there.
Any state can leave the Union, provided the other states approve.
Won't happen.
Nobody is going to secede. Can't happen.
To secede, a State or States, would have to be pretty goddam angry and pretty goddam hostile to leave and form their own Country.
The USA isn't going to tolerate a hostile neighbor.
Just ain't gonna happen.
Bunch of fucking bullshit, wasting time with this mental masturbation.
Grow up, people
It doesn't have to a hostile neighbor.
Little Switzerland is in the middle of Europe , refused to be part of the EU, they have their own currency and they are doing mighty fine.
.
Theirs is a unique situation made so by their history, tradition and geography.
You aren't going to replicate the conditions here that exist there which make their independence possible.
Secession is rebellion. Delinquency in collecting taxes is not secession. It's called the English language.
Really?
Hummmmm
So when your wife demands a divorce you are going to murder her?
.
