socialism is the idea of redistribution of wealth. to hell with socialism as a poor guy going to school I think that some social programs are acceptable but to say that all should be equal is ludicrous some work much harder than others. If you're successful you have the right to what is yours and no man should take it. ESPECIALLY your government.
@stl6281z They were also solidly pro-Union. Despite being claimed by Confederates the enlistment records tell the true story. The enlistees from ALL the border states favored the Union Army, by a wide margin.
@brainerdrebel If you haven't noticed, most of the United Stated presidents have had socialist ideas. Not all of course. Obama has had a few socialist ideas, sure. That's because socialism is a good idea. So is communism. They just don't work in dictatorships. The examples of socialism you are familiar with are the times where it failed miserably. Capitalism has done this a lot as well. And Obama IS NOT a socialist. It is insulting to socialists to claim that he is.
@uiruu, The theory of socialism and communism seems to be a good idea. The recent examples in western civilization haven't worked, Cuba, Russia, Red China, Cambodia, North Korea. Russia and Red China have turned in part to capitalism. Cuba, North Korea, and Cambodia were bloodbaths. The problem with socialism is, why work hard if the individual's labor is stolen. I stopped working as much and reduced my cost of living and maintained the same standard of living. We are tax slaves in the US.
@brainerdrebel "we are tax slaves in the US" ha! Ha hah hah!
Oh you ignorant conservative fucknut. You must really be worried about your warped little view of reality, huh? Yeah. I'm glad I'm not your republican ass.
@uiruu What is your total tax bill? Federal, state and local? Are you old enough to own property? I am not a republican, I am a Libitarian. What are you worried about? Profanity diminishes your post, you haven't said, anything.
@brainerdrebel Our taxes are reasonable. We are not tax slaves. As for the rest of your comment, well, I don't really feel like going into detail there. Profanity diminishes my post? Are you really concerned about profanity?
@uiruu Reasonable, obviously you don't own a home or work. I pay more property tax than my house payment was. 37% federal income tax, 6% state income tax, sewer tax on water, storm water run off on rain water, sales tax on food, etc. I personal pay over 60% of my income in taxes. Chattel Slavery only produced 50% productivity. We are serfs, share croppers, peasants on our own land. Profanity is a lack of vocabulary.
@uiruu sorry to say, but that is the situation. However, most u.s. labor is not productive labor, so 80% don't pay, not really. Factories (product to sell) were off-shored, through land grab farm land taken (eg: Tobacco Acts 1965, making cash crop bascially illegal shut down 450,000 T. farms, devalued land, so yankees could buy cheap for "sun belt" on the tax buck, or turning of San Joaquin water, etc. Admins for gov, military, WArfare-welfare, etc. NONE are wealth producing.
@uiruu Actually most people don't create anything. So, they dont' really pay any taxes, but they are paid by taxes. And the service people --electrician, plumbers, whatever--- are paid by people who are paid by taxes. So where does money come from? LOL. About 5% of the people, the creative talent and the printing press. The rest is warfare-welfare, administering those, state-local-fed gov employees, service people who feed off them. So technically all of them are freeloaders.
@westchesterny Aw, that's cute. "Freeloaders"? God, you must hate being so paranoid. I have no rebuttle, as I don't know an awful lot about the subject. And unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions, so I refrain from arguing it altogether. But even a baby can tell your view is bullshit.
@uiruu just making the point that only some jobs are wealth producing, and its stream from those that is channeled to other areas. Most likely, you do not have a wealth-creating job. Most people don't, but they don't think about it. Economics, as you say, remains something of a mystery to them. When economists or people who study economy or even viable candidates who can fix the mess try to explain they call them names or say "bullshit," as you, b/c they can't grasp real economic ideas.
@westchesterny Right, right, I get it I get it. We know your stance on those issues. I'm not very well-versed in political matters, so I can't really debate this. BUT! If you truly have a problem with our nation, try to change it. Don't even attemp to rationalize the "Confederate States of America". With the comments you post, I can tell you are above that. The two top rated comments at the moment are just as chock-full of intellect-supressing bullshit as this video is, by the way.
FACT - NONE of the flags of the Confederacy or Southern Nation ever flew over a slave ship. Nor did the South own or operate any slaves ships. The English, the Dutch and the Portugese brought slaves to this country, not the Southern Nation.
BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious.
No Federal or Union ship ever imported slaves into America. The Federal government/Union only had a handfull of ships in its defensive Navy until the War of 1812, and slavery had been abolished in all northern States by 1808. There were however a few ships that were owned by a few northern businessmen that continued to move slaves between Africa and the Caribeean in violation of Federal law.
Southerners however began breeding perpetual slaves.
@tazedbrothree The North failed to develop large-scale agrarian slavery, such as later arose in the Deep South, but that had little to do with morality and much to do with climate and economy. Slavery was abolished in Ohio by the state's original constitution (1802). But at the same time aggressively barred black immigration.
Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; & it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable—the honest errors of minds led astray by PRECONCEIVED JEALOUSIES & FEARS. So numerous indeed & so
powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the
judgment, that we...see wise & good men on the wrong side."
a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness
& efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, & that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest
number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people...and ending tyrants.
"This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties." - John Jay, Federalist #2 (Future Chief Supreme Court Justice)
@tazedbrothree And they weren't "split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties." All parties essentially agreed with Jay. But the fact remains that the upon entering that Union, that the parties to it (the STATES) retained their sovereignty (right to self determination) in the event this "experiment in democracy" proved to be hostile to the ends for which the States created it. The Founders feared this might one day happen.
@eflint1 Another point. According to Lincoln, the term "perpetual Union" in the Articles of Confederation proved that the States were eternally bound and that no State could secede. If this were true, then States would be legally bound to remain united under the Articles if they failed to ratify the Constitution. However, Jay's and others were clear that failure to ratify would mean the end of the Union. Also, the USA under the AOC and the USA under the Constitution were 2 separate countries.
@tazedbrothree Discussing the potential for future hostility between a Northern and Southern confederation should America fail to unite under the proposed Constitution, Jay revealed certain Northern prejudices in his speculation that Northerners would "be tempted to gather honey in the more blooming fields and milder air of their luxurious and more delicate neighbours."
@tazedbrothree And which side claimed to be fighting to preserve "government of, for ,and by the people'? Which side brought the horrors of "Reconstruction"?
@tazedbrothree So the South didn't experience anything from 1787 to 1860 that might have been serious cause for alarm? This didn't happen overnight. It was a gradual but steady accumulation of violations that came to a head in 1860. I suggest you read the book "The Secret Six" by Otto Scott. If you believe what Ron Paul says about "corporatists" , then you'll like this book.
@eflint1 I too believe the South has already been vindicated. The south has had its effect on the thirst for freedom in this country and the thirst for spirituality, as well as good food and music. But there was loss and gain for either side. Now the battle for our country seems to be between the "coasts" and the rest of the country. God bless the fly-over country? Maybe we need a flag that says, "Don't Land on Me".
@tazedbrothree "Why do you keep removing your own comments? That's about a dozen so far. What kind of filth are you posting and then removing?" Another diversion? Nobody is falling for it. But I had better use spell check BEFORE I post. This keyboard has lots of sticky keys.
Just about a month and a half ago another black man was dragged to his death behind a pick-up truck...in Georgia I believe. So much for "precious individuals".
I wish you were completely right, and to a certain extent the south has indeed changed dramatically since the 1970's when the Federal government enforced, sometimes with armed troops, desegregation and voting rights violations. But, you havn't met my wife's family in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. :/
@tazedbrothree And YOU are a pathetic liar for trying to make what happened to that black man somehow "the norm" in today's south. And right now it's CERTAIN black officials in Mississippi who are trying to rob whites of THEIR voting rights. NOW it's black on white crime DWARFING white on black crime across the South. Just look up the stats by imperial government. NOW its our "Justice" Department declaring that voting rights violations where WHITES are the victims will not be prosecuted.
Can anyone doubt that if Herman Cain ran for governor of Georgia that he would win by a landslide among whites? I'm proud that we've allowed God's love to heal old wounds, while at the same time still earnestly contending for that form of Union and government bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers, a "compact between sovereign States" ,and that while striving for preservation of said Union, reserve the right to self determination when the Union becomes destructive to the rule of law.
It is southern politicians who have championed the idea of outlawing all classification by race, over the strong objection of the "egalitarian north" whose sectionalism divided the country in 1860 and who seek to further divide us today. Anyone who wants to unjustly label us as a "racist region" need only consider the election of 1996 where polls showed that in S.Carolina, Colin Powell would have defeated Bill Clinton among white males 69%-31%.
There is no other region in America that defends the rights of the individual like the South. While Yankees are still trying to divide us into "groups" ans keep us divided, the Southern mindset is one that believes we are all "precious individuals" equal in God's eyes. We've released the bitterness that was a result of the racist policies brought against us during Reconstruction that were designed by the victors to keep black and white divided and to keep the South in turmoil.
@eflint1 "While Yankees are still trying to divide us into "groups" ans (sic) keep us divided..." - flint
Your use of the word "Yankees" is divisive.
In case you havn't noticed, it is the Neo-Confederates in the South, alone, who are claiming a divided country, a culture and heritage all their own and unique.
It is the southern Neo-Confederate/Soverign Citizen alone who continue with the "us" and "them". Most southerners know they are full of it.
@tazedbrothree "neo-confederates ALONE". Again you are either ignorant,a liar, a self loathing sufferer of white guilt syndrome, or all of the above. The most active secession movement in this country is in VERMONT. The next active would be in Hawaii. The third is the racist "Aztlan" group of Latinos who want the entire Southwest to secede from the USA.
@tazedbrothree Respond to this video...Even in the South, so-called "neo-Confederates" are not gaining much ground. That is because most conservative southerners like myself are determined that we won't have to secede. This time we,along with our western brethren are going to bring back the true Union of the Framers through the amendment process. Any State that will not ratify the changes will not be in the Union. So you'd better start looking for property in New England where you belong.
@eflint1 Luke 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it. 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him,
31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?
Luke 14: 32 Or else, while the strong king is still a great way off, the weak King sends a delegation and sues for peace, subordinating himself. 33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake ALL that he has cannot be My disciple.
@eflint1, Actually, the first candidate I voted for president was Jimmy Carter, because he was a southerner. Big mistake that was.
I'm really not interested in the behavior of the North, I'm interested in how the South felt justified in seceding from the Union, why they followed South Carolina to their ruin, how they conducted the war, how they treated their own citizens before, during, and after the war, & why we lost.
The reason I'm more interested in the South is because firstly, they are my people, sort of. I hardly recognize them sometimes. And secondly, practically everything they did leading up the war and during the war, and after the war...was self-righteous hypocrisy, lying, murdering, and the abrogation of the very constitutional rights and protections that they claimed they were fighting for.
@tazedbrothree You are a liar either way because your profile say you are 40. I'm a bit older than you and I wasn't old enough to vote until Reagan's re-election bid in 1984. "The bible says we are to count the cost." Well, if our Revolutionary forefathers took that verse out of context like you did, then perhaps we wouldn't have a country today. "'m really not interested in the behavior of the North," Yeah because their atrocities were done in the name of "Union and freedom".
@eflint1 I'll get around to correcting the age on my profile someday.
Meanwhile, its useful for flushing out idiots like yourself.
And, our founding fathers did count the cost. They saw what they were up against with Great Britain, and said, "We shall all hang TOGETHER, or hang separately."
About 10% of the colonial population supported the revolutionary war...10%. The vast majority just wanted to be left alone.
@tazedbrothree "I'll get around to correcting the age on my profile someday.
Meanwhile, its useful for flushing out idiots like yourself." Meaningless drivel. You're just a liar and a fraud. That's very obvious. "About 10% of the colonial population supported the revolutionary war.." Well it seems then that the Confederates were "hanging together" more than the Revolutionaries were. But it's obvious you are running out of steam. That's been obvious for days.
@eflint1 You're right, I could have left it blank. And for your sake perhaps I should have. I din't know it was going to be such an issue with you. I chose not to because I wanted to see what would happen. Nevertheless, I freely admit that I am not 40 years old. But I do swear on my mother's grave that I worked for Reagan and I voted for Ron Paul, and yes, my mother is dead, she died in 1996, and my father died in 1992.
@tazedbrothree I'm sorry about your parents. I lost my mom kinda unexpectedly back in February. I'm sure even though you've moved on, the memories of their passing stay fresh. I don't know how you could have supported Reagan and Paul and say that I'm some sort of fringe extremist. I love America and feel like I owe to the Framers to try to educate my country as to their "original intent" that they intentionally made so clear we wdn't need lawyers to tell us what they "really" meant.
@eflint1 I considered you to be some sort of fringe extremist because of some of the things you said about the South Shall Rise Again, and how the US was going to Fall and then you were "going to get our country back". This is pretty much word for word what the extremists like Timothy McVeigh said, and the white supremists, and what Sovereign Citizens proclaim. As christians, we must stand for God and against any kind of hatred and injustice, but take great care when in the devil's playground.
If you truly are a christian brother, then you know that, "We battle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers in high places."
@tazedbrothree I don't recall saying anything about the "South" per say rising again, but that the Republic as created by the Framers shall rise again. Yet I do feel the South will and has been in many way vindicated already. I'd be saying the same thing if the North had seceded and been invaded. But if I said anything about "America falling" I don't recall it. That certainly is not my prayer. This "southern heritage" part of the equation is not a big priority to me.
@tazedbrothree But even if what you said was true 9and it's not) it still does not change the fact that.....A) Secession is legal...and...B)The States retained their sovereignty upon entering the Union, and that trumps every argument you make about the South's flaws and transgressions. You're liberal statist mind won't allow you to admit this. Typical commie mode of debating.
@eflint1 LOL....ohhhhh that's right...YOU are way smarter than the Supreme Court and your Senators and Congressmen...Awwwwww....if only they would obey YOU everything would be perfect.
Typical demented psychotic with delusions of grandeur.
@tazedbrothree No, but the Founders were allot smarter than any President,judge or military kangaroo court that came "four score and seven years" later.
@eflint1 Maybe the founders were smarter or maybe Providence lent a hand. Some would say they shouldn't have "wasted their time" by creating a republic that still retained slavery. Slavery was on the way out in the 1780's...they should have killed the serpent while they had a chance.
@tazedbrothree ."they should have killed the serpent while they had a chance." Agreed, but we are talking about the 18th century. We need allot of what they had, but they needed allot of what we have now.
Flint you silly little person. You know you were taught not to think on your own. Let the government write the textbooks and tell you what you really need to know. Don't worry about the Federal Reserve Notes, let the Rothchilds and Rockefellers make billions printing worthless fiat currency. Flint you need to be more patriotic, and follow instructions. Recess in five minutes.
@brainerdrebel Exactly !! This iswhy I label him a fraud when he claims he supported Reagan (who said that the government no longer governs when the consent of the governed) and Ron Paul (Who believes everything you and I do onthe secession issue). Tazed wasn't even old enough to vote for Reagan in his SECOND term ! He began voting for Pres in 1988 when he pulled the lever for Dukakis, and later for Willy, Al, Hillary, and the Muslim.
eflint1 Your justification of the horrors perpetrated on the people of Virginia who loved the United States of America, by their fellow Virginians, is idiotic. It flys in the face of everything that Virginia stood for. It violated the Virginia constitution, the right to free speech, the right to a secret ballot, the right not to have their property searched and seized, and violated cruel and unusual punishment.
@tazedbrothree All of this pales in comparison to what Lincoln did to NORTHERNERS who dared to question him, and your melodramatic rants won't change that. Nor will it change the fact that... A) Secession was legal....and...B) The States retained their sovereignty upon ratifying the Constitution. You've been deluged with facts that confirm this. That is why you resort to the pointing out of flaws and war time cruelties as a diversion (only by southerners of course) and ignore the Framers' wds
@tazedbrothree If you knew your history at all, you'd know that the South did send a peace delegation before Sumter. They offered to pay the South's part of the national debt and to make an orderly separation. Lincoln, and the Repubs refused to talk to them. Lincoln's and Seward's lust for the "irrepressible conflict" overpowered them.
Let's try this again...If the Supreme Court ruled today that it was actually a violation of the 2nd amendment for any private citizen to own firearms, and that all privately owned fire arms must be surrendered to Federal authorities, would you actually believe that such a ruling would be valid? Is there EVER even a case in your mind where the Court could actually over step its authority?
@eflint1 That's why I said that the case of Virginia/West Virginia was a Catch 22. I'm sorry you missed that, but I'll try to repeat what I said.
It's unconstitutional to take territory from a State in order to make a new State. West Virginia did precisely that. In March of 1861 Lincoln suggested that the South's secession was illegal, therefore they were still part of the USA.
But a little over 2 years later, June 1863, northwestern Virginia seceded and was granted statehood. Of course...
...of course, the USPS continued to deliver mail to the southern States until 1862.
I guess then sometime during 1862-1863 Lincoln/US government changed their stand on the Southern rebellion & allowed West Virginia.
1862 was pivotal for both sides. That was when the South began saying the war was about States rights instead of slavery, because Britain & France refused to side with slavers., & the US began saying the war was about slavery instead of states rights, for the same reason.
However, I have read the reports from Northwest Virginia during 1861-62. The region was full of white refugees from the rest of Virginia where they had been driven from their homes & threatened because they had voted to stay in the Union during the State referendum on secession. Even in this area the refugees were not safe from Confederate mauraders who would murder them, rape the women, kill children, and rob whenever possible. It made a lot of sense safety-wise to secede from Virginia.
@eflint1 I wasn't giving my opinion I was stating the obvious.
I read a little more about West Virginia. Apparently the Virginia vote to secede was illegal. Such a referendum, according to the Virginia constitution would have had to be requested by a majority of the people even to come up for a later vote. It was not, it was propagated by the politicians themselves. The representatives of NW Virginia vacated the vote and reunified as a new State.
@eflint1 In addition, South Carolina was rebellious from the very beginning. They rebelled against the Lord's Proprietors in 1719, they were the first to declare themselves independent in 1776, refused to sign the Articles of Confederation until anti-slavery language was taken out, re-sided with the British in 1778, fought for even more freedom than Madison's Constitution provided, tried to secede in 1832, & then spoke of war against the Federal government openly until they did it 1861.
@tazedbrothree As long as his State is a member of the Union, HP officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution. FBI and U.S. Marshalls have turned into nothing more than domestic spy agencies that subvert the Constitution.
@tazed If the Supreme Court ruled today that it was actually a violation of the 2nd amendment for any private citizen to own firearms, and that all privately owned fire arms must be surrendered to Federal authorities, would you actually believe that such a ruling would be valid? Is there EVER even a case in your mind where the Court could actually over step its authority?
That's how the State of West Virginia came to be even though the Constitution forbade a new State being constructed from part of an existing State.
When Virginia seceded, they were no longer part of the United States. That opened the door for the people of northwest Virginia to apply for Statehood, which they received.
The South couldn't have it both ways...they couldn't secede from the US & then claim ANY US Constitutional rights. Catch 22
@tazedbrothree Ah, but you contradict your own warped philosophy !! According to Lincoln, AND the Texas Vs White decision, Virginia never was out of the Union !! Therefore, the creation of West Virginia was illegal. If Virginia was right in asserting that they were no longer part of the USA, then the U.S. simply illegally stole land from another country . Amazing how hatred can cloud one's ability to reason.
@eflint1 The CLEAR wording of the Constitution? WHO'S clear wording? According to YOUR definition of clear wording? Probably.
And for all I know, the Supreme Court erred in Texas vs. White. But, since we are a nation of laws rather than anarchy we must take the good with the bad until we can peacefully and legally right those wrongs.
According to Texas v. White, SC could have petitioned the other States for its secession in 1860. They probably would have received permission.
Instead, SC chose to escalate a tense situation by firing on an un-armed vessel, the Star of the West. There is no legal excuse for doing so. The Federal government had the legal right to resupply its troops on its property.
The Federal government also had the legal right not to sell Fort Sumter back to South Carolina or the CSA. Are you telling me that if you don't want to sell your house that someone can just shoot you or at you to compel you to sell or surrender? What kind of world?
@tazedbrothree "Are you telling me that if you don't want to sell your house that someone can just shoot you or at you to compel you to sell or surrender? What kind of world?" Yes. Ever heard of imminent domain?
@tazedbrothree That's not the point. The point is, the government has imminent domain power, including the government of the Republic of South Carolina of that time. You know your argument is weak. Britain could make the same claim about military bases that we here during the Revolution. Why would the U.S. need a fort in the middle of a harbor of a foreign land that did not want them there? Lame argument, as usual.
@eflint1 That's exactly the point. You make South Carolina and the other Southern States to be "pure as the driven snow".
Britain did in fact refuse American independence and invaded, quite often with vicious and monsterous results. That's why there was a war, we had to earn our independence.
The US would need a fort in the middle of Charleston harbor for when South Carolina was once again a happy part of the Union. In 1861 neither side expected the scuffle to last more than 90 days.
Certainly, either side could maintain for 90 days to see what happened. You thought the Federal government should have just rolled over and turned pussy? I guess that's what most of the South really actually thought at the time...that they wouldn't have to earn their freedom through bloodshed? Pretty naive.
@tazedbrothree "That's exactly the point. You make South Carolina and the other Southern States to be "pure as the driven snow". That's pure bull.
"That's why there was a war, we had to earn our independence." Thanks for admitting that the CSA was fighting against the same tyranny and oppression that the colonies fought against in the revolution.
@tazedbrothree We are a nation of laws. And what law in the Constitution did Chase cite that outlawed secession? Law here did not prevail. A THEORY prevailed. This theory was soundly rejected by the Constitutional convention. This is the same "theory" by which the CSA died, as Jefferson Davis said.
“But it must not be forgotten, that the State of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT State; that the United States are a confederacy of States; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic. The Governor of this State is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent State," (Connecticut Resolution of 1812) It's amazing that even this Yankee State considered itself to be a free country.
Virginia, feeling some action desirable to complete the treaty (of Paris), prior to action by Congress, on June 4, 1779, undertook solemnly to ratify this treaty with France on her own. By appropriate resolution, transmitted by Governor Jefferson to the French minister at Philadelphia, the sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia declared herself individually bound by the French treaty.(8) In terms of international law, Virginia was a nation; in terms of domestic law, she was a sovereign State.
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such.
“The several States which composed this Union . . . became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign States.” (Justice William Cushing)
"I have ever considered it as the established doctrine of the United States, that their independence originated from, and commenced with, the declaration of Congress, on the Fourth of July, 1776; and that no other period can be fixed on for its commencement; and that all laws made by the legislatures of the several States, after the Declaration of Independence, were the laws of sovereign and independent governments.” Chase 3
."From the Fourth of July, said Chase, “the American States were de facto as well as de jure in the possession and actual exercise of all the rights of independent governments. . . " Chase 2.
Justice Samuel Chase ,justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1796 to 1811 said..
"not that the united colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent States, etc., but that each of them was a sovereign and independent State, that is, that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority, and its own laws without any control from any other power on earth.”
@eflint1 You talk a long string of bullcrap logic.
You told us that the US Constitution kept South Carolina, and every State, a sovereign nation. So, according to your logic nothing changed in SC sovereignty between 1776 and 1860 or even today. According to you all SC did by seceding was to walk away from her federated acquaintances.
Don't even try to give us this bull crap that suddenly they were a different entitity that suddenly now had sovereignty to make its own decisions.
@tazedbrothree That was one of the dumbest arguments I've heard yet. When SC was in the Union, even though she retained her sovereignty, she had delegated certain powers to the Federal Government, and was bound to obey Federal law. Once out of the Union, that does not apply.
@eflint1 The Federal government was a land owner just like any other landowner. They held title to the land. They were the legal owner. It doesn't matter if a Frenchman bought the property, a Texan, or whomever...possession is 9/10ths of the law...and the other 10th is the title deed. Like anyother matter in dispute it belonged in an appropriate court if they were at all interested in doing things legally. There was no state of war until the first CSA cannon fired.
@tazedbrothree Again, the CS government offered more than ample compensation for Sumter and all other Federal possessions which when the seceding States were still in the USA were co-owners with the Northern States. And if you think that a state of war didn't exist before Sumter, you are dreaming. Complete conquest and new order were going to hasppen even if the South had not raised a military.
@tazedbrothree; Did the European Union create a Nation? The States created the Federal Government as an agent between the States. The Federal Government is not over the States, they are equal partners. The power of the Federal Government was expressly limited. If the Federal Government oversteps the Constitution any State has the right to leave.
@brainerdrebel The European Union might eventually create a Nation...who knows? They have about a 1,000 year history of being separate nations with totally different languages, laws, and culture.
The United States belonged entirely to one country...Great Britain...and all of its citizens spoke the same language...the King's English...except for a few Germans and French.
The Supreme Court ruled that a State may only leave the Union by revolution or by a consensus of the other States.
@tazedbrothree; Tazed, I hope you now understand what the War for Southern Independence was fought over. The conflict is not over. The Federal Government continues to overstep it limited authority, the authority the founders and States struggled to put on paper (Constitution). Reconstruction simply reconstructed the Original Constitution.
@brainerdrebel Amen!! We've had enough of D.C.'s crap !! THEY are hell bent on finishing the Union off anyway and to impose the NWO. Our goal really is to RESTORE the Union as framed by the Founders. I predict the Union will be smaller, but will rise from the ashes of economic calamity as the States /people are freed from the chains of liberalism that now bind them. Without the cancer of New England corrupting the rest of the body, health will flourish.
The CSA went around confiscating the property and monies of anyone that would not swear alliegance to the CSA. In some instances the people were hanged, had their homes burnt down, were tarred and feathered...one man in west Tennessee his wife was gang raped and his nephew was tortured to death.
The CSA had no qualms of violating the life, liberty, or property of the people.
@tazedbrothree The North was just as bad if not worse. The country as a whole has sinned greatly. But none of our sins disproves the fact that the States retained their sovereignty. You can't seem to wrap your mind around this.
@eflint1 I understand State sovereignty just fine...in the context of a Federated State and part of a perpetual union. However, you take the sovereignty issue too far...just as the over-reacting hot-heads of the Old South did...over the edge...to the point that you believe each State is a separate Nation with soveriegnty that it can withdrawl delegated powers and rights from Federal government at will...even to the harm or disenfranchisement of its own people.
@tazedbrothree The PEOPLE are the sovereigns within the sovereignties. The people of those States fired their agent. You worship the Union above the principles of self determination the Union stands for. And no, they were not sovereign just as members of a Federated State and part of a perpetual union. All of that was sorted out at the Convention.
@eflint1 The Constitution of the State of South Carolina required any public official...whether US Senator, Congressman, Governor, State Legislature, Mayor, Sheriff, any at all...to qualify for public office they must own their estate outright and be the owner no less than ten negro slaves.
@tazedbrothree And what does this have to do with whether or not States retained their sovereignty.? The North had bogus laws as well. Big whoop. You seem to think you can neutralize the sovereignty claim by pointing out all of the South's flaws.
@eflint1 Right. Lincoln was a dictator. The US has had lots of "dictators" starting with George Washington. That's right, Washington sent an army of 12,000 Federal soldiers into western Pennsylvania after the Supreme Court ruled they were in rebellion against the Federal government. The Whiskey Rebellion.
Ironically, the Federal army used to crush the rebellion was led by General Henry Lee, who was Robert E. Lee's father.
@tazedbrothree As I previously stated, the Feds WERE in their rights to take action in the Whiskey Rebellion. But when a State LEAVES the Union, the President has no jurisdiction.
@eflint1 When a State leaves the Union it is no longer part of the United States and is no longer under the protection of the Constitution or the laws of the United States. The President can then do anything he wants to to this non-American State. If he wants to send nuclear bombers and wipe out the entire population of that State, he can do it, especially if Congress votes for a Declaration of War. Lincoln could have told the army to kill every southerner if he wanted to.
@tazedbrothree OK, let's nuke every country that is not part of the United States since they don't have our constitutional protections. You're whacked.
@eflint1 I believe what the Supreme Court said in Texas v. White, that States may secede by either Revolution (which is what the South tried) or by consensus of all the other States. As I said before, if the Southern States had attempted the second method, consensus, they more than likely would have prevailed...it would have been out of the jurisdiction of the Federal government and it would have been done totally legally and no one would have gotten hurt.
But consensus is not what the South wanted. The South wanted to spread slavery into an equal number of new States. To get a consensus the South would have had to compromise and keep slavery limited to the current slave states. Their demand for new slave states is what drove them off the deep end to their own destruction.
@tazedbrothree But again, all scenery. Once they seceded, it was a moot point. They lost all claims to those territories. What's really interesting is that many northern states passed laws keeping blacks out, before and after the war. This was one of the main reasons they didn't want slavery in the territories. They were racist, white supremacists like their southern brethren. The difference is, southerners didn't hate the blacks. Northerners did.
@eflint1 I thought you said that South Carolina was always a sovereign nation? You told us that Madison said so, that all the colonies, even after joining the Union, were always sovereign.
That means, according to your arguments, that SC was sovererign when it sold the property to the Federal government. So according to your argument, nothing really changed after they seceded.
So which is it? Was SC sovereign enough to sell the property in 1810 or not?
@tazedbrothree When nations decide to nationalize foreign owned assets, they do it and no one invades them. The CS offered money to the U.S. to settle all such debts. Lincoln refused to see them. So again, your argument has no merit. BTW, the "Republic of South Carolina" existed before the joint Declaration of Independence was signed. They even had a President.
@tazedbrothree Ironically, this is at the same time that Congress, through the Reconstruction Act, declared that the Southern States were in fact out of the Union, the whites weren't citizens (in most cases), and that they were a conquered nation. You can't have it both ways, but they did.
@tazedbrothree Furthermore, Lincoln , in his first inaugural address (before Sumter) made it clear that he wasn't going to allow the South to form a nation under any circumstances. That's when he espoused his new theory of government that the Union created the States. This speech is what caused the moderate upper South to begin moving towards secession. The man was a dictator.
@eflint1 Thankfully, your opinion is worthless. That's why we have Legislatures and Courts and Governors, etc. so that people that go off the edge get marginalized. Unfortunately in 1860, the deluded people ruled the South, and there are still people such as yourself who follow in their mistakes. You remind me of the people that say, "The Bible was good enough for Paul its good enough for me." except there was no bible during Paul's day. LOL retards.
@tazedbrothree It's not about the South or who ruled it in 1860. It's about the nature of the republic created in 1787. Everything else is just scenery. I'd be saying the same thing if the Northern States had seceded and the South tried to force them back into the Union. Your dodging this issue and subsequent statements about the Framers show what you are. Why not just admit that the States did have a right to secede, but that you don't think they should have had that right?
@tazedbrothree "Thankfully, your opinion is worthless. That's why we have Legislatures and Courts and Governors" Spoken like a true statist. It seems you think the opinion of the Founders is also worthless.
The debate here is not whether the Framers should have included women's suffrage or minority rights in the Constitution, or whether the South was evil. Those are points for other debates. The debate here is whether or not Lincoln was wrong when he claimed the States NEVER were sovereignties, much less that they lost their sovereignty upon ratifying the Constitution. Comparing Lincoln's view to the clear statements of the Framers, Lincoln loses. Therefore, he is a war criminal IMO.
@eflint1 "You should rephrase that.."the NORTH did not want a competitor America so they killed 600,000 people and stole sovereignty from the States".
The Navy warned SC that they would attempt to resupply Fort Sumter with an unarmed merchant ship, Star of the West. SC fired on this unarmed American ship. As they were being fired upon, Anderson in Fort Sumter refused to fire his cannons in its defense. There were no cannon on board. To unload cannon the ship would have been totally defenseless & well within range of dozens of SC batteries. The fort itself was incomplete and indefensible. CSA overreacted.
Fort Sumter had only 1/2 of its cannon, mostly the smallest ones & were incapable of attacking Charleston. Star of the West manifests & eye-witness accounts state the Star of the West had only food, clothing, & a few dozen Federal troops armed with muskets, only capable of defending against an invading force attempting to enter the Fort.
CSA Secty of State Toombs warned the CSA against firing on Sumter, "You will awaken a hornets nest and they will come down here and sting us to death."
@tazedbrothree At this very time there was a naval floatilla with several hundred troops ready to take Charleston. If the South had waited for them to arrive and get fired upon while trying to invade, you'd be making the same tired argument about "the South starting the war".
@eflint1 So you say, a different interpretation is that the Federal government seriously meant that they really were going to defend Federal owned properties and if SC gave them any trouble they could deal with it.
This is what I meant by the CSA being run by fear and hatred. Fear is a powerful force, you begin to imagine things that arn't really there at all.
@tazedbrothree The leaders of the CSARE actually irrelevant here. What's relevant is the crisis was started by the north. Had not the north violated the constitution by trying to force a State back in the union, Sumter would not have been fired on. The CS tried to pay their part of the national debt and it was refused by Herr Lincoln. The north would have been reimbursed for Sumter. We lease bases all over the world. If a country decides to break the lease and expel us, we don't invade.
@eflint1 Well, as I told you before, the United States of America is not going to allow a new foreign power to be on this continent...something about "Manifest Destiny" or something like that.
And so, although Lincoln tried to maintain a straight face when he called the South "our deluded fellow countrymen", the United States was actually at war with a foreign power to rid it from the continent.
I guess that's why so may Confederates left for other countries after the war or went North.
@tazedbrothree You should rephrase that.."the NORTH did not want a competitor America so they killed 600,000 people and stole sovereignty from the States".
The south will rise again....
Fooblestheclown 8 months ago
socialism is the idea of redistribution of wealth. to hell with socialism as a poor guy going to school I think that some social programs are acceptable but to say that all should be equal is ludicrous some work much harder than others. If you're successful you have the right to what is yours and no man should take it. ESPECIALLY your government.
machineman0786 8 months ago 4
I hate it when your folks forget Missouri and Kentucky
stl6281z 1 year ago
@stl6281z Missouri and the people of Missouri paid a hell of a price during the war. GOD bless the CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.
greasychoppers 1 year ago 4
@stl6281z They aren't southern states thats why.
xxmoonliight 10 months ago
@xxmoonliight Bull Shit
stl6281z 10 months ago
@stl6281z They were also solidly pro-Union. Despite being claimed by Confederates the enlistment records tell the true story. The enlistees from ALL the border states favored the Union Army, by a wide margin.
UnionStatesHeritage 6 months ago
It is time to partition the States, let Barry and the Jokers have their Union of Socialist States, USSA
Let us have our Constitutional Republic.
brainerdrebel 1 year ago
@brainerdrebel What's so wrong with socialism?
uiruu 9 months ago
@uiruu ,"The only thing wrong with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money" M. Thatcher
brainerdrebel 9 months ago
@brainerdrebel If you haven't noticed, most of the United Stated presidents have had socialist ideas. Not all of course. Obama has had a few socialist ideas, sure. That's because socialism is a good idea. So is communism. They just don't work in dictatorships. The examples of socialism you are familiar with are the times where it failed miserably. Capitalism has done this a lot as well. And Obama IS NOT a socialist. It is insulting to socialists to claim that he is.
uiruu 9 months ago
@uiruu, The theory of socialism and communism seems to be a good idea. The recent examples in western civilization haven't worked, Cuba, Russia, Red China, Cambodia, North Korea. Russia and Red China have turned in part to capitalism. Cuba, North Korea, and Cambodia were bloodbaths. The problem with socialism is, why work hard if the individual's labor is stolen. I stopped working as much and reduced my cost of living and maintained the same standard of living. We are tax slaves in the US.
brainerdrebel 9 months ago
@brainerdrebel "we are tax slaves in the US" ha! Ha hah hah!
Oh you ignorant conservative fucknut. You must really be worried about your warped little view of reality, huh? Yeah. I'm glad I'm not your republican ass.
uiruu 9 months ago
@uiruu What is your total tax bill? Federal, state and local? Are you old enough to own property? I am not a republican, I am a Libitarian. What are you worried about? Profanity diminishes your post, you haven't said, anything.
brainerdrebel 9 months ago
@brainerdrebel Our taxes are reasonable. We are not tax slaves. As for the rest of your comment, well, I don't really feel like going into detail there. Profanity diminishes my post? Are you really concerned about profanity?
uiruu 9 months ago
@uiruu Reasonable, obviously you don't own a home or work. I pay more property tax than my house payment was. 37% federal income tax, 6% state income tax, sewer tax on water, storm water run off on rain water, sales tax on food, etc. I personal pay over 60% of my income in taxes. Chattel Slavery only produced 50% productivity. We are serfs, share croppers, peasants on our own land. Profanity is a lack of vocabulary.
brainerdrebel 9 months ago
@uiruu sorry to say, but that is the situation. However, most u.s. labor is not productive labor, so 80% don't pay, not really. Factories (product to sell) were off-shored, through land grab farm land taken (eg: Tobacco Acts 1965, making cash crop bascially illegal shut down 450,000 T. farms, devalued land, so yankees could buy cheap for "sun belt" on the tax buck, or turning of San Joaquin water, etc. Admins for gov, military, WArfare-welfare, etc. NONE are wealth producing.
westchesterny 3 months ago
@uiruu Actually most people don't create anything. So, they dont' really pay any taxes, but they are paid by taxes. And the service people --electrician, plumbers, whatever--- are paid by people who are paid by taxes. So where does money come from? LOL. About 5% of the people, the creative talent and the printing press. The rest is warfare-welfare, administering those, state-local-fed gov employees, service people who feed off them. So technically all of them are freeloaders.
westchesterny 3 months ago
@westchesterny Aw, that's cute. "Freeloaders"? God, you must hate being so paranoid. I have no rebuttle, as I don't know an awful lot about the subject. And unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions, so I refrain from arguing it altogether. But even a baby can tell your view is bullshit.
uiruu 3 months ago
@uiruu just making the point that only some jobs are wealth producing, and its stream from those that is channeled to other areas. Most likely, you do not have a wealth-creating job. Most people don't, but they don't think about it. Economics, as you say, remains something of a mystery to them. When economists or people who study economy or even viable candidates who can fix the mess try to explain they call them names or say "bullshit," as you, b/c they can't grasp real economic ideas.
westchesterny 3 months ago
@westchesterny Right, right, I get it I get it. We know your stance on those issues. I'm not very well-versed in political matters, so I can't really debate this. BUT! If you truly have a problem with our nation, try to change it. Don't even attemp to rationalize the "Confederate States of America". With the comments you post, I can tell you are above that. The two top rated comments at the moment are just as chock-full of intellect-supressing bullshit as this video is, by the way.
uiruu 3 months ago
carry on CSA from spain
manoloespartano 1 year ago
LONG LIVE THE CSA
ARCM566 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FACT - NONE of the flags of the Confederacy or Southern Nation ever flew over a slave ship. Nor did the South own or operate any slaves ships. The English, the Dutch and the Portugese brought slaves to this country, not the Southern Nation.
BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious.
canaydemedian 1 year ago 4
@canaydemedian This last part is a lie, mostly.
No Federal or Union ship ever imported slaves into America. The Federal government/Union only had a handfull of ships in its defensive Navy until the War of 1812, and slavery had been abolished in all northern States by 1808. There were however a few ships that were owned by a few northern businessmen that continued to move slaves between Africa and the Caribeean in violation of Federal law.
Southerners however began breeding perpetual slaves.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree The North failed to develop large-scale agrarian slavery, such as later arose in the Deep South, but that had little to do with morality and much to do with climate and economy. Slavery was abolished in Ohio by the state's original constitution (1802). But at the same time aggressively barred black immigration.
longof99 1 year ago 2
JQ Adams3.."Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents
which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution,
to form again a more perfect Union, by dissolving that which
could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited
by the law of political gravitation to the center. "
eflint1 1 year ago 2
JQ Adams cont...."the bonds of political association -
will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the
magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and
far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part
in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint. " (cont)
eflint1 1 year ago
It's too bad that John Quincy Adams' (not known for being a southern rebel) were not listened to, "If the day
should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of
the people of these States shall be alienated from each other, when
the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of
interests shall fester into hatred, ...(cont.)
eflint1 1 year ago
damn yankees
Annsterful 1 year ago
@eflint1 "Among the most formidible obstacles which the
new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be ... the perverted
ambition of another class of men, who will either hope
to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation
from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies
than from its union under one government." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #1
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; & it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable—the honest errors of minds led astray by PRECONCEIVED JEALOUSIES & FEARS. So numerous indeed & so
powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the
judgment, that we...see wise & good men on the wrong side."
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness
& efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, & that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest
number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people...and ending tyrants.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
"This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties." - John Jay, Federalist #2 (Future Chief Supreme Court Justice)
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree And they weren't "split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties." All parties essentially agreed with Jay. But the fact remains that the upon entering that Union, that the parties to it (the STATES) retained their sovereignty (right to self determination) in the event this "experiment in democracy" proved to be hostile to the ends for which the States created it. The Founders feared this might one day happen.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 Another point. According to Lincoln, the term "perpetual Union" in the Articles of Confederation proved that the States were eternally bound and that no State could secede. If this were true, then States would be legally bound to remain united under the Articles if they failed to ratify the Constitution. However, Jay's and others were clear that failure to ratify would mean the end of the Union. Also, the USA under the AOC and the USA under the Constitution were 2 separate countries.
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree Discussing the potential for future hostility between a Northern and Southern confederation should America fail to unite under the proposed Constitution, Jay revealed certain Northern prejudices in his speculation that Northerners would "be tempted to gather honey in the more blooming fields and milder air of their luxurious and more delicate neighbours."
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree And which side claimed to be fighting to preserve "government of, for ,and by the people'? Which side brought the horrors of "Reconstruction"?
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree I suggest also that you study Lysander Spooner. Are you familiar with him?
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree So the South didn't experience anything from 1787 to 1860 that might have been serious cause for alarm? This didn't happen overnight. It was a gradual but steady accumulation of violations that came to a head in 1860. I suggest you read the book "The Secret Six" by Otto Scott. If you believe what Ron Paul says about "corporatists" , then you'll like this book.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 I too believe the South has already been vindicated. The south has had its effect on the thirst for freedom in this country and the thirst for spirituality, as well as good food and music. But there was loss and gain for either side. Now the battle for our country seems to be between the "coasts" and the rest of the country. God bless the fly-over country? Maybe we need a flag that says, "Don't Land on Me".
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
eflint1 Why do you keep removing your own comments? That's about a dozen so far. What kind of filth are you posting and then removing?
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tazedbrothree "Why do you keep removing your own comments? That's about a dozen so far. What kind of filth are you posting and then removing?" Another diversion? Nobody is falling for it. But I had better use spell check BEFORE I post. This keyboard has lots of sticky keys.
eflint1 1 year ago
eflint1 You are a pathetic liar.
Just about a month and a half ago another black man was dragged to his death behind a pick-up truck...in Georgia I believe. So much for "precious individuals".
I wish you were completely right, and to a certain extent the south has indeed changed dramatically since the 1970's when the Federal government enforced, sometimes with armed troops, desegregation and voting rights violations. But, you havn't met my wife's family in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. :/
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
Comment removed
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree And YOU are a pathetic liar for trying to make what happened to that black man somehow "the norm" in today's south. And right now it's CERTAIN black officials in Mississippi who are trying to rob whites of THEIR voting rights. NOW it's black on white crime DWARFING white on black crime across the South. Just look up the stats by imperial government. NOW its our "Justice" Department declaring that voting rights violations where WHITES are the victims will not be prosecuted.
eflint1 1 year ago
Can anyone doubt that if Herman Cain ran for governor of Georgia that he would win by a landslide among whites? I'm proud that we've allowed God's love to heal old wounds, while at the same time still earnestly contending for that form of Union and government bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers, a "compact between sovereign States" ,and that while striving for preservation of said Union, reserve the right to self determination when the Union becomes destructive to the rule of law.
eflint1 1 year ago
It is southern politicians who have championed the idea of outlawing all classification by race, over the strong objection of the "egalitarian north" whose sectionalism divided the country in 1860 and who seek to further divide us today. Anyone who wants to unjustly label us as a "racist region" need only consider the election of 1996 where polls showed that in S.Carolina, Colin Powell would have defeated Bill Clinton among white males 69%-31%.
eflint1 1 year ago
There is no other region in America that defends the rights of the individual like the South. While Yankees are still trying to divide us into "groups" ans keep us divided, the Southern mindset is one that believes we are all "precious individuals" equal in God's eyes. We've released the bitterness that was a result of the racist policies brought against us during Reconstruction that were designed by the victors to keep black and white divided and to keep the South in turmoil.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 "While Yankees are still trying to divide us into "groups" ans (sic) keep us divided..." - flint
Your use of the word "Yankees" is divisive.
In case you havn't noticed, it is the Neo-Confederates in the South, alone, who are claiming a divided country, a culture and heritage all their own and unique.
It is the southern Neo-Confederate/Soverign Citizen alone who continue with the "us" and "them". Most southerners know they are full of it.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree "neo-confederates ALONE". Again you are either ignorant,a liar, a self loathing sufferer of white guilt syndrome, or all of the above. The most active secession movement in this country is in VERMONT. The next active would be in Hawaii. The third is the racist "Aztlan" group of Latinos who want the entire Southwest to secede from the USA.
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree Respond to this video...Even in the South, so-called "neo-Confederates" are not gaining much ground. That is because most conservative southerners like myself are determined that we won't have to secede. This time we,along with our western brethren are going to bring back the true Union of the Framers through the amendment process. Any State that will not ratify the changes will not be in the Union. So you'd better start looking for property in New England where you belong.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 Luke 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it. 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him,
31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?
New King James Version (NKJV)
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
Luke 14: 32 Or else, while the strong king is still a great way off, the weak King sends a delegation and sues for peace, subordinating himself. 33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake ALL that he has cannot be My disciple.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@eflint1, Actually, the first candidate I voted for president was Jimmy Carter, because he was a southerner. Big mistake that was.
I'm really not interested in the behavior of the North, I'm interested in how the South felt justified in seceding from the Union, why they followed South Carolina to their ruin, how they conducted the war, how they treated their own citizens before, during, and after the war, & why we lost.
The bible says we are to count the cost.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
The reason I'm more interested in the South is because firstly, they are my people, sort of. I hardly recognize them sometimes. And secondly, practically everything they did leading up the war and during the war, and after the war...was self-righteous hypocrisy, lying, murdering, and the abrogation of the very constitutional rights and protections that they claimed they were fighting for.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree You are a liar either way because your profile say you are 40. I'm a bit older than you and I wasn't old enough to vote until Reagan's re-election bid in 1984. "The bible says we are to count the cost." Well, if our Revolutionary forefathers took that verse out of context like you did, then perhaps we wouldn't have a country today. "'m really not interested in the behavior of the North," Yeah because their atrocities were done in the name of "Union and freedom".
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 I'll get around to correcting the age on my profile someday.
Meanwhile, its useful for flushing out idiots like yourself.
And, our founding fathers did count the cost. They saw what they were up against with Great Britain, and said, "We shall all hang TOGETHER, or hang separately."
About 10% of the colonial population supported the revolutionary war...10%. The vast majority just wanted to be left alone.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree "I'll get around to correcting the age on my profile someday.
Meanwhile, its useful for flushing out idiots like yourself." Meaningless drivel. You're just a liar and a fraud. That's very obvious. "About 10% of the colonial population supported the revolutionary war.." Well it seems then that the Confederates were "hanging together" more than the Revolutionaries were. But it's obvious you are running out of steam. That's been obvious for days.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 LOL.
Unlike you, I have a life beyond arguing with a retard on YouTube...LOL.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha...have a nice day, retard.
XD<3
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree Do you realize you just referred to YOURSELF as a retard ???
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 And you DO realize why YouTube asks your profile age, right? Do you think its a nice effort to be friendly?
LOL. They ask your age on your profile so they can track you and the videos you watch so they can sell that information to advertisers.
YouTube ain't stupid, son. How do you think they make $billions letting you watch videos?
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree You could have just left it blank. You lie so much that you are even deceiving yourself now. Don't try back peddling now.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 You're right, I could have left it blank. And for your sake perhaps I should have. I din't know it was going to be such an issue with you. I chose not to because I wanted to see what would happen. Nevertheless, I freely admit that I am not 40 years old. But I do swear on my mother's grave that I worked for Reagan and I voted for Ron Paul, and yes, my mother is dead, she died in 1996, and my father died in 1992.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree I'm sorry about your parents. I lost my mom kinda unexpectedly back in February. I'm sure even though you've moved on, the memories of their passing stay fresh. I don't know how you could have supported Reagan and Paul and say that I'm some sort of fringe extremist. I love America and feel like I owe to the Framers to try to educate my country as to their "original intent" that they intentionally made so clear we wdn't need lawyers to tell us what they "really" meant.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 I considered you to be some sort of fringe extremist because of some of the things you said about the South Shall Rise Again, and how the US was going to Fall and then you were "going to get our country back". This is pretty much word for word what the extremists like Timothy McVeigh said, and the white supremists, and what Sovereign Citizens proclaim. As christians, we must stand for God and against any kind of hatred and injustice, but take great care when in the devil's playground.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
If you truly are a christian brother, then you know that, "We battle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers in high places."
I swear its true.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
Flint, I am very sorry to hear that you lost your beloved mother recently.
Yes, thanks, while the memories of their passing are there, even more are the really fond and fun memories of days.
I hope that the pain of losing her will dissipate, but that the fond memories remain and bear fruit.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree And...we shouldn't use profanity ;)
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 Yes, and we shouldn't use profanity. ;)
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree I don't recall saying anything about the "South" per say rising again, but that the Republic as created by the Framers shall rise again. Yet I do feel the South will and has been in many way vindicated already. I'd be saying the same thing if the North had seceded and been invaded. But if I said anything about "America falling" I don't recall it. That certainly is not my prayer. This "southern heritage" part of the equation is not a big priority to me.
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree But even if what you said was true 9and it's not) it still does not change the fact that.....A) Secession is legal...and...B)The States retained their sovereignty upon entering the Union, and that trumps every argument you make about the South's flaws and transgressions. You're liberal statist mind won't allow you to admit this. Typical commie mode of debating.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 LOL....ohhhhh that's right...YOU are way smarter than the Supreme Court and your Senators and Congressmen...Awwwwww....if only they would obey YOU everything would be perfect.
Typical demented psychotic with delusions of grandeur.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree No, but the Founders were allot smarter than any President,judge or military kangaroo court that came "four score and seven years" later.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 Maybe the founders were smarter or maybe Providence lent a hand. Some would say they shouldn't have "wasted their time" by creating a republic that still retained slavery. Slavery was on the way out in the 1780's...they should have killed the serpent while they had a chance.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tazedbrothree ."they should have killed the serpent while they had a chance." Agreed, but we are talking about the 18th century. We need allot of what they had, but they needed allot of what we have now.
eflint1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, we can.
brainerdrebel 1 year ago
Flint you silly little person. You know you were taught not to think on your own. Let the government write the textbooks and tell you what you really need to know. Don't worry about the Federal Reserve Notes, let the Rothchilds and Rockefellers make billions printing worthless fiat currency. Flint you need to be more patriotic, and follow instructions. Recess in five minutes.
brainerdrebel 1 year ago
@brainerdrebel Exactly !! This iswhy I label him a fraud when he claims he supported Reagan (who said that the government no longer governs when the consent of the governed) and Ron Paul (Who believes everything you and I do onthe secession issue). Tazed wasn't even old enough to vote for Reagan in his SECOND term ! He began voting for Pres in 1988 when he pulled the lever for Dukakis, and later for Willy, Al, Hillary, and the Muslim.
eflint1 1 year ago
eflint1 Your justification of the horrors perpetrated on the people of Virginia who loved the United States of America, by their fellow Virginians, is idiotic. It flys in the face of everything that Virginia stood for. It violated the Virginia constitution, the right to free speech, the right to a secret ballot, the right not to have their property searched and seized, and violated cruel and unusual punishment.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree All of this pales in comparison to what Lincoln did to NORTHERNERS who dared to question him, and your melodramatic rants won't change that. Nor will it change the fact that... A) Secession was legal....and...B) The States retained their sovereignty upon ratifying the Constitution. You've been deluged with facts that confirm this. That is why you resort to the pointing out of flaws and war time cruelties as a diversion (only by southerners of course) and ignore the Framers' wds
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 LOL, I love it when idiots like you start claiming others are having melodramatic rants.
Calm down.
Lincoln did nothing against his fellow Northerners you silly little person who smells of elderberries.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree You're lying to yourself now. but all who read this know it. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree If you knew your history at all, you'd know that the South did send a peace delegation before Sumter. They offered to pay the South's part of the national debt and to make an orderly separation. Lincoln, and the Repubs refused to talk to them. Lincoln's and Seward's lust for the "irrepressible conflict" overpowered them.
eflint1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's try this again...If the Supreme Court ruled today that it was actually a violation of the 2nd amendment for any private citizen to own firearms, and that all privately owned fire arms must be surrendered to Federal authorities, would you actually believe that such a ruling would be valid? Is there EVER even a case in your mind where the Court could actually over step its authority?
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 That's why I said that the case of Virginia/West Virginia was a Catch 22. I'm sorry you missed that, but I'll try to repeat what I said.
It's unconstitutional to take territory from a State in order to make a new State. West Virginia did precisely that. In March of 1861 Lincoln suggested that the South's secession was illegal, therefore they were still part of the USA.
But a little over 2 years later, June 1863, northwestern Virginia seceded and was granted statehood. Of course...
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
...of course, the USPS continued to deliver mail to the southern States until 1862.
I guess then sometime during 1862-1863 Lincoln/US government changed their stand on the Southern rebellion & allowed West Virginia.
1862 was pivotal for both sides. That was when the South began saying the war was about States rights instead of slavery, because Britain & France refused to side with slavers., & the US began saying the war was about slavery instead of states rights, for the same reason.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
However, I have read the reports from Northwest Virginia during 1861-62. The region was full of white refugees from the rest of Virginia where they had been driven from their homes & threatened because they had voted to stay in the Union during the State referendum on secession. Even in this area the refugees were not safe from Confederate mauraders who would murder them, rape the women, kill children, and rob whenever possible. It made a lot of sense safety-wise to secede from Virginia.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
Comment removed
eflint1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tazedbrothree Both side had marauders. Big deal.
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree I didn't miss it. I was pointing out your silly conflicting opinions.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 I wasn't giving my opinion I was stating the obvious.
I read a little more about West Virginia. Apparently the Virginia vote to secede was illegal. Such a referendum, according to the Virginia constitution would have had to be requested by a majority of the people even to come up for a later vote. It was not, it was propagated by the politicians themselves. The representatives of NW Virginia vacated the vote and reunified as a new State.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@eflint1 In addition, South Carolina was rebellious from the very beginning. They rebelled against the Lord's Proprietors in 1719, they were the first to declare themselves independent in 1776, refused to sign the Articles of Confederation until anti-slavery language was taken out, re-sided with the British in 1778, fought for even more freedom than Madison's Constitution provided, tried to secede in 1832, & then spoke of war against the Federal government openly until they did it 1861.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@eflint1 How do you feel about State Highway Patrol officers and their duties, and the FBI and US Marshall's Service?
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree As long as his State is a member of the Union, HP officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution. FBI and U.S. Marshalls have turned into nothing more than domestic spy agencies that subvert the Constitution.
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazed If the Supreme Court ruled today that it was actually a violation of the 2nd amendment for any private citizen to own firearms, and that all privately owned fire arms must be surrendered to Federal authorities, would you actually believe that such a ruling would be valid? Is there EVER even a case in your mind where the Court could actually over step its authority?
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 The South was damned either way.
That's how the State of West Virginia came to be even though the Constitution forbade a new State being constructed from part of an existing State.
When Virginia seceded, they were no longer part of the United States. That opened the door for the people of northwest Virginia to apply for Statehood, which they received.
The South couldn't have it both ways...they couldn't secede from the US & then claim ANY US Constitutional rights. Catch 22
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree Ah, but you contradict your own warped philosophy !! According to Lincoln, AND the Texas Vs White decision, Virginia never was out of the Union !! Therefore, the creation of West Virginia was illegal. If Virginia was right in asserting that they were no longer part of the USA, then the U.S. simply illegally stole land from another country . Amazing how hatred can cloud one's ability to reason.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 LOL, I guess the people of northwest Virginia thought differently.
XD
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree So much for your "nation of laws".
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazed In your opinion, has the Supreme Court ever made a decision that violated the clear wording of the Constitution, or the intent of the Framers?
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 The CLEAR wording of the Constitution? WHO'S clear wording? According to YOUR definition of clear wording? Probably.
And for all I know, the Supreme Court erred in Texas vs. White. But, since we are a nation of laws rather than anarchy we must take the good with the bad until we can peacefully and legally right those wrongs.
According to Texas v. White, SC could have petitioned the other States for its secession in 1860. They probably would have received permission.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
Instead, SC chose to escalate a tense situation by firing on an un-armed vessel, the Star of the West. There is no legal excuse for doing so. The Federal government had the legal right to resupply its troops on its property.
The Federal government also had the legal right not to sell Fort Sumter back to South Carolina or the CSA. Are you telling me that if you don't want to sell your house that someone can just shoot you or at you to compel you to sell or surrender? What kind of world?
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tazedbrothree "Are you telling me that if you don't want to sell your house that someone can just shoot you or at you to compel you to sell or surrender? What kind of world?" Yes. Ever heard of imminent domain?
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 I've never heard of imminent doman where no one got a writ of condemnation for the property from a court with jurisdiction.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree That's not the point. The point is, the government has imminent domain power, including the government of the Republic of South Carolina of that time. You know your argument is weak. Britain could make the same claim about military bases that we here during the Revolution. Why would the U.S. need a fort in the middle of a harbor of a foreign land that did not want them there? Lame argument, as usual.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 That's exactly the point. You make South Carolina and the other Southern States to be "pure as the driven snow".
Britain did in fact refuse American independence and invaded, quite often with vicious and monsterous results. That's why there was a war, we had to earn our independence.
The US would need a fort in the middle of Charleston harbor for when South Carolina was once again a happy part of the Union. In 1861 neither side expected the scuffle to last more than 90 days.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
Certainly, either side could maintain for 90 days to see what happened. You thought the Federal government should have just rolled over and turned pussy? I guess that's what most of the South really actually thought at the time...that they wouldn't have to earn their freedom through bloodshed? Pretty naive.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree "That's exactly the point. You make South Carolina and the other Southern States to be "pure as the driven snow". That's pure bull.
"That's why there was a war, we had to earn our independence." Thanks for admitting that the CSA was fighting against the same tyranny and oppression that the colonies fought against in the revolution.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 You're a silly little person with silly little thoughts.
No wonder you're a Pentacoastal.
XD
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
Comment removed
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree We are a nation of laws. And what law in the Constitution did Chase cite that outlawed secession? Law here did not prevail. A THEORY prevailed. This theory was soundly rejected by the Constitutional convention. This is the same "theory" by which the CSA died, as Jefferson Davis said.
eflint1 1 year ago
“But it must not be forgotten, that the State of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT State; that the United States are a confederacy of States; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic. The Governor of this State is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent State," (Connecticut Resolution of 1812) It's amazing that even this Yankee State considered itself to be a free country.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 Yes almost TWENTY FIVE years after joining the Union, they still understood themselves to be completely sovereign.
eflint1 1 year ago
Virginia, feeling some action desirable to complete the treaty (of Paris), prior to action by Congress, on June 4, 1779, undertook solemnly to ratify this treaty with France on her own. By appropriate resolution, transmitted by Governor Jefferson to the French minister at Philadelphia, the sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia declared herself individually bound by the French treaty.(8) In terms of international law, Virginia was a nation; in terms of domestic law, she was a sovereign State.
eflint1 1 year ago
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 Notice he did not say, "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the United States of America to be a free and independent State".
eflint1 1 year ago
“The several States which composed this Union . . . became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign States.” (Justice William Cushing)
eflint1 1 year ago
Comment removed
eflint1 1 year ago
"I have ever considered it as the established doctrine of the United States, that their independence originated from, and commenced with, the declaration of Congress, on the Fourth of July, 1776; and that no other period can be fixed on for its commencement; and that all laws made by the legislatures of the several States, after the Declaration of Independence, were the laws of sovereign and independent governments.” Chase 3
eflint1 1 year ago
."From the Fourth of July, said Chase, “the American States were de facto as well as de jure in the possession and actual exercise of all the rights of independent governments. . . " Chase 2.
eflint1 1 year ago
Justice Samuel Chase ,justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1796 to 1811 said..
"not that the united colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent States, etc., but that each of them was a sovereign and independent State, that is, that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority, and its own laws without any control from any other power on earth.”
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 You talk a long string of bullcrap logic.
You told us that the US Constitution kept South Carolina, and every State, a sovereign nation. So, according to your logic nothing changed in SC sovereignty between 1776 and 1860 or even today. According to you all SC did by seceding was to walk away from her federated acquaintances.
Don't even try to give us this bull crap that suddenly they were a different entitity that suddenly now had sovereignty to make its own decisions.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree That was one of the dumbest arguments I've heard yet. When SC was in the Union, even though she retained her sovereignty, she had delegated certain powers to the Federal Government, and was bound to obey Federal law. Once out of the Union, that does not apply.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 The Federal government was a land owner just like any other landowner. They held title to the land. They were the legal owner. It doesn't matter if a Frenchman bought the property, a Texan, or whomever...possession is 9/10ths of the law...and the other 10th is the title deed. Like anyother matter in dispute it belonged in an appropriate court if they were at all interested in doing things legally. There was no state of war until the first CSA cannon fired.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree Again, the CS government offered more than ample compensation for Sumter and all other Federal possessions which when the seceding States were still in the USA were co-owners with the Northern States. And if you think that a state of war didn't exist before Sumter, you are dreaming. Complete conquest and new order were going to hasppen even if the South had not raised a military.
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree; Did the European Union create a Nation? The States created the Federal Government as an agent between the States. The Federal Government is not over the States, they are equal partners. The power of the Federal Government was expressly limited. If the Federal Government oversteps the Constitution any State has the right to leave.
brainerdrebel 1 year ago
@brainerdrebel The European Union might eventually create a Nation...who knows? They have about a 1,000 year history of being separate nations with totally different languages, laws, and culture.
The United States belonged entirely to one country...Great Britain...and all of its citizens spoke the same language...the King's English...except for a few Germans and French.
The Supreme Court ruled that a State may only leave the Union by revolution or by a consensus of the other States.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree; Tazed, I hope you now understand what the War for Southern Independence was fought over. The conflict is not over. The Federal Government continues to overstep it limited authority, the authority the founders and States struggled to put on paper (Constitution). Reconstruction simply reconstructed the Original Constitution.
brainerdrebel 1 year ago
@brainerdrebel Amen!! We've had enough of D.C.'s crap !! THEY are hell bent on finishing the Union off anyway and to impose the NWO. Our goal really is to RESTORE the Union as framed by the Founders. I predict the Union will be smaller, but will rise from the ashes of economic calamity as the States /people are freed from the chains of liberalism that now bind them. Without the cancer of New England corrupting the rest of the body, health will flourish.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 You talk a long string of bullcrap.
The CSA went around confiscating the property and monies of anyone that would not swear alliegance to the CSA. In some instances the people were hanged, had their homes burnt down, were tarred and feathered...one man in west Tennessee his wife was gang raped and his nephew was tortured to death.
The CSA had no qualms of violating the life, liberty, or property of the people.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree The North was just as bad if not worse. The country as a whole has sinned greatly. But none of our sins disproves the fact that the States retained their sovereignty. You can't seem to wrap your mind around this.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 I understand State sovereignty just fine...in the context of a Federated State and part of a perpetual union. However, you take the sovereignty issue too far...just as the over-reacting hot-heads of the Old South did...over the edge...to the point that you believe each State is a separate Nation with soveriegnty that it can withdrawl delegated powers and rights from Federal government at will...even to the harm or disenfranchisement of its own people.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree The PEOPLE are the sovereigns within the sovereignties. The people of those States fired their agent. You worship the Union above the principles of self determination the Union stands for. And no, they were not sovereign just as members of a Federated State and part of a perpetual union. All of that was sorted out at the Convention.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 The Constitution of the State of South Carolina required any public official...whether US Senator, Congressman, Governor, State Legislature, Mayor, Sheriff, any at all...to qualify for public office they must own their estate outright and be the owner no less than ten negro slaves.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree And what does this have to do with whether or not States retained their sovereignty.? The North had bogus laws as well. Big whoop. You seem to think you can neutralize the sovereignty claim by pointing out all of the South's flaws.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 Each State was/is required to have a republican form of government.
South Carolina purposed created a system so that the people were only represented by the Slave Power.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree Each State that is IN the Union is required to have a republican form of government.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 Right. Lincoln was a dictator. The US has had lots of "dictators" starting with George Washington. That's right, Washington sent an army of 12,000 Federal soldiers into western Pennsylvania after the Supreme Court ruled they were in rebellion against the Federal government. The Whiskey Rebellion.
Ironically, the Federal army used to crush the rebellion was led by General Henry Lee, who was Robert E. Lee's father.
Irony is fun.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree As I previously stated, the Feds WERE in their rights to take action in the Whiskey Rebellion. But when a State LEAVES the Union, the President has no jurisdiction.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 When a State leaves the Union it is no longer part of the United States and is no longer under the protection of the Constitution or the laws of the United States. The President can then do anything he wants to to this non-American State. If he wants to send nuclear bombers and wipe out the entire population of that State, he can do it, especially if Congress votes for a Declaration of War. Lincoln could have told the army to kill every southerner if he wanted to.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree OK, let's nuke every country that is not part of the United States since they don't have our constitutional protections. You're whacked.
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree And as usual you cherry pick what you want to respond to.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 I believe what the Supreme Court said in Texas v. White, that States may secede by either Revolution (which is what the South tried) or by consensus of all the other States. As I said before, if the Southern States had attempted the second method, consensus, they more than likely would have prevailed...it would have been out of the jurisdiction of the Federal government and it would have been done totally legally and no one would have gotten hurt.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
But consensus is not what the South wanted. The South wanted to spread slavery into an equal number of new States. To get a consensus the South would have had to compromise and keep slavery limited to the current slave states. Their demand for new slave states is what drove them off the deep end to their own destruction.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree But again, all scenery. Once they seceded, it was a moot point. They lost all claims to those territories. What's really interesting is that many northern states passed laws keeping blacks out, before and after the war. This was one of the main reasons they didn't want slavery in the territories. They were racist, white supremacists like their southern brethren. The difference is, southerners didn't hate the blacks. Northerners did.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 I thought you said that South Carolina was always a sovereign nation? You told us that Madison said so, that all the colonies, even after joining the Union, were always sovereign.
That means, according to your arguments, that SC was sovererign when it sold the property to the Federal government. So according to your argument, nothing really changed after they seceded.
So which is it? Was SC sovereign enough to sell the property in 1810 or not?
Make up your idiotic mind.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree When nations decide to nationalize foreign owned assets, they do it and no one invades them. The CS offered money to the U.S. to settle all such debts. Lincoln refused to see them. So again, your argument has no merit. BTW, the "Republic of South Carolina" existed before the joint Declaration of Independence was signed. They even had a President.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 And I was referring to South Carolina as the "nation", not the CSA.
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree Ironically, this is at the same time that Congress, through the Reconstruction Act, declared that the Southern States were in fact out of the Union, the whites weren't citizens (in most cases), and that they were a conquered nation. You can't have it both ways, but they did.
eflint1 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree Furthermore, Lincoln , in his first inaugural address (before Sumter) made it clear that he wasn't going to allow the South to form a nation under any circumstances. That's when he espoused his new theory of government that the Union created the States. This speech is what caused the moderate upper South to begin moving towards secession. The man was a dictator.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 Thankfully, your opinion is worthless. That's why we have Legislatures and Courts and Governors, etc. so that people that go off the edge get marginalized. Unfortunately in 1860, the deluded people ruled the South, and there are still people such as yourself who follow in their mistakes. You remind me of the people that say, "The Bible was good enough for Paul its good enough for me." except there was no bible during Paul's day. LOL retards.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree It's not about the South or who ruled it in 1860. It's about the nature of the republic created in 1787. Everything else is just scenery. I'd be saying the same thing if the Northern States had seceded and the South tried to force them back into the Union. Your dodging this issue and subsequent statements about the Framers show what you are. Why not just admit that the States did have a right to secede, but that you don't think they should have had that right?
eflint1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tazedbrothree "Thankfully, your opinion is worthless. That's why we have Legislatures and Courts and Governors" Spoken like a true statist. It seems you think the opinion of the Founders is also worthless.
eflint1 1 year ago
The debate here is not whether the Framers should have included women's suffrage or minority rights in the Constitution, or whether the South was evil. Those are points for other debates. The debate here is whether or not Lincoln was wrong when he claimed the States NEVER were sovereignties, much less that they lost their sovereignty upon ratifying the Constitution. Comparing Lincoln's view to the clear statements of the Framers, Lincoln loses. Therefore, he is a war criminal IMO.
eflint1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eflint1 "You should rephrase that.."the NORTH did not want a competitor America so they killed 600,000 people and stole sovereignty from the States".
Sure, we'll go with what you said.
XD
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree BTW I did not mark your response as spam. I don't know why anyone would.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 Thanks, I don't know who keeps doing that.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@eflint1 Oh, so now you change your story from an unprovoked attack to a provoked attack.
LOL.
XD
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree When did I ever say the attack was unprovoked? Quote me please.
eflint1 1 year ago
@grennel And you would be wrong.
The Navy warned SC that they would attempt to resupply Fort Sumter with an unarmed merchant ship, Star of the West. SC fired on this unarmed American ship. As they were being fired upon, Anderson in Fort Sumter refused to fire his cannons in its defense. There were no cannon on board. To unload cannon the ship would have been totally defenseless & well within range of dozens of SC batteries. The fort itself was incomplete and indefensible. CSA overreacted.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
Fort Sumter had only 1/2 of its cannon, mostly the smallest ones & were incapable of attacking Charleston. Star of the West manifests & eye-witness accounts state the Star of the West had only food, clothing, & a few dozen Federal troops armed with muskets, only capable of defending against an invading force attempting to enter the Fort.
CSA Secty of State Toombs warned the CSA against firing on Sumter, "You will awaken a hornets nest and they will come down here and sting us to death."
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree At this very time there was a naval floatilla with several hundred troops ready to take Charleston. If the South had waited for them to arrive and get fired upon while trying to invade, you'd be making the same tired argument about "the South starting the war".
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 So you say, a different interpretation is that the Federal government seriously meant that they really were going to defend Federal owned properties and if SC gave them any trouble they could deal with it.
This is what I meant by the CSA being run by fear and hatred. Fear is a powerful force, you begin to imagine things that arn't really there at all.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree The leaders of the CSARE actually irrelevant here. What's relevant is the crisis was started by the north. Had not the north violated the constitution by trying to force a State back in the union, Sumter would not have been fired on. The CS tried to pay their part of the national debt and it was refused by Herr Lincoln. The north would have been reimbursed for Sumter. We lease bases all over the world. If a country decides to break the lease and expel us, we don't invade.
eflint1 1 year ago
@eflint1 Well, as I told you before, the United States of America is not going to allow a new foreign power to be on this continent...something about "Manifest Destiny" or something like that.
And so, although Lincoln tried to maintain a straight face when he called the South "our deluded fellow countrymen", the United States was actually at war with a foreign power to rid it from the continent.
I guess that's why so may Confederates left for other countries after the war or went North.
tazedbrothree 1 year ago
@tazedbrothree You should rephrase that.."the NORTH did not want a competitor America so they killed 600,000 people and stole sovereignty from the States".
eflint1 1 year ago