Unfortunately we Christians have own up to our hypocrisy in American history. Our forefathers were slave owners and by the Grace of God slavery was ended perhaps in large part by Christians stricken by that Spirit that leads to true freedom as in John Newton's case a generation before. So called Christians that enabled slavery to be their own slavery to sin never truly followed Jesus. Jack sure did a good job of pointing out the conundrum which besieges most liberals. Their nu brand of Soci
Well I agree with a good deal of points but it's kind of intellectually dishonest to say the left is against decentralization because they're for marijuana when the obvious position is to legalize it federally. It also runs counter to anarchist liberals like Chomsky.
The other big gripe is that being pro-slavery is inherently a conservative position as was well understood in 1860.
@SowellFan333 you're absolutely right. and who started and defended slavery? conservative democrats (keyword conservative) who fought to end it? Republicans. conservatives have always been the problem.
@Killerjosh89 Did you watch the video? The war was about secession. The slaves in actuality were never freed. Washington DC took ownership of them after the war and ratified the 14th and 15th amendments to point out what their rights were. They were aliens after 1865 as their was no such thing as a united states citizen just state citizenship. By destroying the southern states the north took possession of the slaves and made them it's servants. Thanks to the 14th amendment everyone now is too.
@Killerjosh89 Blacks still live like they did as dependents to this day and are still the most enslaved of us. American's today don't know what freedom is. If you can be drafted you aren't free. Americans are told that serving their country is American but it isn't. Thinking like that just reinforces that we are servants and not free. In fact when Wilson instilled the Draft during WWI there were huge protests and riots.
@Killerjosh89 Actually Lincoln was a republican and most people in the south were Democrats. And the African slave trade was started by...African Kings in the early 17th centrury. Its competely false to think that conservatives started it. And slavery has been around for thousands of years. In conclusion of your completely falsified and misinformed statement I can only hope that one day you will visit the world that we live in and come out of the whole in your ass.
@thepolice911copeland they were conservative democrats pal. You really dont think slave owners were christians? please...the catholic church and church of england played a vital role in the african slave trade (until jefferson's presidency ended the trade between the us)....I didnt say conservatives started it- they gladly took advantage of it just like slavery in the centuries before understand christian churches (like islam today). I wish u cons would accept history, ass
LOL! its funny how the south keep defending there point in the the civil war...saying "its not about slavery"
yet the same people saying this have only white friends, live in the white suburbs, and dont hang out with anyone that does not share their point of view..oh republicans WTF is going on?
@thehulk3010 I'm not from the south. Technically it didn't start about slavery, it was a response to the South's attempt to break away from the country, after the Emancipation Proclamation slavery certainly did become a part of it, but his statement that Lincoln was "for" slavery isn't accurate either.
@thehulk3010 Also, I forgot to mention much of the nit picking he is doing here in this video is ridiculous. As far as nullification goes, peoples actions aren't set in stone. If some one feels that something is truly injust - such as some law - they may indeed seek to subvert it or remedy the situation in the courts. It's understandable that many in non-slave states would have found the fugitive slave law to be unjust and attempted to subvert the law.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. This means a fugitive slave is not a salve in a state which does not recognize slavery does not have to recognize a fugitive slave as a fugitive. The federal law is now unenforceable. This is why we have the Supreme Court to clarify the scope of our government, and to settle such disputes, as they have and will with cannabis and gay marriage. To secede it to stop justice.
The problem with the logic of nullification as given, is it is being applied to the federal government from states when it is applied to cannabis. When nullification is applied to slavery, it is in reference to states nullification of other states laws.
we can apply states rights to a current issue- gay marriage.
@RPenta Gay marriage is not recognized in all states, and some states have passed laws forbidding it. When it goes to the federal Supreme Court, it will be found unconstitutional to forbid gay marriage. Nullification would apply IF states still banned gay marriage and enforced penalties after the SCOTUS ruling.
The logic of applying slavery and the use of cannabis is not congruent. Slavery was a state vs, state issue, and cannabis is a state vs. federal issue.
Rachel Maddow is a corporate hack and propagandists of the fake left. I consider myself a leftist in many ways but nothing like Maddow who is an idiotic obama supporter. I find the ron paul supporters on the right to be much more agreeable. I would vote ron paul before I voted for any democrat.
@turnofffox The Gov.t didn't give rights, It ended "mob rules" Which is still an issue today. Gays can't get married because more people don't want them to. We have become more proficient in restricting rights for some through law. And this is attributed to the short coming of the founders' not finding a way to abolish slavery. But if they had freed the slaves at the beginning of the Nation The country would have ripped itself apart. But they did support change over time.
Well yes the federal government gives us freedom. The federal government ended slavery, ended the great depression, ended segregation, ended jim crow, ETC.
Thats as long as Alex Johns John Birch hillbilly right wingers who think government is evil and the source of everything bad while they get screwed by the rich are kept out by those of us who are more educated and not credulous as the GOP teabag wackjobs.
Maybe this explains the reason why the neo nazi libertarians hate the government?
@turnofffox The federal government does NOT give us freedom. We ALREADY HAVE freedom, as a basic human right, and we drafted a Constitution that is supposed to BAR the federal government from impinging on that right. Unfortunately your attitude would make the founders of the nation "wackjobs," "nazis," "hillbillies", "right-wingers" and "government haters".
There's only one thing to say about any war of secession. Morally, if people want to leave, they always, always have the right to leave. The right to walk away may the be most basic and fundamental right of all.
There's only one thing to say about any war of succession. Morally, if people want to leave, they always, always have the right to leave. The right to walk away may the be most basic and fundamental right of all.
@thesuperfe Your point is noble and well taken. My sentiments regarding the right to walk away includes slaves, and every other human. Since slaves were prevented by immoral legal and military authority from exercising the right to walk away, I grant the moral authority of the North to have invaded the South to free them (I don't even care that it was a strategic ploy.) But thereafter, should not the Southern states have been granted the political autonomy they desired, minus the slaves?
@thesuperf Upon reflection, I wish to grant even more. My support of the South's right to seceed was based on an assumtion that the majority of southern people were in favor of secession. But I have to withdraw that assumtion, since blacks and women were not allowed to vote. Thus no majority opinion can be established. My mistake was in trying to appy to states a moral imperative applicable to individuals. That attempt was fraught with contradictions, because states are immoral institutions.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz. This is the reason I try and make my choices one item at a time instead of taking a side. With enough talk everything can be watered down. So you say you don't want puppies killed? So you must be against the working man? I mean, he is killing puppies because there is a profit to be made. Do you also have a problem with profit? Wasn't Jesus a prophet? Surely you don't hate Jesus? There you have it folks, Jesus hating, socialist puppy lover.
@MrSuperpunch019 I disagree. Jack Hunter is not a Nazi, he's simply ill-informed on history, and likely grew up being taught all the self-serving propaganda that many southerners tell themselves about how their poor little confederacy was invaded and mistreated by the evil north. They have history books, and they have museums dedicated to Jefferson Davis the the confederacy,but like the Ronald Reagan museum, they have to gloss over the inconvenient historical facts that don't support their myth.
If it were not about slavery, why would Jefferson Davis's address to the confederacy in Montgomery, Alabama, April 29, 1861, not have anything in it about unfair taxes, or about how the south was treated unfairly, but have plenty of mentions about how Negroes were naturally inferior, how slaves were property, and how slavery was the natural state of negroes?
When you look at how often confederate leaders talked about slaves, and how little they talked about unfair tarriffs, you wonder.
If it was not about slavery, why would all of the senators from seceeding states have made secession speeches that focussed mainly on slavery?
If it was not about slavery, why does the Confederate constitution suspiciously like the US constitution, with a paragraph hastily added in about preserving slavery?
If it wasn't about slavery, why would Confederate VP Alexander Stephens's cornerstone speech claim that the confederacy is founded on the great truth that negroes are not equal?
The logical argument against slavery being the primary reason for the war of Northern aggression is the FACT that every other nation on Earth that abolished slavery did it without attacking the proponents of slavery - and that the attack occurred in advance of ratifying a constitutional amendment that could have justified it.
@j1a2r34 I find it ironic that the people who refer to the civil war as "the war of northern agression" pretty much ignore the facts that (1) The South started the war by attacking Fort Sumter, (2) The South planned ahead to go to war by sending representatives to Europe to solicit military aid from European nations before Secession, and Jefferson Davis drew up plans for war, including the invasion of Canada, before the war even started.
@MinstrelKrampf On the other hand, advocates of initializing coercive force usually ignore that the fort in question occupied the soil of an independent state. They also fail to recognize that several delegations (including members of the French diplomatic corps) were sent to DC to negotiate a price for the fort in question, and fail to note that Lincoln would not admit to any negotiation because he was already determined to kill any number of citizens in order to prevent secession.
@j1a2r34 The Confederacy took federal buildings and arsenals, with pretty much NO FEDERAL RESPONSE. The north let them take them without incident. Lincoln was willing to give the fort if Virginia would not support secession, and Sec. of State William Seward negotiated with the confederates on the purchase of the island, but the negotiations failed when the south demanded all the weapons and ammo in the fort. Davis' s own advisors warned him that attacking the fort would lose a lot of support.
@MinstrelKrampf Ultimately the negotiations failed because Lincoln refused to honor the secession and get his troops back into his own country. Lincoln had no intention of negotiating in good faith to surrender the fort. For some reason he didn't recognize that the federal government was (and is) a product of state confederation. I still don't understand the logic of people who argue that statehood is involuntary.
@j1a2r34 Are you saying that the South did not start the war by attacking Fort Sumter? Are you saying that the Confederacy was FORCED to attack Fort Sumter? Do you claim that the civil war wasn't about slavery? If you do, then you are speaking against actual documented history (recorded by both sides, not a slanted history), and I'd have to ask you to start citing some sources. By all accounts, Jefferson Davis went against the advice of his generals and attacked the fort, thus starting the war.
@MinstrelKrampf Not quite. Lincoln controlled the issue at Ft. Sumpter and because of his intention to prevent secession at any cost, the South would have eventually had to resist either there or somewhere else. The war was about denying a states right to secede. Slavery was the argument that resulted in secession. I'm not arguing that slavery was right, or good, or humane, or had any other benevolent or beneficial attribute. The right of secession is my only real issue. For any reason.
@j1a2r34 Lincoln did not control the issue. Lincoln didn't even talk to the confeds. The secretary of state held talks behind Lincoln's back, and was willing to give them the fort. But they got greedy, asking for all the weapons and ammo. Davis was warned by all of his advisors that they would lose many allies if he attacked. He had a choice -- attack and lose allies, or not attack and bide more time to make more aliances. He chose war. He didn't have to. This is what both sides said.
@MinstrelKrampf Lincoln purposefully agitated South Carolina in order to whip up a patriotic frenzy. Lincoln was a racist who was only concerned about power. The States entered the Union under the implicit and sometimes explicit assumption that they could leave it anytime they liked. The States created the fed. govt., not the other way around. The Whig and Republican parties were pimping for northern manufactures and had imposed high tariffs that benifitted them and punished the Southern states.
@joepeeler34 Joe, your ignorant spin on US history is betrayed by the writings of both Lincoln and the confederacy. Calling Lincoln a racist is pure idiocy. He was a complex man whose opinions EVOLVED OVER TIME. Before he was President, he suggested sending black people back to Africa, but then he realized that wouldn't work for all of them. He used to think of them as inferior, but his meetings with Frederick Douglas and other black luminaries of the time forced him to think otherwise.
@j1a2r34 You really need to read the facts before making baseless assertions about history that is easy to look up. There are 2 civil wars -- the one that actually happened, and is documented by BOTH SIDES, and where both confed and union accounts agree. Then there is the mythology of the glorious south, where Slaves were happy, Where Davis was a hero, and where Lincoln was trying to take over the world.
@MinstrelKrampf I finally realize that your interest doesn't lie in the documented history surrounding the conflict and the circumstances that led to it. You are correct, however in that the history is available for others who may actually be interested. A good place for them to start would be Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" -- a book containing hundreds of footnoted source documents.
@j1a2r34 Yes, all of DiLorenzo's Lincoln books are good. Jim Webb, the currnent Democratic Senator from Virginia, also has written books about this period that challenge the Lincoln Cult. There are others who are challenging the mythology constructed by academics who are partial to Lincoln's national system. Maddow is ignorant in her arrogance.
@MinstrelKrampf You have created a straw-man argument. None of us are arguing that slavery was good. I also wasn't aware that there were only "two sides." That's myopic and wrong. Lincoln was primarily concerned about institutting his American System. He was a centralizer. He broke law after law. Even his academic supporters ackowledge that he was a dictator--albeit a "benign" one. Every other western country rid themselves of slavery without war. This wasn't part of Lincoln's program though.
@joepeeler34 unfortunately, like others before you, you seem to think that I'm arguing against slavery. I am not. I am arguing against IGNORANCE ABOUT US HISTORY. Southern-pride types, and those who wish to celebrate the confederacy are exactly like Germans who would celebrate "the good old days of WW2", and the birthday of that "Great German Patriot", whose name I will not dignify by mentioning. Jefferson Davis's own writings betray any attempt to proclaim that the north was the aggressor.
@joepeeler34 Fact -- before the war even started, Jefferson Davis used Confederate troops to go out into the public and arrest anyone they suspected of being union sympathizers -- without due process ro trials. This type of action was not even attempted by the union against suspected confeds. The Confederacy, by this action, made itself a police state, punishing people not just for their political leanings, but for the mere suspicion of having different loyalties.
@joepeeler34 Fact -- before secession, Jefferson Davis sent envoys to Europe on behalf of the confederacy, to see if he could get France or England to give them weapons or offer military support. Since the south had not yet seceeded, this was seen as unusual. It is in fact, proof that Davis had drawn up plans for secession and for war years ni advance of there even being a confederacy. His own personal papers attest to the fact that he planned an invasion of Canada.
@MinstrelKrampf Since you obviously believe that states can ignore the 1st ten amendments, and since you have no reason to believe me... you need to share your opinion with one of your state legislators and see what they have to say about your beliefs.
@j1a2r34 I don't think you got the essence of my post. The essence of my post was demonstrating what is REALLY meant when people say that the civil war was about "State's Rights". The "state's rights" that the south fought for, that it's leaders made speeches about, and which was enshrined in both seceeding state's constitutions and the confederate constitution, was the right to hold slaves, and to selectively ignore parts of the US constitution that were inconvenient for them.
@MinstrelKrampf Here's a quote from Article 1, Section 2 of the constitution as it existed: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Who selectively ignored it? North or South?
This truth is scary. You're scary. Whistlin' Dixie is d*mn scary. Angry progressives are scary. Crazy, racist, conservatives who hate immigrants are scary. Rachel Maddow's duplicity about federal spending and expanded role of .gov is scary. Keep telling the truth because .. you're throwing federalism off a big scary cliff.
I'm much more afraid of the lemmings who will follow them than anything else.
Is interesting you quote Lincoln but not Calhoun. By 1837 John C. Calhoun had changed his views on Jeffersonian democracy to that of a castle system of which slavery and concentration of power was the mainstay. It's a shame we went to war for such a cause. It's embarrassing when I have a white southerner claim it's not true.
I heard her factually challenged rant at breakthematrix
I don't know why she's against reenacting both sides of a battle, with people taking both sides, and reminding everyone of the horrors of war, especially among brothers. You would think studying and remembering history is what prevents us from repeating it. I was really appalled at her ignorance, but her un-wisdom topped it.
Conservatives haven't made a definitive decision about centralized power either, and are equally unaware of what it means. People tend to buy what leading figures on their side of the political spectrum say. Some will never be satisfied, but irresponsibly believe they will when more and more power is given to something or someone else. Fueling the temptation of power harvests discontent and so power constantly shifts.
Predictable that this subject turned into a political analysis.
She could care less about the true history of nullification. She is not going to tell the truth about it even if she really did know the truth, because knowing and telling the truth doesn't typically make you a lot of money here in the U.S.. If telling the truth made people a lot of money then obviously we wouldn't have many problems facing our country today. People would rather be told a 5th grade version of history and eat cheetos.
@PikSokolit The sad part is that kids are impressionable, trusting, and naive to the evils of the world. This makes them easy marks for teaching the lies. Once taught this is truths, they hang on to it, and the longer they do so before shown the deceptions of their past "teachings", the harder it becomes for them to see the truth when it is presented. They don't want to believe that they were deceived by their "nice teachers".
The Left knows this and is why the Left always infiltrated schools.
I find it kind of funny liberals are unable to wrap there head around this it proves they cant think for themselves and have idiots like Maddow tell them what to think
American Third Position Party! Tired of leftists and Neocons? Tired of people using words? like racists and anti semite to try to silence their opponents? Tired of affirmative action? Tired of spending billions on upholding a overseas military empire? Tired of the? illegal alien invasion of the USA?
Look no further than at the American Third Position Party! Take a look at their homepage at american3p . org and take a look at their videos here on youtube.
What bothers me is when people treat the Confederate Flag like its some horrific some symbol of racism and oppression. . Its the cross of St Andrew, a hugely important cultural figure in both Scotland and Russia, like St Patrick is to the Irish and I'm 50% Scottish and 50% Russian, so for me even as an irreligious person the cross of St Andrew has huge cultural relevance to me and my heritage, and the attempts to sully this symbol or decry it as racist I find extremely ignorant and insulting.
@GMoneyStillTippin420 the swastika, which for thousands of years was used by ,many cultures to represent life and good luck, in these modern times is primarily being used to represent nazis who promote racism and oppression and genocide. today, the confederate flag is used primarily by people of similar beliefs, so it's understandable that people associate it with racism and oppression.
There are much greater problems facing our world than paying credence to what Rachel Maddow says. She'll scream racism when a Republican beats Obama. Americans aren't stupid enough to be guilt tripped into voting Democrat. Let her call out Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton for their hate of whites and then I'll believe racism
@Wintermute01001 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Slavery is legal as long as it's done by the Government. Why do you think so many Blacks are "convicted" and sent to work farms back during the Jim Crow era.
The dirty little secret of progressives is that they can only achieve their collectivist ambitions through coercion and authoritarianism. So, Maddow's critique of nullification is not based on its use to defend slavery, however hard she tries to convince us. Rather, progressives condemn nullification because it erodes the power of the totalitarian state; the very instrument of the progressive vision.
@Madfoot713 I think you're missing the point. Maddow (a liberal) said she was against state nullification of unconstitutional laws because they were neo-Confederate and pro-slavery. FACT: it was Northern states that used state nullification to refuse to obey the unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and it was the South that complained against them doing that. FACT: if Maddow thinks that nullification is wrong, then she believes that states had to obey the Fugitive by mjhonsun
@TexanfromTennessee Fact: It was John C. Calhoun who represented South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis of 1832. This is the only quoted statement of Maddow in this video and is 100% accurate.
Fact: It was the South who tried to use nullification resist the desegregation of public schools during the 1950s.
Fact: State nullification doesn't have any constitutional basis.
@Madfoot713 Fact: State nullification doesn't have any constitutional basis.
Fact: Thomas Jefferson and and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions (the Principles of 98) which said that states did have the constitutional right to nullify federal laws.
Fact: nowhere in the Constitution will you find the granting of the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court (a branch of the federal government)
@Madfoot713 You realize the supremacy clause only covers those powers the states actually agreed to delegate to the federal government in the first place.....right?
Excellent presentation, Jack! I would like to see you have a face to face exchange (in a non-partisan setting) with Maddow. Despite her education she is woefully ignorant.
Slavery was just an excuse. During the Industrial Revolution, US was competing with England, Russia and France for dominance. The South had an agrarian based society and the north wanted the south to become industrialized. South refused. North wanted to cripple the southern agrarian economy by getting ride of slavery. South used cessation to break away from the Federally. Lincoln offered to make slavery legal just so the south remains with union. South refused. War began. Any Questions?
@shiftstart It amazes me that the Lincoln Cult has not even mentioned of the letters that Lincoln wrote to the Southern States telling them he would make Slavery legal if they would reconsider their secession. It also proves the point that it was not the reason for them leaving the Union. The tariffs that were passed would have killed the Southern Economy since no one would pay the price for the goods in England, France, etc.
The debate on the Civil War can be used to the advantage of those who oppose our current foreign policy. We can bring these truths to light and illustrate the hypocrisy, not to defend secessionism; but to point out how the corporate and moneyed interests are the real reason we are led to war. Then as well as now.
Liberals and conservatives both believe in slavery. What else could you call it when someone else decides for you how much of your earning you get to keep?
It's simple. Liberals either believe in democracy like they claim, or they only do so when it supports their agenda. Any other position would be inconsistent.
Though I've always thought kind of the same on the subject, thanks for making me think about it again Jack. I would also like to hear your full views on "Pot" do you agree with the medicinal uses of the drug, and/or/or not believe that it should be legal across the board. I personally believe it should be legal across the board.
Very interesting, well I'm not liberal myself, and I'm not so much pro Union as I am pro North. See like many southerners my ancestors showed up in America as dirt poor Scottish hill trash, but instead of the Carolinas mine settled in New Hampshire. I'm an outspoken admirer of Grant and Sherman cuz I admire dirt poor yankee hill trash alcoholic/ bipoplar who put the screws to high fallutin southern gentry, but to me the tenth amendment does provide legal ground for secession in my opinion.
@GMoneyStillTippin420 Grant was the last President who owned slaves and Sherman had the women and children of Rossville, GA sent up North, most never heard from again. Admiration for those two bastards is reason for concern.
@GrayGhost8 So? Grant owned bought one slave then spent a good portion of his life and his presidency campaigning for equality. I don't give a personally give a fuck if Sherman forced confederate POW's to dig up the land mines they buried themselves, what I admire is that two men of the North of relatively low or common birth both crippled by mental health issues and alcoholism used modern warfare to crush an established aristocrat. and as a Northerner I have every right to admire them.
@GrayGhost8 Honestly maybe its cuz I'm a white working class northerner but I don't really view the Civil War from a moral perspective. You can lament the atrocities that red headed devil Sherman inflicted and liberal northerners can lambast your slave whipping nonsense. To me it was a clash of cultures and a fight between an old agrarian model and new industrial model. You southerners put up a good fight and Lee was a brilliant general but in the end ruthlessness and industry won.
@GrayGhost8 Im not attackin u but I was just curious of wat source u have dat Grant own'd slaves? I recently red a bio about Grant n nowear it said anything about him ownin slaves. But it did say dat his wife's fam was proslavery but nva got along wit his father inlaw cuz of their differin views. There was a time where he was strugglin after he separatd from the mil. and him n his wife lived with his father inlaw but nva said he actually ownd slaves. The book quotes him as dislikin slavery.
Jack is wonderfully objective, honest and sensible. Unlike myself he harbors no racial animosities. However, people in the mass do not view the world in such a noble way as Jack; they prefer a simple, self-serving narrative of good & evil that defines their identity and morality. If you showed a hundred Rachel Maddow sympathizers this video most would not have the patience for it and probably not even a dozen would understand it.
But I can't help but appreciate Jack for his idealism.
These dangerous times we live in are heading down this road again, except nullification and slavery have been replaced by towering debt and universal health care, coupled with massive federal corruption, globalist interference and never ending foreign wars. The founders would be shouting at the tops of the lungs for secession. More to the point of your video, as usual, you nail the points of the topic succinctly.
No "point" really. Not everything I say is said to make a point. I happen to say things like "I agree" too from time to time when I actually can agree with people.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is the most simpleminded rhetoric I've seen in a while. This portrayal of liberals is uninformed caricature. If you rightwingers are going to argue against liberalism, couldn't y3ou at least do it intelligently?
@MarmaladeINFP Learn how to spell before asking someone else to do something intelligently, and try listening to what is being said BEFORE you post your response, as there is no way you could have come up with this dumb of a remark after having heard the whole thing.
@hellsunicorn Shut the fuck up, asshole. My cat stepped on my keyboard as I was posting the comment. I made my intelligent comment by listening to the whole diatribe.
Would you elaborate one why you thought Mr. Hunter's arguments were "pathetic," or did you just call it that because the Tee Vee lady said it his views were wrong?
@upabittoolate I think you're missing the point. Maddow (a liberal) said she was against state nullification of unconstitutional laws because they were neo-Confederate and pro-slavery. FACT: it was Northern states that used state nullification to refuse to obey the unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and it was the South that complained against them doing that. FACT: if Maddow thinks that nullification is wrong, then she believes that states had to obey the Fugitive Slave Act.
@mjhonsun No. YOU are missing the point. In truth, Rachel Maddow would've lined up with the Republicans in those days. Aside from that, he's trying to depict Maddow as some kind of Dredd Scott apologist. That's bad reasoning.
@upabittoolate you mean the Republicans that sided with Lincoln, supporting the Fugitive Slave Act? Or the Emancipation Proclamation which only banned slavery in new territories (because they didn't want blacks there) but kept it in place where it already existed? Or Lincoln's crafting & public support of the Corwin Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have made slavery permanent (check Lincoln's 1st Inaugural Address)? Help me out here, I thought you said Maddow was against slavery.
@spoyzer That's right but the person I was a responding too said that Maddow would've sided with the radical Republicans (and Lincoln) because they were anti-slavery (despite evidence to the contrary) and that nullification of the the Fugitive Slave Act by northern abolitionists and states somehow amounted to being pro-Confederacy.
Unfortunately we Christians have own up to our hypocrisy in American history. Our forefathers were slave owners and by the Grace of God slavery was ended perhaps in large part by Christians stricken by that Spirit that leads to true freedom as in John Newton's case a generation before. So called Christians that enabled slavery to be their own slavery to sin never truly followed Jesus. Jack sure did a good job of pointing out the conundrum which besieges most liberals. Their nu brand of Soci
Wardaug 1 month ago
Hey all you whitey jerkoffs south of the Mason-Dixon Line: Fuck off losers. Ask Haley Barbour for another pardon for your fat asses hahahah
1976donzi 1 month ago
RON PAUL 2012!!!!!
CANADA'S GOT YOUR BACK BOSS!!!!!!
Coldshot89 1 month ago
So good.
ModernSurvivor 7 months ago
Well I agree with a good deal of points but it's kind of intellectually dishonest to say the left is against decentralization because they're for marijuana when the obvious position is to legalize it federally. It also runs counter to anarchist liberals like Chomsky.
The other big gripe is that being pro-slavery is inherently a conservative position as was well understood in 1860.
SowellFan333 7 months ago
@SowellFan333 you're absolutely right. and who started and defended slavery? conservative democrats (keyword conservative) who fought to end it? Republicans. conservatives have always been the problem.
Killerjosh89 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Killerjosh89 Did you watch the video? The war was about secession. The slaves in actuality were never freed. Washington DC took ownership of them after the war and ratified the 14th and 15th amendments to point out what their rights were. They were aliens after 1865 as their was no such thing as a united states citizen just state citizenship. By destroying the southern states the north took possession of the slaves and made them it's servants. Thanks to the 14th amendment everyone now is too.
Luigi84289 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Killerjosh89 Blacks still live like they did as dependents to this day and are still the most enslaved of us. American's today don't know what freedom is. If you can be drafted you aren't free. Americans are told that serving their country is American but it isn't. Thinking like that just reinforces that we are servants and not free. In fact when Wilson instilled the Draft during WWI there were huge protests and riots.
Luigi84289 5 months ago
@Killerjosh89 Actually Lincoln was a republican and most people in the south were Democrats. And the African slave trade was started by...African Kings in the early 17th centrury. Its competely false to think that conservatives started it. And slavery has been around for thousands of years. In conclusion of your completely falsified and misinformed statement I can only hope that one day you will visit the world that we live in and come out of the whole in your ass.
thepolice911copeland 3 months ago
@thepolice911copeland they were conservative democrats pal. You really dont think slave owners were christians? please...the catholic church and church of england played a vital role in the african slave trade (until jefferson's presidency ended the trade between the us)....I didnt say conservatives started it- they gladly took advantage of it just like slavery in the centuries before understand christian churches (like islam today). I wish u cons would accept history, ass
Killerjosh89 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Killerjosh89 blow it out your ass, fag
metalfaust19 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thepolice911copeland blow it out your ass
metalfaust19 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Killerjosh89 blow it out your ass
metalfaust19 3 months ago
Far right and far left are both mental disorders.
duha2010 8 months ago
@duha2010
Extreme center also has mental disorders
itcanbecheezcaketime 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itcanbecheezcaketime blow it out your ass
metalfaust19 3 months ago
LOL! its funny how the south keep defending there point in the the civil war...saying "its not about slavery"
yet the same people saying this have only white friends, live in the white suburbs, and dont hang out with anyone that does not share their point of view..oh republicans WTF is going on?
XD
thehulk3010 8 months ago
@thehulk3010 I'm not from the south. Technically it didn't start about slavery, it was a response to the South's attempt to break away from the country, after the Emancipation Proclamation slavery certainly did become a part of it, but his statement that Lincoln was "for" slavery isn't accurate either.
xexixk 8 months ago
@thehulk3010 Also, I forgot to mention much of the nit picking he is doing here in this video is ridiculous. As far as nullification goes, peoples actions aren't set in stone. If some one feels that something is truly injust - such as some law - they may indeed seek to subvert it or remedy the situation in the courts. It's understandable that many in non-slave states would have found the fugitive slave law to be unjust and attempted to subvert the law.
xexixk 8 months ago
@thehulk3010 u hate allen west because hes black you racist
peptopro17 7 months ago
@thehulk3010
You're an idiot.
itcanbecheezcaketime 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itcanbecheezcaketime blow it out your ass
metalfaust19 3 months ago
EXCELLENT POST! Keep sticking it to them! Love your show!
brijetbrazi 9 months ago
Another home run Jack, Thank you.
basilrathboneisgone 9 months ago
Do not trust politicians....liberal, conservative, moderate, Socialist, or nutbag.
HybridD91 9 months ago
part 3
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. This means a fugitive slave is not a salve in a state which does not recognize slavery does not have to recognize a fugitive slave as a fugitive. The federal law is now unenforceable. This is why we have the Supreme Court to clarify the scope of our government, and to settle such disputes, as they have and will with cannabis and gay marriage. To secede it to stop justice.
realoldguy1969 9 months ago
Part 1-
The problem with the logic of nullification as given, is it is being applied to the federal government from states when it is applied to cannabis. When nullification is applied to slavery, it is in reference to states nullification of other states laws.
we can apply states rights to a current issue- gay marriage.
realoldguy1969 9 months ago
Somebody should ask Maddow about her flackish defense of Israel.
RPenta 9 months ago
@RPenta Gay marriage is not recognized in all states, and some states have passed laws forbidding it. When it goes to the federal Supreme Court, it will be found unconstitutional to forbid gay marriage. Nullification would apply IF states still banned gay marriage and enforced penalties after the SCOTUS ruling.
The logic of applying slavery and the use of cannabis is not congruent. Slavery was a state vs, state issue, and cannabis is a state vs. federal issue.
realoldguy1969 9 months ago
@realoldguy1969 this was meant to start with part 2
realoldguy1969 9 months ago
Nullification is a two way street.
DaveElectric 9 months ago
The Civil War was a classic example of an empire trying to maintain it's territory.
ArcticSlicer 9 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcticSlicer blow it out your ass
metalfaust19 3 months ago
Rachel Maddow is a corporate hack and propagandists of the fake left. I consider myself a leftist in many ways but nothing like Maddow who is an idiotic obama supporter. I find the ron paul supporters on the right to be much more agreeable. I would vote ron paul before I voted for any democrat.
bonesOfChaos 9 months ago 7
@bonesOfChaos
RON PAUL 2012 CANADA'S GOT YOUR BACK BOSS!!!
Coldshot89 1 month ago
@turnofffox The Gov.t didn't give rights, It ended "mob rules" Which is still an issue today. Gays can't get married because more people don't want them to. We have become more proficient in restricting rights for some through law. And this is attributed to the short coming of the founders' not finding a way to abolish slavery. But if they had freed the slaves at the beginning of the Nation The country would have ripped itself apart. But they did support change over time.
JRMCNEA 9 months ago
Well yes the federal government gives us freedom. The federal government ended slavery, ended the great depression, ended segregation, ended jim crow, ETC.
Thats as long as Alex Johns John Birch hillbilly right wingers who think government is evil and the source of everything bad while they get screwed by the rich are kept out by those of us who are more educated and not credulous as the GOP teabag wackjobs.
Maybe this explains the reason why the neo nazi libertarians hate the government?
turnofffox 10 months ago
@turnofffox The federal government does NOT give us freedom. We ALREADY HAVE freedom, as a basic human right, and we drafted a Constitution that is supposed to BAR the federal government from impinging on that right. Unfortunately your attitude would make the founders of the nation "wackjobs," "nazis," "hillbillies", "right-wingers" and "government haters".
eulercircles 10 months ago
@eulercircles YOur point?
turnofffox 10 months ago
@turnofffox
you're wrong. that's his point.
yahlers 10 months ago
There's only one thing to say about any war of secession. Morally, if people want to leave, they always, always have the right to leave. The right to walk away may the be most basic and fundamental right of all.
brindlebriar 10 months ago
There's only one thing to say about any war of succession. Morally, if people want to leave, they always, always have the right to leave. The right to walk away may the be most basic and fundamental right of all.
brindlebriar 10 months ago
@brindlebriar and the rights of the slaves to leave?
thesuperfe 9 months ago
@thesuperfe Your point is noble and well taken. My sentiments regarding the right to walk away includes slaves, and every other human. Since slaves were prevented by immoral legal and military authority from exercising the right to walk away, I grant the moral authority of the North to have invaded the South to free them (I don't even care that it was a strategic ploy.) But thereafter, should not the Southern states have been granted the political autonomy they desired, minus the slaves?
brindlebriar 9 months ago
@thesuperf Upon reflection, I wish to grant even more. My support of the South's right to seceed was based on an assumtion that the majority of southern people were in favor of secession. But I have to withdraw that assumtion, since blacks and women were not allowed to vote. Thus no majority opinion can be established. My mistake was in trying to appy to states a moral imperative applicable to individuals. That attempt was fraught with contradictions, because states are immoral institutions.
brindlebriar 9 months ago
@brindlebriar States are amoral institutions.
realoldguy1969 9 months ago
zzzzzzzzzzzzz. This is the reason I try and make my choices one item at a time instead of taking a side. With enough talk everything can be watered down. So you say you don't want puppies killed? So you must be against the working man? I mean, he is killing puppies because there is a profit to be made. Do you also have a problem with profit? Wasn't Jesus a prophet? Surely you don't hate Jesus? There you have it folks, Jesus hating, socialist puppy lover.
allteeth 10 months ago
Perfect SA - you are a Master of words and thought!
prayfortruejustice 10 months ago
@MrSuperpunch019 I disagree. Jack Hunter is not a Nazi, he's simply ill-informed on history, and likely grew up being taught all the self-serving propaganda that many southerners tell themselves about how their poor little confederacy was invaded and mistreated by the evil north. They have history books, and they have museums dedicated to Jefferson Davis the the confederacy,but like the Ronald Reagan museum, they have to gloss over the inconvenient historical facts that don't support their myth.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
If it were not about slavery, why would Jefferson Davis's address to the confederacy in Montgomery, Alabama, April 29, 1861, not have anything in it about unfair taxes, or about how the south was treated unfairly, but have plenty of mentions about how Negroes were naturally inferior, how slaves were property, and how slavery was the natural state of negroes?
When you look at how often confederate leaders talked about slaves, and how little they talked about unfair tarriffs, you wonder.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
If it was not about slavery, why would all of the senators from seceeding states have made secession speeches that focussed mainly on slavery?
If it was not about slavery, why does the Confederate constitution suspiciously like the US constitution, with a paragraph hastily added in about preserving slavery?
If it wasn't about slavery, why would Confederate VP Alexander Stephens's cornerstone speech claim that the confederacy is founded on the great truth that negroes are not equal?
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
… while for the Right it was not only not about slavery at all, it must not be about slavery at all.
shamusername 10 months ago
The logical argument against slavery being the primary reason for the war of Northern aggression is the FACT that every other nation on Earth that abolished slavery did it without attacking the proponents of slavery - and that the attack occurred in advance of ratifying a constitutional amendment that could have justified it.
With hundreds of documented historical footnotes:
The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo
j1a2r34 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 I find it ironic that the people who refer to the civil war as "the war of northern agression" pretty much ignore the facts that (1) The South started the war by attacking Fort Sumter, (2) The South planned ahead to go to war by sending representatives to Europe to solicit military aid from European nations before Secession, and Jefferson Davis drew up plans for war, including the invasion of Canada, before the war even started.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
@MinstrelKrampf On the other hand, advocates of initializing coercive force usually ignore that the fort in question occupied the soil of an independent state. They also fail to recognize that several delegations (including members of the French diplomatic corps) were sent to DC to negotiate a price for the fort in question, and fail to note that Lincoln would not admit to any negotiation because he was already determined to kill any number of citizens in order to prevent secession.
j1a2r34 10 months ago 2
@j1a2r34 The Confederacy took federal buildings and arsenals, with pretty much NO FEDERAL RESPONSE. The north let them take them without incident. Lincoln was willing to give the fort if Virginia would not support secession, and Sec. of State William Seward negotiated with the confederates on the purchase of the island, but the negotiations failed when the south demanded all the weapons and ammo in the fort. Davis' s own advisors warned him that attacking the fort would lose a lot of support.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
@MinstrelKrampf Ultimately the negotiations failed because Lincoln refused to honor the secession and get his troops back into his own country. Lincoln had no intention of negotiating in good faith to surrender the fort. For some reason he didn't recognize that the federal government was (and is) a product of state confederation. I still don't understand the logic of people who argue that statehood is involuntary.
j1a2r34 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 Are you saying that the South did not start the war by attacking Fort Sumter? Are you saying that the Confederacy was FORCED to attack Fort Sumter? Do you claim that the civil war wasn't about slavery? If you do, then you are speaking against actual documented history (recorded by both sides, not a slanted history), and I'd have to ask you to start citing some sources. By all accounts, Jefferson Davis went against the advice of his generals and attacked the fort, thus starting the war.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
@MinstrelKrampf Not quite. Lincoln controlled the issue at Ft. Sumpter and because of his intention to prevent secession at any cost, the South would have eventually had to resist either there or somewhere else. The war was about denying a states right to secede. Slavery was the argument that resulted in secession. I'm not arguing that slavery was right, or good, or humane, or had any other benevolent or beneficial attribute. The right of secession is my only real issue. For any reason.
j1a2r34 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 Lincoln did not control the issue. Lincoln didn't even talk to the confeds. The secretary of state held talks behind Lincoln's back, and was willing to give them the fort. But they got greedy, asking for all the weapons and ammo. Davis was warned by all of his advisors that they would lose many allies if he attacked. He had a choice -- attack and lose allies, or not attack and bide more time to make more aliances. He chose war. He didn't have to. This is what both sides said.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
@MinstrelKrampf Lincoln purposefully agitated South Carolina in order to whip up a patriotic frenzy. Lincoln was a racist who was only concerned about power. The States entered the Union under the implicit and sometimes explicit assumption that they could leave it anytime they liked. The States created the fed. govt., not the other way around. The Whig and Republican parties were pimping for northern manufactures and had imposed high tariffs that benifitted them and punished the Southern states.
joepeeler34 10 months ago
@joepeeler34 Joe, your ignorant spin on US history is betrayed by the writings of both Lincoln and the confederacy. Calling Lincoln a racist is pure idiocy. He was a complex man whose opinions EVOLVED OVER TIME. Before he was President, he suggested sending black people back to Africa, but then he realized that wouldn't work for all of them. He used to think of them as inferior, but his meetings with Frederick Douglas and other black luminaries of the time forced him to think otherwise.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
@MinstrelKrampf he was a racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Southernjuggalo63 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 You really need to read the facts before making baseless assertions about history that is easy to look up. There are 2 civil wars -- the one that actually happened, and is documented by BOTH SIDES, and where both confed and union accounts agree. Then there is the mythology of the glorious south, where Slaves were happy, Where Davis was a hero, and where Lincoln was trying to take over the world.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
@MinstrelKrampf I finally realize that your interest doesn't lie in the documented history surrounding the conflict and the circumstances that led to it. You are correct, however in that the history is available for others who may actually be interested. A good place for them to start would be Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" -- a book containing hundreds of footnoted source documents.
j1a2r34 10 months ago
@j1a2r34 Yes, all of DiLorenzo's Lincoln books are good. Jim Webb, the currnent Democratic Senator from Virginia, also has written books about this period that challenge the Lincoln Cult. There are others who are challenging the mythology constructed by academics who are partial to Lincoln's national system. Maddow is ignorant in her arrogance.
joepeeler34 10 months ago
@MinstrelKrampf You have created a straw-man argument. None of us are arguing that slavery was good. I also wasn't aware that there were only "two sides." That's myopic and wrong. Lincoln was primarily concerned about institutting his American System. He was a centralizer. He broke law after law. Even his academic supporters ackowledge that he was a dictator--albeit a "benign" one. Every other western country rid themselves of slavery without war. This wasn't part of Lincoln's program though.
joepeeler34 10 months ago
@joepeeler34 unfortunately, like others before you, you seem to think that I'm arguing against slavery. I am not. I am arguing against IGNORANCE ABOUT US HISTORY. Southern-pride types, and those who wish to celebrate the confederacy are exactly like Germans who would celebrate "the good old days of WW2", and the birthday of that "Great German Patriot", whose name I will not dignify by mentioning. Jefferson Davis's own writings betray any attempt to proclaim that the north was the aggressor.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
@joepeeler34 Fact -- before the war even started, Jefferson Davis used Confederate troops to go out into the public and arrest anyone they suspected of being union sympathizers -- without due process ro trials. This type of action was not even attempted by the union against suspected confeds. The Confederacy, by this action, made itself a police state, punishing people not just for their political leanings, but for the mere suspicion of having different loyalties.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
@joepeeler34 Fact -- before secession, Jefferson Davis sent envoys to Europe on behalf of the confederacy, to see if he could get France or England to give them weapons or offer military support. Since the south had not yet seceeded, this was seen as unusual. It is in fact, proof that Davis had drawn up plans for secession and for war years ni advance of there even being a confederacy. His own personal papers attest to the fact that he planned an invasion of Canada.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
This is state's rights in a nutshell.
If your state doesn't want to honor the first amendment, and persecute people who say and write unpopular things, that's you're "state's right".
If your state wants to prevent black people from voting or getting an education, that's your "state's right".
If your state wants to ignore the bill of rights when it comes to black people, that's your "state's right."
Remember what the south actually did in the name of state's rights.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
@MinstrelKrampf Since you obviously believe that states can ignore the 1st ten amendments, and since you have no reason to believe me... you need to share your opinion with one of your state legislators and see what they have to say about your beliefs.
j1a2r34 10 months ago 2
@j1a2r34 I don't think you got the essence of my post. The essence of my post was demonstrating what is REALLY meant when people say that the civil war was about "State's Rights". The "state's rights" that the south fought for, that it's leaders made speeches about, and which was enshrined in both seceeding state's constitutions and the confederate constitution, was the right to hold slaves, and to selectively ignore parts of the US constitution that were inconvenient for them.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
@MinstrelKrampf Here's a quote from Article 1, Section 2 of the constitution as it existed: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Who selectively ignored it? North or South?
j1a2r34 10 months ago
This truth is scary. You're scary. Whistlin' Dixie is d*mn scary. Angry progressives are scary. Crazy, racist, conservatives who hate immigrants are scary. Rachel Maddow's duplicity about federal spending and expanded role of .gov is scary. Keep telling the truth because .. you're throwing federalism off a big scary cliff.
I'm much more afraid of the lemmings who will follow them than anything else.
BeatTheChip 10 months ago
Is interesting you quote Lincoln but not Calhoun. By 1837 John C. Calhoun had changed his views on Jeffersonian democracy to that of a castle system of which slavery and concentration of power was the mainstay. It's a shame we went to war for such a cause. It's embarrassing when I have a white southerner claim it's not true.
337noname 10 months ago
@337noname . It's embarrassing when I "HEAR" a white southerner claim it's not true.
337noname 10 months ago
I heard her factually challenged rant at breakthematrix
I don't know why she's against reenacting both sides of a battle, with people taking both sides, and reminding everyone of the horrors of war, especially among brothers. You would think studying and remembering history is what prevents us from repeating it. I was really appalled at her ignorance, but her un-wisdom topped it.
IMissLiberty 10 months ago
I doubt if 10's of thousands of Confederate soldiers died to keep slavery since they didn't own any.
INFOWARforYourMind 10 months ago 3
@INFOWARforYourMind blow it out your ass
metalfaust19 3 months ago
Conservatives haven't made a definitive decision about centralized power either, and are equally unaware of what it means. People tend to buy what leading figures on their side of the political spectrum say. Some will never be satisfied, but irresponsibly believe they will when more and more power is given to something or someone else. Fueling the temptation of power harvests discontent and so power constantly shifts.
Predictable that this subject turned into a political analysis.
hybridmcgee 10 months ago
The msnbc cartoonish version of history is easier for the left to understand. True/false right/wrong never get in their way.
goodinohio 10 months ago 2
liberals likw Obama want to keep making us slaves to AIPAC
TheJoelef 10 months ago
She could care less about the true history of nullification. She is not going to tell the truth about it even if she really did know the truth, because knowing and telling the truth doesn't typically make you a lot of money here in the U.S.. If telling the truth made people a lot of money then obviously we wouldn't have many problems facing our country today. People would rather be told a 5th grade version of history and eat cheetos.
mattdl1 10 months ago 15
@mattdl1 Yeah, it's all a conspiracy
Madfoot713 10 months ago
@PikSokolit The sad part is that kids are impressionable, trusting, and naive to the evils of the world. This makes them easy marks for teaching the lies. Once taught this is truths, they hang on to it, and the longer they do so before shown the deceptions of their past "teachings", the harder it becomes for them to see the truth when it is presented. They don't want to believe that they were deceived by their "nice teachers".
The Left knows this and is why the Left always infiltrated schools.
garwoodv6 10 months ago 4
I find it kind of funny liberals are unable to wrap there head around this it proves they cant think for themselves and have idiots like Maddow tell them what to think
TexanfromTennessee 10 months ago 10
I was going to write you myself but he did my job for me
TexanfromTennessee 10 months ago
American Third Position Party! Tired of leftists and Neocons? Tired of people using words? like racists and anti semite to try to silence their opponents? Tired of affirmative action? Tired of spending billions on upholding a overseas military empire? Tired of the? illegal alien invasion of the USA?
Look no further than at the American Third Position Party! Take a look at their homepage at american3p . org and take a look at their videos here on youtube.
The American Third Position Party
Lavard14 10 months ago
What bothers me is when people treat the Confederate Flag like its some horrific some symbol of racism and oppression. . Its the cross of St Andrew, a hugely important cultural figure in both Scotland and Russia, like St Patrick is to the Irish and I'm 50% Scottish and 50% Russian, so for me even as an irreligious person the cross of St Andrew has huge cultural relevance to me and my heritage, and the attempts to sully this symbol or decry it as racist I find extremely ignorant and insulting.
GMoneyStillTippin420 10 months ago 3
@GMoneyStillTippin420 the swastika, which for thousands of years was used by ,many cultures to represent life and good luck, in these modern times is primarily being used to represent nazis who promote racism and oppression and genocide. today, the confederate flag is used primarily by people of similar beliefs, so it's understandable that people associate it with racism and oppression.
thesuperfe 9 months ago
Hey southrenavenger, can you make a video on your thoughts of marijuana legalization?
ruumpleteaser 10 months ago 3
Good clip!
equsnarnd 10 months ago
3:10 - Troy Sanders vs. Brent Hinds
3cl3c71k0r 10 months ago
There are much greater problems facing our world than paying credence to what Rachel Maddow says. She'll scream racism when a Republican beats Obama. Americans aren't stupid enough to be guilt tripped into voting Democrat. Let her call out Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton for their hate of whites and then I'll believe racism
DrGordon31 10 months ago
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
--Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, Constitution of the Confederate States of America.
Wintermute01001 10 months ago
@Wintermute01001 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Slavery is legal as long as it's done by the Government. Why do you think so many Blacks are "convicted" and sent to work farms back during the Jim Crow era.
GrayGhost8 10 months ago
@GrayGhost8 1)That mostly happened in former Confederate states.
2) The 13th Amendment makes no mention of race. It doesn't reinforce white supremacy the way the CSA Constitution does.
Wintermute01001 10 months ago
California, nullify now! There's an event soon, google it.
repfreedomforce 10 months ago
The dirty little secret of progressives is that they can only achieve their collectivist ambitions through coercion and authoritarianism. So, Maddow's critique of nullification is not based on its use to defend slavery, however hard she tries to convince us. Rather, progressives condemn nullification because it erodes the power of the totalitarian state; the very instrument of the progressive vision.
gjdavis 10 months ago 6
this is manipulative as fuck
Madfoot713 10 months ago
@Madfoot713 How so?
TexanfromTennessee 10 months ago
@TexanfromTennessee Yeah I'm sure Rachel Maddow wants to bring back slavery you dumb fuck
Madfoot713 10 months ago
@Madfoot713 I think you're missing the point. Maddow (a liberal) said she was against state nullification of unconstitutional laws because they were neo-Confederate and pro-slavery. FACT: it was Northern states that used state nullification to refuse to obey the unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and it was the South that complained against them doing that. FACT: if Maddow thinks that nullification is wrong, then she believes that states had to obey the Fugitive by mjhonsun
TexanfromTennessee 10 months ago 4
@TexanfromTennessee Fact: It was John C. Calhoun who represented South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis of 1832. This is the only quoted statement of Maddow in this video and is 100% accurate.
Fact: It was the South who tried to use nullification resist the desegregation of public schools during the 1950s.
Fact: State nullification doesn't have any constitutional basis.
Madfoot713 10 months ago
@Madfoot713 Fact: State nullification doesn't have any constitutional basis.
Fact: Thomas Jefferson and and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions (the Principles of 98) which said that states did have the constitutional right to nullify federal laws.
Fact: nowhere in the Constitution will you find the granting of the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court (a branch of the federal government)
Better read your American history more carefully.
hungarygator 10 months ago 3
@hungarygator supremacy clause
'nuff said
Madfoot713 10 months ago
@Madfoot713 You realize the supremacy clause only covers those powers the states actually agreed to delegate to the federal government in the first place.....right?
hungarygator 10 months ago
@Madfoot713 You're joking, right?
tewj57 10 months ago
@tewj5 nope.
Madfoot713 10 months ago
Excellent presentation, Jack! I would like to see you have a face to face exchange (in a non-partisan setting) with Maddow. Despite her education she is woefully ignorant.
steve0281 10 months ago
Thanks Jack.
xxNutcasexx 10 months ago
Louisiana, Nullification of the Debt now
btigtime2 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Slavery was just an excuse. During the Industrial Revolution, US was competing with England, Russia and France for dominance. The South had an agrarian based society and the north wanted the south to become industrialized. South refused. North wanted to cripple the southern agrarian economy by getting ride of slavery. South used cessation to break away from the Federally. Lincoln offered to make slavery legal just so the south remains with union. South refused. War began. Any Questions?
shiftstart 10 months ago 2
@shiftstart It amazes me that the Lincoln Cult has not even mentioned of the letters that Lincoln wrote to the Southern States telling them he would make Slavery legal if they would reconsider their secession. It also proves the point that it was not the reason for them leaving the Union. The tariffs that were passed would have killed the Southern Economy since no one would pay the price for the goods in England, France, etc.
GrayGhost8 10 months ago
@shiftstart I'm with you. This is the absolute truth.
Starpilot17 10 months ago
Jack, what did you expect Mr Maddow to say about the Civil War? Liberals are walking contradiction.
shiftstart 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I fell asleep through this...
kraksc 10 months ago
Brilliant video!
KingCrassusII 10 months ago
The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo.
spaceagedevice 10 months ago 19
@spaceagedevice Also "When in the Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams (a Yankee) is excellent.
GrayGhost8 10 months ago
The debate on the Civil War can be used to the advantage of those who oppose our current foreign policy. We can bring these truths to light and illustrate the hypocrisy, not to defend secessionism; but to point out how the corporate and moneyed interests are the real reason we are led to war. Then as well as now.
Ponerology 10 months ago
Ron Paul 2012
PEDLIFE 10 months ago 12
Maddow is GE's propagandist. GE is pro-fascism and against anyone fighting for independence from the federal government.
nuclide 10 months ago 7
Liberals and conservatives both believe in slavery. What else could you call it when someone else decides for you how much of your earning you get to keep?
mouser98k 10 months ago 8
good ending
SpideyNinety08 10 months ago
msnbc, stick this in your pipe and smoke it!
ConcernedPrepper 10 months ago
Madow actually said 'nullification'? On TV? Wow!
ashleyjohnston 10 months ago
It's simple. Liberals either believe in democracy like they claim, or they only do so when it supports their agenda. Any other position would be inconsistent.
Houshalter 10 months ago 2
Though I've always thought kind of the same on the subject, thanks for making me think about it again Jack. I would also like to hear your full views on "Pot" do you agree with the medicinal uses of the drug, and/or/or not believe that it should be legal across the board. I personally believe it should be legal across the board.
ChameleonLost88 10 months ago 2
you are awesome Jack, i wish you were on TV everyday
SaveOurSovereignty3 10 months ago 4
Rachel Madow is a man...
InuzukaCds 10 months ago
Very interesting, well I'm not liberal myself, and I'm not so much pro Union as I am pro North. See like many southerners my ancestors showed up in America as dirt poor Scottish hill trash, but instead of the Carolinas mine settled in New Hampshire. I'm an outspoken admirer of Grant and Sherman cuz I admire dirt poor yankee hill trash alcoholic/ bipoplar who put the screws to high fallutin southern gentry, but to me the tenth amendment does provide legal ground for secession in my opinion.
GMoneyStillTippin420 10 months ago 2
@GMoneyStillTippin420 Grant was the last President who owned slaves and Sherman had the women and children of Rossville, GA sent up North, most never heard from again. Admiration for those two bastards is reason for concern.
GrayGhost8 10 months ago
@GrayGhost8 So? Grant owned bought one slave then spent a good portion of his life and his presidency campaigning for equality. I don't give a personally give a fuck if Sherman forced confederate POW's to dig up the land mines they buried themselves, what I admire is that two men of the North of relatively low or common birth both crippled by mental health issues and alcoholism used modern warfare to crush an established aristocrat. and as a Northerner I have every right to admire them.
GMoneyStillTippin420 10 months ago
@GrayGhost8 Honestly maybe its cuz I'm a white working class northerner but I don't really view the Civil War from a moral perspective. You can lament the atrocities that red headed devil Sherman inflicted and liberal northerners can lambast your slave whipping nonsense. To me it was a clash of cultures and a fight between an old agrarian model and new industrial model. You southerners put up a good fight and Lee was a brilliant general but in the end ruthlessness and industry won.
GMoneyStillTippin420 10 months ago 2
@GrayGhost8 Im not attackin u but I was just curious of wat source u have dat Grant own'd slaves? I recently red a bio about Grant n nowear it said anything about him ownin slaves. But it did say dat his wife's fam was proslavery but nva got along wit his father inlaw cuz of their differin views. There was a time where he was strugglin after he separatd from the mil. and him n his wife lived with his father inlaw but nva said he actually ownd slaves. The book quotes him as dislikin slavery.
a1cswiz1611 10 months ago
Criticizing MSNBC is almost not worth the time but it is fun.
yojimbo81 10 months ago 2
Jack is wonderfully objective, honest and sensible. Unlike myself he harbors no racial animosities. However, people in the mass do not view the world in such a noble way as Jack; they prefer a simple, self-serving narrative of good & evil that defines their identity and morality. If you showed a hundred Rachel Maddow sympathizers this video most would not have the patience for it and probably not even a dozen would understand it.
But I can't help but appreciate Jack for his idealism.
TulliusVII 10 months ago 3
These dangerous times we live in are heading down this road again, except nullification and slavery have been replaced by towering debt and universal health care, coupled with massive federal corruption, globalist interference and never ending foreign wars. The founders would be shouting at the tops of the lungs for secession. More to the point of your video, as usual, you nail the points of the topic succinctly.
cronoslogic 10 months ago
LINCOLN=MORE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
wilddixieman 10 months ago 3
Hit it out of the park again. ✭✭✭✭✭
PilgrimLad 10 months ago
Jack , stay JUST who you are AND run for office, and you can't lose.
crubeo 10 months ago 2
The argument about slavery and the civil war is as stupid as saying the purpose of stopping Hitler was to stop the Jewish genocide.
usintelreport 10 months ago
It's Mr. Maddow... WHO CARES what it thinks?
yakyakyak69 10 months ago
@yakyakyak69
funny and true, but there are people who think like "it".
utubehayter 10 months ago
@utubehayter Yes, and there are people who think that we have "little green men" in an undergound base in souwestern USA. What's you point?
yakyakyak69 10 months ago 2
@yakyakyak69
No "point" really. Not everything I say is said to make a point. I happen to say things like "I agree" too from time to time when I actually can agree with people.
utubehayter 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is the most simpleminded rhetoric I've seen in a while. This portrayal of liberals is uninformed caricature. If you rightwingers are going to argue against liberalism, couldn't y3ou at least do it intelligently?
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP Learn how to spell before asking someone else to do something intelligently, and try listening to what is being said BEFORE you post your response, as there is no way you could have come up with this dumb of a remark after having heard the whole thing.
hellsunicorn 10 months ago 4
@hellsunicorn Shut the fuck up, asshole. My cat stepped on my keyboard as I was posting the comment. I made my intelligent comment by listening to the whole diatribe.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP
So the Socratic method is "simpleminded rhetoric"? Did you even listen to the whole thing? Did I just answer my own question?
MisterDajjal 10 months ago 5
@MisterDajjal Yep. I listened to it. It was pretty pathetic, wasn't it? Did I just answer my own question?
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP
Care to expand on why you thought it was pathetic, or are you just going to sit around and call everyone who disagrees with you a big stupidhead?
MisterDajjal 10 months ago 2
@MarmaladeINFP
Would you elaborate one why you thought Mr. Hunter's arguments were "pathetic," or did you just call it that because the Tee Vee lady said it his views were wrong?
MisterDajjal 10 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This stupid as hell. Liberals weren't for slavery. He's confusing "republican" for "right wing". That wasn't the case in the 1800s.
upabittoolate 10 months ago
@upabittoolate I think you're missing the point. Maddow (a liberal) said she was against state nullification of unconstitutional laws because they were neo-Confederate and pro-slavery. FACT: it was Northern states that used state nullification to refuse to obey the unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and it was the South that complained against them doing that. FACT: if Maddow thinks that nullification is wrong, then she believes that states had to obey the Fugitive Slave Act.
mjhonsun 10 months ago 57
@mjhonsun No. YOU are missing the point. In truth, Rachel Maddow would've lined up with the Republicans in those days. Aside from that, he's trying to depict Maddow as some kind of Dredd Scott apologist. That's bad reasoning.
upabittoolate 10 months ago
@upabittoolate No you're missing the point he is showing that nullification is not a pro-slavery position it is a safeguard of liberty.
TheBullionBull 10 months ago 7
@upabittoolate you mean the Republicans that sided with Lincoln, supporting the Fugitive Slave Act? Or the Emancipation Proclamation which only banned slavery in new territories (because they didn't want blacks there) but kept it in place where it already existed? Or Lincoln's crafting & public support of the Corwin Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have made slavery permanent (check Lincoln's 1st Inaugural Address)? Help me out here, I thought you said Maddow was against slavery.
mjhonsun 10 months ago 2
@mjhonsun That's the point Jack was making! Cognition is a wonderful tool.
spoyzer 10 months ago
@spoyzer That's right but the person I was a responding too said that Maddow would've sided with the radical Republicans (and Lincoln) because they were anti-slavery (despite evidence to the contrary) and that nullification of the the Fugitive Slave Act by northern abolitionists and states somehow amounted to being pro-Confederacy.
mjhonsun 10 months ago