@ElAsaltaCulos2 forget it, I was going to send you a reference, but you won't read it anyway. Not every body has a culo for a brain or a brain for a culo.
@Kingofprinces85 Lincoln turned a broken and bankrupt USA into the world's leading economy all while fighting it bloodiest war. Now why would the NWO be putting up videos like this? Who benefits from this blather and disinfo?
Such ignorance nauseates me. This is incredible that "liberty" has sunken to such low levels of lying that Illuminati shills make videos like this and people eat it up. Lincoln was mentored by J.Q Adams in the tradition of the founding fathers. Ron Paul is schooled by the Austrian economists who are in other words FASCISTS. Such blather and being directed to Illuminati historical revisionist websites is beyond reason, it is evil! Perhaps we deserve what is coming down the pike?
@charkee1 Isn't this quite a load of BS? As for the south, these so called "strict constiutionalists" don't seem to realize that that the const. doesn't say if a state can or can't leave the union. Second, if they had been allowed to leave then the whole damn country could have eventually broken up. One part of a country can't just leave b/c they didn't get their way on some issue. Basically their version of "liberty" is I get to do whatever I want, the consequences be damned.
@blackheartsbirth This video serves no other purpose than to deceive. It is NWO propaganda. Paul's appeal lies in the fact that he dares tell the truth about 90% of the time. However his economic polices will be a disaster. See what the "Austrians" have done in Pinochet's Chile. If you want to understand real economics learn from the American school-Hamiton, Paine, JQ Adams, Carey and Lincoln. Do not listen to these NWO shills.
@KayBeeEee1983 Ignorant. Blind and a fool. You fail to see the fascist without his swastika and neither are you interested to see nor understand it. Could it be beyond your abilities? All you have to do is look and you failed.
@ElAsaltaCulos2 Mr. Culo Check your history, Every time the USA adopted free trade the nation was bankrupt within the decade. Your ignorance is most nauseating and so is your culo. See what the maquiladoras have done for Iberoamerica. See what free trade did for USA jobs. It does not take a genius to figure it out, culo. But nobody here is interested in learning the truth, that is why you are a culo among many others.
@charkee1 I assume you think Free Trade Agreements consisting of thousands of pages actually constitutes free trade. That is where you are wrong. True free trade enriches both parties, because they benefit from comparative advantage. So how about you jam mercantilism, the NWO, and whatever other bright ideas you have up your culo.
@ElAsaltaCulos2 Behold the results of free trade: USA depression, Maquiladora workers don't earn enough to consume sufficient calories to maintain their weight. Slaves lived better. I personally know some of these workers. Again you did not check your history, neither do you intend to. Free trade is not fair trade, he that works for the least gets the job and slaves were better off, at least they got enough to eat. See what the "Austrians" did for Pinchet's Chile. Enjoy your NWO mr. culo.
These are the points I have argued for years but no one even takes me seriously the instant they understand that I would have the audacity to criticize the great slave liberator. Ya the same "liberator" who wrote in his own words that whites and blacks would NEVER EVER be able to coexist and that he planned to send them all to South America to start their own country. But the fact that I would bring that side of Lincoln up, or the fact that he had dissenting journalists jailed makes me racist
@7F0X7 "Ya the same "liberator" who wrote in his own words that whites and blacks would NEVER EVER be able to coexist and that he planned to send them all to South America to start their own country."
Do you have quotations? He didn't say that they'd never be able to coexist, just that they'd never be perfectly equal. He also only supported VOLUNTARY emigration of blacks to other countries, not forced deportation.
The South would have wound up a patchwork of thirdworld type nations bound to an agricultural base with lousy infracstructure. Except for those that had mineral resources like TEXAS and Louisiana. The Southern states made no issue of the fact they wanted war and were not the lest bit afraid to fire the first shots of the war. This revisionist propaganda is typical of southern delusion.
@ErikLiberty Lincoln was correct in defending the Union, as secession is treasonous and unconstitutional. Don't forget our nation is an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states. So i resent the depiction of Lincoln in this video, as it makes me sick to my stomach.
@nsengstad (1) "The Constitution is silent on the question of secession. And the states never delegated to the federal government any power to suppress secession. As the 10th amendment states, any power not given to the Federal government automatically goes to the States or the people. Therefore, secession remained a reserved right of the states...
@ErikLiberty I think it would do you some good to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. What you're saying is unsound in theory and dangerous in practice. Might I also point out that the Supreme Court has ruled on the legality of secession in Texas v. White (1869). The court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States.
@ErikLiberty Secession doesn't have to be expressly prohibited in the constitution because the states aren't sovereign or independent.
"Although he did not believe they possessed a right of secession, he also did not believe that the federal government had the right to coerce a seceding state"
Let's assume he was right about that. The southern states didn't just secede, they also stole federal weapons, federal property, and demolished a federal fort while federal troops were garrisoned inside.
@KayBeeEee1983 We did the same with England; we stole guns, supplies, gold, killed her majesties soldiers and officials and occupied their forts! Most treasonous of all, we asked the French for help; and allowed them to gain a foothold on her majesties lands so they could help us fight!!! Treason!!! Consorting with England’s mortal enemies!!! Kill those secessionists!!! What is your point, fool?
@MarcLira66 "We did the same with England; we stole guns, supplies, gold, killed her majesties soldiers and officials and occupied their forts!"
We didn't steal any guns, supplies, or gold from Britain. We didn't kill her soldiers or occupy her forts until the war began at the battle of Lexington.
My point was that unilateral secession is unconstitutional.
@KayBeeEee1983 Go back to that American history class, fool! In April 1775 Gen. Gage sent British troops to seize a cache of weapons in Concord that local militia stole/obtained illegally. Local militia confronted the troops. The US Congress was declared traitors by royal decree; they responded with the Declaration of Independence from the British Empire and formed the United States of America, on July 4, 1776. Please stop embarrassing yourself you know nothing of our history!
@MarcLira66 Any supplies that Americans took from storehouses were already colonial property in the first place. The Americans were protecting the supplies from British raids. The colonists needed weapons and gunpowder to protect themselves from attacks by the natives because Britain refused to help unless one of Britain's European rivals was also involved (Like the French and Indian War).
@KayBeeEee1983 I thought in a Monarchy everything, in essence, was crown's property. You are one lousy arguer of semantics. You don’t even know about our history and pretend to argue with me.
@MarcLira66 "I thought in a Monarchy everything, in essence, was crown's property."
Uh, no, not necessarily. In absolute monarchies that may be true to varying extents, but Britain was a Constitutional monarchy. This is basic government stuff. Have you graduated high school? Read the 1689 English Bill of Rights. Among other things, the King couldn't tax or keep a standing army without parliamentary consent. He also couldn't take guns away from people.
@KayBeeEee1983 How old are you, 12? Ad hominem attacks. Is that the best you can do to defend yourself? Perhaps the “in essence” part escaped you. I bet you are the one that didn’t even finish high school. Judging by your lousy grasp of history, and the reality of the relations between the British monarchy and the American colonies. I guess that back then you would have been a loyalist.
@MarcLira66 Asking "Have you graduated high school?" isn't ad hominem because I'm not using it as an argument, I just used it to insult you for not knowing what a monarchy is.
The "in essence" part isn't right. If Britain were an absolute monarchy then you could say that the King owned all property "in essence" because absolute monarchs can confiscate anyone's property at any time and for any reason even though they may not legally own everyone's property all the time.
@KayBeeEee1983 Arguing semantics and constructing your own arguments, you are clearly a genius. There were indeed attempts of the British crown to confiscate guns, gunpowder and supplies by the magistrates long before the battle of Lexington. Or do you think we just one day decided to secede! Fool! You are just arguing semantic details since you have nothing to hang on. You would have been a loyalist for the crown you conformist.
@KayBeeEee1983 Typical hypocrisy; either you respect the right of people to self-determination or you don’t. You clearly don’t; we had the right to secede from the British crown but others can’t do the same to secede from the union. Those don’t have a right for self-determination. Your attempt to justify the civil war on semantics and that you are willing to use force against your fellow Americans sicken me. You are just a tool.
@KayBeeEee1983 There have been plenty of incidents of local militia’s way before the Battle of Lexington, and us stealing gold, guns and supplies from the Brits in preparation; we were very sneaky treasonous bastards! After the battle of Lexington (which in retrospection is recognized and the start of the war) we almost had a year of raiding, etc. It was not until the declaration, almost a year later in July 1776, that the official war begun; ended in 1783 with the Paris Treaty.
@nsengstad (2) This was partly why James Buchanan, Lincoln’s predecessor in the White House, had allowed the first seven Southern states to leave in peace. Although he did not believe they possessed a right of secession, he also did not believe that the federal government had the right to coerce a seceding state." -Tom Woods in The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
@ErikLiberty James Buchanan was a weak president. James K. Polk confided to his diary: "Mr. Buchanan is an able man, but is in small matter without judgment and sometimes acts like an old maid."
@ErikLiberty "Although [Buchanan] did not believe they possessed a right of secession, he also did not believe that the federal government had the right to coerce a seceding state."
One of the MANY reason Buchanan was the worst President in history. That stance is totally illogical. If they don't have the right to secede, then they still have to obey federal laws and the Constitution, and, if they don't obey the law, the federal government has the power to enforce the law.
@nsengstad What a schmuck. That doesn't prove anything. This is why you Americans are viewed as such morons, you ignorant ones with not one educated bone in your body give the smart ones a bad name.
@nsengstad "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force." - President James Buchanan
@nsengstad You are clearly a slave to your stupid nationalism. By that logic then we had no right to secede from the British Empire! And we would still be a colony and not an independent nation! So if a state in democratic process, votes in absolute majority, that it wants to leave the union; we should use violence to not let them? Really? How democratic of you! Fools like you should not be called Americans. America is Freedom and Justice for all!
@MarcLira66 Speaking of slaves, do you really believe the southern states would have voted for seccesion with an absolute majority if the slaves had been able to vote? Now that would have been a democratic desision even Lincoln would have accepted.
And regarding the American Revolution there are significant differences in comparison to the Civil War. Mainly that we had no representation of any sort in the British Parliament, yet we were taxed. Taxation without representation. That's tyranny.
@NattligMelodi Secession, per se, isn't treasonous but it is unconstitutional. The states gave up their sovereignty and independence when they ratified the Constitution. When a party enters into a union, it loses its independence by definition. Therefore, retaining independence needs to be explicit. If the framers of the constitution meant for the states to be sovereign and independent, it would have been expressly stated, as it was in the Articles of Confederation.
@KayBeeEee1983 The 10th amendment gives UNSPECIFIED powers to the STATES, NOT the Federal Government. When he talks about being "dumbed down" in pro-government biased schools, this is what he was talking about.
@7F0X7 The Constitution is a contract. A contract doesn't have to explicitly say that no party can arbitrarily leave the contract. It's implied by the fact that it's a contract. No state can leave the union without the consent of all the states. Likewise, the other states can't kick out a state without that state's consent.
@KayBeeEee1983 Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
@7F0X7 No, that's not enough said because it shows your blatant ignorance of American history, law, and plain common sense. Why did North Carolina and Rhode Island debate ratification for YEARS if they could just leave the Union at any time in the future if they didn't like how things were going? Besides, even if unilateral secession was perfectly legal, stealing federal property isn't.
@7F0X7 Tell me why NC and RI waited so long to ratify the Constitution. They didn't participate in HUGE political events like the first federal elections and the first Supreme Court appointments.
Tell me why NONE of the 11 seceding states claimed that the 10th amendment gave them the right to unilaterally secede at any time. They ALL claim that the north's failure to live up to its constitutional obligations gave them the right to secede. Here's a quote from the SC Declaration of Secession:....
@7F0X7 "We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other...In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof...(cont'd)
@7F0X7 (It then goes on to list the northern states' violations of the fugitive slave clause)
"...Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."
@KayBeeEee1983 none of this matters because of the 10th amendment. what part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." do you not understand?
@nsengstad You are so right, The ignorance of the posts here is nauseating. This video serves no other purpose that to divert fools from looking into how Lincoln transformed a broken and bankrupt USA into the world's leading economy while fighting its bloodiest war in 5 short years. Not good news for NWO lovers.
Fuck Ron Paul. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. The south was fighting to perpetuate and expand slavery . Stay classy south you cornpone sheepshaggers...
@lakeozarkify Yeah of course they did. Maybe you should read history first. For one thing some notheren states had slaves, not just the south. And it wasn't about slavery, it had to more with tariffs, trade and a lot of economic problems. Why don't you explain why it was ok for Lincoln to burn down buildings, arrest journalists who spoke out against the war and killed civilians? Don't be a moron and read a book.
@Yabuturtle Yeah read some history. Starting with the history of abolition in the North and Midwest. EVERY Northern state had abolished slavery by 1810.
Tariffs? SC Congressman Lawrence Keit stated empatically that SC came to secession because of slavery, NOT tariffs.
"the South fought on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about, I never heard of any other cause for quarrel, THAN SLAVERY"..Col. John Singleton Mosby...CSA.
@UnionStatesHeritage Explain why it was okay for the CSA to do the same thing on a more brutal scale to Southerners who oppossed secession...Ever hear of the East TN declaration?
@UnionStatesHeritage "EVERY Northern state had abolished slavery by 1810." You do realize that is a blatant lie right? To name a few, New Jersey full abolition 1846, Rhode Island 1842, Connecticut 1848, Pennslyvania 1850, not to mention the 5 border states with the Union which didnt abolish slavery until the '60s. There is a difference with getting your facts wrong, and flat out lying. You do the latter. Typical revisionist.
@RevBillyRayCollins It's not a lie at all. It's fact. Northern states abolished slavery and provided for gradual emancipation, and they did so INDEPENDENTLY of the Federal Union. A model the South could have easily follwed. LOL...where's the crime? The 5 border states were SOUTHERN states that remained in the Union. States where slavery was already dying out, due to the lack of a cotton based economy.
@UnionStatesHeritage No thats not a fact, thats a lie. Most northern states, above the mason dixon line, abolished slavery after 1810. I never proclaimed the border states were northern states, I simply included them as states that remained with the Union. But Missouri is not a southern state as defind by the Census Bureua.
Of course slavery was dying up there, industrialization was taking strong roots.
@RevBillyRayCollins Funny, Neo-Confederates claim MO, as a Southern state. Pennsylvania has the 18th largest economy in the world, guess what the dominant industry STILL is...Agriculture. Fact is the North was as agrarian as the South in 1860. The North had more industry, but was not an industrial power, in the way that England was, at the time.
Not a lie, fact. BTW...Slavery in Northern states NEVER existed to the degree it did in the South.
@RevBillyRayCollins Fact is, there were few if any people still held in bondage at the time of the termination dates. You know those people Neo-Confederates like to claim were freed by NJ, AFTER the war? They were classified as people who were "indentured", and NJ law provided them to right to seek compensation for their services, in court. Of course that fact is ommitted, when Neo-Confederates make their claims.
@UnionStatesHeritage "slavery, NOT tariffs." Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address: "Our policy is peace, and the freest trade our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon interchange of commodities." You should try reading primary sources.
@RevBillyRayCollins Really? If Davis was so committed to peace, why did the Territorial Governor of Colorado, William Gilpin, correctly predict that the CSA would invade Colorado in an attempt to force it into the CSA, as a means to seize its mineral wealth? Gilpin made the prediction BEFORE the war actuall started, while Davis was telling the world that "the South just wanted to be left alone".
@UnionStatesHeritage Oh yeah, Davis evidently missed out on all those secession documents made by Southern states focusing on slavery. Ever hear of Lawrence Keit? SC Congressman made a stirring speech delcaring that slavery not tariffs were the reason the South came to secession.
@RevBillyRayCollins LOL...but Davis claimed to fighting a defensive war. He lied.
The New Mexico Campaign was pure territorial expansion, against a people who DID NOT want to be part of the CSA. Davis planned to push his invasion into California (a Union STATE), and seize more territory.
"We will never submit to the enemy's miltiary, OR HIS SLAVE DESPOTISM"...New Mexico Territorial Legislature.
@RevBillyRayCollins Gotta a question for 'ya about the tariff nonsense. If the war was about tariffs and "Northern agression", why did Mid-Atlantic states like PA, with economies dominated by agriculture, or western states like CA, & OR, who were frontier areas not side with the CSA. Those areas had to buy tariffed goods too. In fact, why is it that no free state or territory chose to fight with the CSA, or at least refuse to send troops to the Union Army?
@UnionStatesHeritage I dont believe this war was over the sole issue of tariffs, I believe there was a collection of issues. But there is a difference between what the soldiers fought for and what the polticians went to war for. I think its obvious why the soldeirs fought and in my opinion thats the most important.
@RevBillyRayCollins No, there's no difference at all. Southerners knew exactly what they were fighting for...Virginia recruitment poster circa 1862 urged men to enlist and "Fight the abolition foe". NOT 'states rights suppressing foe', or 'tariff supporting foe', or any other kind of foe. When Southerners invaded my home Commonwealth they referred to Pennsylvania's farming communites as "abolition Dutch", in their letters home.
@UnionStatesHeritage -- All that suggests is that then, as now, people were readily manipulated and instigated to fight via political bombast that appealed to cultural prejudices and exaggerated differences over provocative issues. Many of the driving societal 'causes' thru history were far less publicly advertsed or evident than more immediate biases which lent themselves to emotional catchphrases and propagandistic bombast. Surely you must at least suspect your examples are deeply flawed.
@starmanskye -- I mean, your examples of using the combatants own words of scorn, insult & derision to 'prove' what past conflicts were REALLY over is like referring to the letters of US Troops in Iraq & Afghanistan or their rude, mistrustful treatment of civilians to 'prove' the US's current M.E. wars are something other than about, say, Globalist agenda, Imperialist expansion, MIC Corporate Welfare, geostrategic maneuvering vis-a-vis Russia and China, & on behalf of Israel's Zionist policies
@starmanskye Wow, that's a large mouthful of bitg words and concepts which really says nuttin.
"Our sympathies cannot go with the Southern states, who, in the second half of the 19th Century, are proclaiming a doctrine, the foulest and most revolting that has ever been enunciated since our blessed Redeemer hung upon the cross of shame, and bore away the sins of the world. Sympathy with the Southern states! We have as much sympathy with them as with a gang of thieves or a crew of pirates"...
@starmanskye That assessment of the war was penned by Presbyterian scholars in Scotland, half a world away from the war. Their condemnation of the CSA was not based on "Yankee propagada", but what the CSA was proclaiming ITSELF to be, AT THE TIME, unfiltered by 21st century political correctness.
Frankly, I tend to believe the views of people who were on the scene, over self-important, PC psuedo intellectuals, in the here and now.
@UnionStatesHeritage -- Pa, Ca and Or were not directly affected by the trade of mostly southern Atlantic ports where Federal gov derived the majority of operating revenue via import duties. Frankly, your myopia re: the issue of protectionist practices that sqeezed the South's agricultural economy looks like nothing so much as extreme bias-reinforcement to prop-up the conventional myth which held slavery as the driving cause of the Civil War -- in which you seem to be emotionally invested.
@starmanskye So, people in states outside the South, didn't buy imported goods? Protectionist practices, which squeezed the South's economy...so how did all those planters become fabulously wealthy? Among the wealthiest in the nation, at the time?
If slavery wan't the driving cause of the war, WHY didn't any freesstates or territories outside the South, fight with the CSA, or at least refuse to support the Unoin, with troops?
@lakeozarkify Hardly. The southern states were in no way perpetuating and expanding slavery than the Union was. The Union had 5 slaves states, thousands of slaves amassed between them. They werent subject to freedom under the Emancipation Proclamation.
@lakeozarkify you cant prove your point by insulting people, try using the facts, but you would lose the arugement. you have obviously never heard what ron paul has said on this subject, and you must have ignored the video
@MrOsorum Actually they are not socialist mate. Head over to Sweden and ask them about their "Socialism" and they will laugh at you. They do have what we refer to as a single payer for things like healthcare however they maintain the free market in terms of quality/competition. The drawback to the single payer is that the more expensive the treatment the harder it is to authorize. Some cancer treatments for instance are not covered. Still a HUGE step up from our Fascist healthcare system.
Ron Paul supporters, now is the time to act! No matter how much you do for
Ron Paul, if you don't help prevent the votes from being fixed, your hard work was in vain and he isn't going to win. Demand fair elections! To allow secret vote count is to hand the election victory to the frauds!
@warblerab Well im sorry but as pragmatic as i sometimes tend to be that was going way to far. The guy was a tyrant that put everything over basic rights.
Secession is rebellion, which the federal government has the explicit right to suppress. And James Buchanan did nothing to stop secession because he was overtly pro-slavery.
Also, slavery was the foundation of Southern society. It went beyond just economic interests, so no, the slaveowners wouldn't have accepted the government buying and freeing their slaves.
BTW, Lew Rockwell is a notorious racist, to the point that Ron Paul fans like to blame him for those racist newsletters in Paul's name.
@RedXlV Um no Red. because the states joined the union freely, they should have been able to leave freely. The states where sovereign in of themselves until the civil war where the federal government became the greater power be Lincoln FORCED them to stay. It was never supposed to be this way under the Constitution.
And as Paul said.. slavery had begun being eradicated everywhere else in the world, and yet you think the slavery would not have been abolished in the south eventually if the civil war didnt happen? DO you really think we would have slaves today if the civil war didnt happen?
Yes, but the method by which Ron Paul suggests that slavery should have been ended - compensated emancipation - was rejected by the four border states when Lincoln offered it to them. Would the Cotton Seven have accepted it?
Yes, slavery would have been abolished "eventually" but how long is an acceptable wait? For a man who claims personal liberty as his political cornerstone Paul seems to care little for the liberty of the slaves - the greater affront to freedom.
@MrSeBoyle "For a man who claims personal liberty as his political cornerstone Paul seems to care little for the liberty of the slaves - the greater affront to freedom." Just remember over 620,000 lives were at stake when this all went down. Even I would have said lets find a better way than war so we can avoid all those deaths.
There is the assumprtion being made here that Lincoln was responsible for this. He wasn't. He neither started the war nor did it to end slavery. From what I know of Lincoln I am pretty convinced that he would have been very happy to do what RP claims he should have done. He didn't get the chance.
My point is only that, for a libertarian, RP has an interesting outlook on slavery. He seems happy for it to exist but angry about the imposition of other laws.
@MrSeBoyle "He seems happy for it to exist but angry about the imposition of other laws." He does not justify slavery, he is simply saying 620,000 lives are more important.
I did not say he justifies it. I said he seems happy for it to exist. Any true libertarian ought to see this as the greatest affront to their beliefs and to unequivocally condemn it FIRST and foremost. He doesn't. As I said he appears to be happy for it to exist until some time that the slaveholders would accept compensation. Instead he expends all his energy on condemning Lincoln for restricting other freedoms that are surely (continued...)
of a lesser crime (to the libertarian) than involuntry servitude? He appears to think it's acceptable to fight a war over the imposition of taxes and tariffs & such like but not over slavery. To me that seems a strange position for a libertarian to hold. If he said he thought it was good that the Confederacy was defeated but sad that some other freedoms were lost in ending it I could see his position as consistent, because slavery is a bigger crime against liberty than taxes.
@MrSeBoyle "Any true libertarian ought to see..." The man is running for President of the United States of America on the Republican ticket, I wouldn't consider that a true libertarian.
Good point and I probably agree however I think my argument still stands. I could make the same assertion about anyone who claims that personal liberty is a fundamental good yet supports the Confederate secession as RP appears to do.
@MrSeBoyle Ron Paul said once before that slavery should never of occured but they should have at least ended it in 1776 or during the adoption of the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. He celebrates personal liberty and he champions the idea that the states have the constitutional right to secede. The problem with your statement is that it appears you believe the southern secession was over slavery, it wasnt. Their secession was over many reasons. 1) Are they going to allow the
@MrSeBoyle Feds to tell them what to do, does the 10 amend still stand? 2) As Jefferson Davis said, the election of Lincoln could cause possible slave insurrections due to his support from an outspoken abolitionist movement. 3) The tarriff issue which was opposed by the south and supported by Lincoln. 4) The Feds have no right to call for 75k volunteers and invade another state.
It actually makes no difference if the secession was over slavery or not. The practical outcome of secession, whatever it was for, would have been slavery in perpetuity in the Confederacy. You say he "celebrates personal liberty". Generally he does, but in this case he's elevating the supposed "constitutional right to secession" above the personal liberty of 4 million. He's rating a constitutional right as more important than a natural right to liberty.
@MrSeBoyle "He's rating a constitutional right as more important than a natural right to liberty." He's taking over 620,000 peoples lives as more important. Nothing is worth that many deaths.
"would have been slavery in perpetuity in the Confederacy." Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee both proclaimed that they believe slavery would die off naturally, especially from the growing usage of synthetis fibers and rising European pressure to free the slaves.
@MrSeBoyle I dont know if Id be willing to give my life for unjust taxes and tariffs, I would do my hardest to be free though. But you also have to know that all of the other wars combined that the US was in dont equal the amount of lives lost in the War between the States.
@Prowsky Whats more wrong is the federal governments propaganda fed down my throat in grade school. Your view of this countries history has been challenged. No dont shrug it off.. RESEARCH and find the truth on your own.
Seriously. This video is so bullshitty I don't even know where to start. But it's fundamental message is: screw the rights of slaves, as long as you respect the rights of states. Yeah right, the right to own slaves, the right to violate the first amendment, the right to engage in the Kansas civil war (Bleeding Kansas), the right to social darwinism, and of course, the right to have a less free and less democratic society. No sorry, but you don't get those "rights"!!
That's it precisely. RP shrugs off the most heinous affront to liberty imagineable - the complete ownership of 4 million peoples' liberty by others but gets angry about the limited denial of the 'liberty' of perhaps double that number through democratically imposed taxes and tariffs. Go figure? What is it about those 4 million that RP thinks isn't important?
The north still had slaves after the war was over...anyone who takes the public education system as truth or watches cnn msnbc or fox for news is simply ignorant and brainwashed..
The federal government is so out of control today i just cant help but believe we would be better off if the south had won. My idea is to break the federal government up into 4 "super states" so to speak by region. Each having their own 3 branches of government.
The federal government is so out of control today i just cant help but believe we would be better off if the south had one. My idea is to break the federal government up into 4 "super states" so to speak by region. Each having their own 3 branches of government.
@ambigroove the only problem with that is that the occupied Confederate States of America doesn't want to be a part of this nation. We never have wanted to be a part of it. We want to be our own country.
@5ti01qs You never wanted to be a part of the United States? Then why did you originally join? Southern states adopted the Constitution just like the northern ones. Southern reps signatures are on the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The first President was a southerner as was the guy that wrote the Declaration of Independence. So don't act like the south never wanted to be a part of the United States.
@warblerab In 1776 we did because the founding fathers designed it to be a republic but then in 1860 the South seceded because the north had a majority rule in congress and was passing high taxes that hurt the common southerner and so the South then decided to become its own nation. So yes at first we did but then we were forced back in and ever since then we have wanted out.
@5ti01qs So you seceded because you were in the minority? that seems stupid to me. Look in a republic/democracy, sometimes you will find yourself in the minority. Its just the way it works. But you still had representation in the house, senate, and electoral college. btw, why didn't the southern Senators use the filibuster in the Senate to block some of these taxes that you didn't like? I am sure not all southerners want out of the USA right now.
If I could have been anyone in history, I would have been John and happily blew that piece of shit's brains out. He destroyed the entire planet and the human condition. He was a filthy pig fucker, railroad tycoon, corporateer, banker, Lawyer and the single greatest bullshitter in all of human history. I live in a corporate nightmare today because of that physically deformed penis face Rothschild relative. I hope Thomas Jackson is anal raping him eternally with his bayonet.
Look up Declaration of Causes of Secession. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world" - Mississippi 1861. Check out the other states. Same thing. That's history. Was the Civil War about States' rights? Yes, the purported State right to slavery. RP's suggestion is wildly hypothetical. Would the South sell the slaves? Probably not. What about the attack on Fort Sumter? AL should have ignored an attack on the US? Silly shit
@skullface216 The North with their tariff moves escalated aggression and created an economic need to break away. With regards to your question about buying slaves yes it would have worked. As every other nation showed us. The reason slavery was so contingent in the south is because the entire economy relied on those slaves, as it had been built around it. If the north had bought the slaves, then the Southern states would have been able to hire workers, expand enterprise, and maintain wealth.
Problem with this bullshit logic is that the confederacy was opprng people. And not just the slave. The slave owners were the richer upper class and every other white mana nd woman struggled to get by while being brainwashed by the rich and the southern baptist christians that slavery was a god-given right and that they had to destroy the union to become truly free.
@NUTCASE71733 And how was that different from the way the North was? Fact is, the North was raping the Southern states, and they got fed up with it. Slavery was a minor collateral issue. Even Lincoln said that he would have started the war with or without slavery. Damn him that bastard.
@warblerab I didn't say it was a minor issue to the slave. I said slavery was only a collateral issue to the war of northern aggression. It was just an excuse to have a war, but the real reasons were not slavery.
@spatinco yeah sure slavery was just an excuse. How come the Vice President of the Confederacy called slavery "the cornerstone of the Confederacy"? How come slavery is in the Declaration of Causes of Secession? How come all the states that seceded just happened to be slave states? Why did the Confederate states not free their slaves?
@warblerab The Vice-President of the CSA was virtually a non-contributor in the CSA's short existence. His speech drew little applause even in the South. He made it at a small, private gathering and was not claiming to speak on behalf of the government.
@warblerab Not sure why anybody said it was an excuse but it was not a reason for the war. Lincoln did not care about slavery either way, all he wanted to do was keep the union together. He killed journalists in the north who disagreed with the war, and ordered the destruction of entire southern cities killing innoncent men, women and children. The point of this video is not to argue the reasons for the civil war, but that Lincoln was a TYRANT.
@ambigroove Lincoln saved the nation!! The country was destroying itself. Yes, he took some extremes measures. But if he hadn't, there might not be a United States today. Yes, he killed journalists. He did that because he didn't want the journalist convincing others to join the south. He thought it was either the journalists, or the countless numbers that the journalists would have convinced to join the south.
@ambigroove As for Sherman's march to sea. It was done to make the south sick and tired of war. It was done in hopes that it would convince the south to surrender sooner and end the war. Lincoln was not a tyrant. He was the President at the time the country was the closest it ever was to being destroyed. It required extreme measures to prevent that.
@ambigroove The south is just as much responsible for the war deaths as the north. I could just as easily say that attempting to create the Confederacy was not worth the lives of over 600k people.
@warblerab Because the southern economy ran on slavery. America is no exception to this as all slave owning nations had this dynamic. How other nations dealt with this was that the Government purchased all the slaves and freed them. America divided and tried to force one side to give up. The North restricted the south's trade and the south were being pricks in Congress. It was a mess having to do with special interests using Government to one up each other. cont
Lincoln: "where can I go to read more about my atrocities?". Just freaking epic!
ElAsaltaCulos2 1 day ago
@ElAsaltaCulos2 forget it, I was going to send you a reference, but you won't read it anyway. Not every body has a culo for a brain or a brain for a culo.
charkee1 1 day ago
@charkee1 Zinggggggg!!! you are so clever!
ElAsaltaCulos2 1 day ago
Lincoln didn't free the slaves, He enslaved the free...
Kingofprinces85 1 week ago
@Kingofprinces85 He did neither.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago 3
@Kingofprinces85 Lincoln turned a broken and bankrupt USA into the world's leading economy all while fighting it bloodiest war. Now why would the NWO be putting up videos like this? Who benefits from this blather and disinfo?
charkee1 1 day ago
Such ignorance nauseates me. This is incredible that "liberty" has sunken to such low levels of lying that Illuminati shills make videos like this and people eat it up. Lincoln was mentored by J.Q Adams in the tradition of the founding fathers. Ron Paul is schooled by the Austrian economists who are in other words FASCISTS. Such blather and being directed to Illuminati historical revisionist websites is beyond reason, it is evil! Perhaps we deserve what is coming down the pike?
charkee1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@charkee1 Isn't this quite a load of BS? As for the south, these so called "strict constiutionalists" don't seem to realize that that the const. doesn't say if a state can or can't leave the union. Second, if they had been allowed to leave then the whole damn country could have eventually broken up. One part of a country can't just leave b/c they didn't get their way on some issue. Basically their version of "liberty" is I get to do whatever I want, the consequences be damned.
njanovic1980 1 week ago
@charkee1 austrian economics fascist? hahahaha yeah ok keep living in the dream world haha
blackheartsbirth 6 days ago
@blackheartsbirth This video serves no other purpose than to deceive. It is NWO propaganda. Paul's appeal lies in the fact that he dares tell the truth about 90% of the time. However his economic polices will be a disaster. See what the "Austrians" have done in Pinochet's Chile. If you want to understand real economics learn from the American school-Hamiton, Paine, JQ Adams, Carey and Lincoln. Do not listen to these NWO shills.
charkee1 6 days ago
@blackheartsbirth Notice that charkee1's only reason for calling Ron Paul economics "fascist" was that he learned it from Austrians.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Ignorant. Blind and a fool. You fail to see the fascist without his swastika and neither are you interested to see nor understand it. Could it be beyond your abilities? All you have to do is look and you failed.
charkee1 1 day ago
@charkee1 Free market economists are fascists? what? Do you nauseate yourself?
ElAsaltaCulos2 1 day ago
@ElAsaltaCulos2 Mr. Culo Check your history, Every time the USA adopted free trade the nation was bankrupt within the decade. Your ignorance is most nauseating and so is your culo. See what the maquiladoras have done for Iberoamerica. See what free trade did for USA jobs. It does not take a genius to figure it out, culo. But nobody here is interested in learning the truth, that is why you are a culo among many others.
charkee1 1 day ago
@charkee1 I assume you think Free Trade Agreements consisting of thousands of pages actually constitutes free trade. That is where you are wrong. True free trade enriches both parties, because they benefit from comparative advantage. So how about you jam mercantilism, the NWO, and whatever other bright ideas you have up your culo.
ElAsaltaCulos2 1 day ago
@ElAsaltaCulos2 Behold the results of free trade: USA depression, Maquiladora workers don't earn enough to consume sufficient calories to maintain their weight. Slaves lived better. I personally know some of these workers. Again you did not check your history, neither do you intend to. Free trade is not fair trade, he that works for the least gets the job and slaves were better off, at least they got enough to eat. See what the "Austrians" did for Pinchet's Chile. Enjoy your NWO mr. culo.
charkee1 1 day ago
I love the half truths (so much information was left out)......this cherry picking of the facts is only way this vid could work.
Ninefingers1010 2 weeks ago
@Ninefingers1010 Only if you lack in knowledge of the content of this video. It is the truth, but it contradicts the history we have been taught.
ibsd 2 weeks ago
@Ninefingers1010 And which facts would you have included?
Aggie09TX 1 week ago
At no point was slavery abolished from our prison system.
TheRealNotary 3 weeks ago
These are the points I have argued for years but no one even takes me seriously the instant they understand that I would have the audacity to criticize the great slave liberator. Ya the same "liberator" who wrote in his own words that whites and blacks would NEVER EVER be able to coexist and that he planned to send them all to South America to start their own country. But the fact that I would bring that side of Lincoln up, or the fact that he had dissenting journalists jailed makes me racist
7F0X7 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7F0X7 "Ya the same "liberator" who wrote in his own words that whites and blacks would NEVER EVER be able to coexist and that he planned to send them all to South America to start their own country."
Do you have quotations? He didn't say that they'd never be able to coexist, just that they'd never be perfectly equal. He also only supported VOLUNTARY emigration of blacks to other countries, not forced deportation.
KayBeeEee1983 4 weeks ago
The South would have wound up a patchwork of thirdworld type nations bound to an agricultural base with lousy infracstructure. Except for those that had mineral resources like TEXAS and Louisiana. The Southern states made no issue of the fact they wanted war and were not the lest bit afraid to fire the first shots of the war. This revisionist propaganda is typical of southern delusion.
2ezee2011 1 month ago
Also relevant: v=aJsyjg32mSk
God bless these United States
nsengstad 1 month ago
I think it would do you all some good to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
nsengstad 1 month ago
"I had to destroy the 10th Amendment in order to save the 10th Amendment." HAHAHA
paulsthepattern 1 month ago
why the hell do people make these horrifying videos with that damn microsoft sam text-to-voice clip, it is just totally disastrous.
lancarman 1 month ago
"Where can I go to learn more about my own atrocities?" Fucking lol'd
slaughtz 1 month ago
why does Lincoln have a British accent
ConorJNixon 1 month ago
ron paul would say that
tadanorm 1 month ago
I thought that the south was the first to fire on the north?
NecroniKDrummer89 1 month ago
LOL this is actually very very accurate, but why Ron Paul?
omega14j1 1 month ago
"I think I'm going to throw up" pretty much sums up this video...
nsengstad 1 month ago
@nsengstad How did you draw that conclusion?
ErikLiberty 1 month ago
@ErikLiberty Lincoln was correct in defending the Union, as secession is treasonous and unconstitutional. Don't forget our nation is an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states. So i resent the depiction of Lincoln in this video, as it makes me sick to my stomach.
nsengstad 1 month ago
@nsengstad (1) "The Constitution is silent on the question of secession. And the states never delegated to the federal government any power to suppress secession. As the 10th amendment states, any power not given to the Federal government automatically goes to the States or the people. Therefore, secession remained a reserved right of the states...
ErikLiberty 1 month ago
@ErikLiberty I think it would do you some good to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. What you're saying is unsound in theory and dangerous in practice. Might I also point out that the Supreme Court has ruled on the legality of secession in Texas v. White (1869). The court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States.
nsengstad 1 month ago
@ErikLiberty Secession doesn't have to be expressly prohibited in the constitution because the states aren't sovereign or independent.
"Although he did not believe they possessed a right of secession, he also did not believe that the federal government had the right to coerce a seceding state"
Let's assume he was right about that. The southern states didn't just secede, they also stole federal weapons, federal property, and demolished a federal fort while federal troops were garrisoned inside.
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
@KayBeeEee1983 We did the same with England; we stole guns, supplies, gold, killed her majesties soldiers and officials and occupied their forts! Most treasonous of all, we asked the French for help; and allowed them to gain a foothold on her majesties lands so they could help us fight!!! Treason!!! Consorting with England’s mortal enemies!!! Kill those secessionists!!! What is your point, fool?
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@MarcLira66 "We did the same with England; we stole guns, supplies, gold, killed her majesties soldiers and officials and occupied their forts!"
We didn't steal any guns, supplies, or gold from Britain. We didn't kill her soldiers or occupy her forts until the war began at the battle of Lexington.
My point was that unilateral secession is unconstitutional.
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Go back to that American history class, fool! In April 1775 Gen. Gage sent British troops to seize a cache of weapons in Concord that local militia stole/obtained illegally. Local militia confronted the troops. The US Congress was declared traitors by royal decree; they responded with the Declaration of Independence from the British Empire and formed the United States of America, on July 4, 1776. Please stop embarrassing yourself you know nothing of our history!
MarcLira66 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
MarcLira66 4 weeks ago
@MarcLira66 Any supplies that Americans took from storehouses were already colonial property in the first place. The Americans were protecting the supplies from British raids. The colonists needed weapons and gunpowder to protect themselves from attacks by the natives because Britain refused to help unless one of Britain's European rivals was also involved (Like the French and Indian War).
KayBeeEee1983 4 weeks ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I thought in a Monarchy everything, in essence, was crown's property. You are one lousy arguer of semantics. You don’t even know about our history and pretend to argue with me.
MarcLira66 4 weeks ago
@MarcLira66 "I thought in a Monarchy everything, in essence, was crown's property."
Uh, no, not necessarily. In absolute monarchies that may be true to varying extents, but Britain was a Constitutional monarchy. This is basic government stuff. Have you graduated high school? Read the 1689 English Bill of Rights. Among other things, the King couldn't tax or keep a standing army without parliamentary consent. He also couldn't take guns away from people.
KayBeeEee1983 4 weeks ago
@KayBeeEee1983 How old are you, 12? Ad hominem attacks. Is that the best you can do to defend yourself? Perhaps the “in essence” part escaped you. I bet you are the one that didn’t even finish high school. Judging by your lousy grasp of history, and the reality of the relations between the British monarchy and the American colonies. I guess that back then you would have been a loyalist.
MarcLira66 4 weeks ago
@MarcLira66 Asking "Have you graduated high school?" isn't ad hominem because I'm not using it as an argument, I just used it to insult you for not knowing what a monarchy is.
The "in essence" part isn't right. If Britain were an absolute monarchy then you could say that the King owned all property "in essence" because absolute monarchs can confiscate anyone's property at any time and for any reason even though they may not legally own everyone's property all the time.
KayBeeEee1983 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 Arguing semantics and constructing your own arguments, you are clearly a genius. There were indeed attempts of the British crown to confiscate guns, gunpowder and supplies by the magistrates long before the battle of Lexington. Or do you think we just one day decided to secede! Fool! You are just arguing semantic details since you have nothing to hang on. You would have been a loyalist for the crown you conformist.
MarcLira66 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 Typical hypocrisy; either you respect the right of people to self-determination or you don’t. You clearly don’t; we had the right to secede from the British crown but others can’t do the same to secede from the union. Those don’t have a right for self-determination. Your attempt to justify the civil war on semantics and that you are willing to use force against your fellow Americans sicken me. You are just a tool.
MarcLira66 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 There have been plenty of incidents of local militia’s way before the Battle of Lexington, and us stealing gold, guns and supplies from the Brits in preparation; we were very sneaky treasonous bastards! After the battle of Lexington (which in retrospection is recognized and the start of the war) we almost had a year of raiding, etc. It was not until the declaration, almost a year later in July 1776, that the official war begun; ended in 1783 with the Paris Treaty.
MarcLira66 4 weeks ago
@nsengstad (2) This was partly why James Buchanan, Lincoln’s predecessor in the White House, had allowed the first seven Southern states to leave in peace. Although he did not believe they possessed a right of secession, he also did not believe that the federal government had the right to coerce a seceding state." -Tom Woods in The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
ErikLiberty 1 month ago 2
@ErikLiberty James Buchanan was a weak president. James K. Polk confided to his diary: "Mr. Buchanan is an able man, but is in small matter without judgment and sometimes acts like an old maid."
nsengstad 1 month ago
@ErikLiberty "Although [Buchanan] did not believe they possessed a right of secession, he also did not believe that the federal government had the right to coerce a seceding state."
One of the MANY reason Buchanan was the worst President in history. That stance is totally illogical. If they don't have the right to secede, then they still have to obey federal laws and the Constitution, and, if they don't obey the law, the federal government has the power to enforce the law.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@nsengstad By this line of reasoning we should all still be saying "God save the Queen!"
MTPatriot 1 month ago
Comment removed
nsengstad 1 month ago
@MTPatriot I recommend you watch this video: v=T8TaxcrYnuk
I pray it will do you good.
nsengstad 1 month ago
@nsengstad What a schmuck. That doesn't prove anything. This is why you Americans are viewed as such morons, you ignorant ones with not one educated bone in your body give the smart ones a bad name.
MTPatriot 1 month ago
@MTPatriot So you're not an American? Where do you live, and why do you hate our country so much?
nsengstad 1 month ago
@MTPatriot Exactly!
jcastrowhite08 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nsengstad "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force." - President James Buchanan
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@nsengstad You are clearly a slave to your stupid nationalism. By that logic then we had no right to secede from the British Empire! And we would still be a colony and not an independent nation! So if a state in democratic process, votes in absolute majority, that it wants to leave the union; we should use violence to not let them? Really? How democratic of you! Fools like you should not be called Americans. America is Freedom and Justice for all!
MarcLira66 1 month ago
@MarcLira66 Speaking of slaves, do you really believe the southern states would have voted for seccesion with an absolute majority if the slaves had been able to vote? Now that would have been a democratic desision even Lincoln would have accepted.
And regarding the American Revolution there are significant differences in comparison to the Civil War. Mainly that we had no representation of any sort in the British Parliament, yet we were taxed. Taxation without representation. That's tyranny.
nsengstad 1 month ago
@nsengstad "Lincoln was correct in defending the Union, as secession is treasonous and unconstitutional."
A great example of complete misunderstanding of the Constitution, or Treason.
NattligMelodi 4 weeks ago
@NattligMelodi Secession, per se, isn't treasonous but it is unconstitutional. The states gave up their sovereignty and independence when they ratified the Constitution. When a party enters into a union, it loses its independence by definition. Therefore, retaining independence needs to be explicit. If the framers of the constitution meant for the states to be sovereign and independent, it would have been expressly stated, as it was in the Articles of Confederation.
KayBeeEee1983 4 weeks ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The 10th amendment gives UNSPECIFIED powers to the STATES, NOT the Federal Government. When he talks about being "dumbed down" in pro-government biased schools, this is what he was talking about.
7F0X7 4 weeks ago
@7F0X7 Actually the 10th gives unspecified powers to the states OR THE PEOPLE. Try reading the constitution some time.
KayBeeEee1983 4 weeks ago
@7F0X7 The Constitution is a contract. A contract doesn't have to explicitly say that no party can arbitrarily leave the contract. It's implied by the fact that it's a contract. No state can leave the union without the consent of all the states. Likewise, the other states can't kick out a state without that state's consent.
KayBeeEee1983 4 weeks ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Nuff' said, you're wrong.
7F0X7 4 weeks ago
@7F0X7 No, that's not enough said because it shows your blatant ignorance of American history, law, and plain common sense. Why did North Carolina and Rhode Island debate ratification for YEARS if they could just leave the Union at any time in the future if they didn't like how things were going? Besides, even if unilateral secession was perfectly legal, stealing federal property isn't.
KayBeeEee1983 4 weeks ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Tenth amendment = you're wrong
7F0X7 4 weeks ago
@7F0X7 Tell me why NC and RI waited so long to ratify the Constitution. They didn't participate in HUGE political events like the first federal elections and the first Supreme Court appointments.
Tell me why NONE of the 11 seceding states claimed that the 10th amendment gave them the right to unilaterally secede at any time. They ALL claim that the north's failure to live up to its constitutional obligations gave them the right to secede. Here's a quote from the SC Declaration of Secession:....
KayBeeEee1983 4 weeks ago
@7F0X7 "We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other...In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof...(cont'd)
KayBeeEee1983 4 weeks ago
@7F0X7 (It then goes on to list the northern states' violations of the fugitive slave clause)
"...Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."
KayBeeEee1983 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 none of this matters because of the 10th amendment. what part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." do you not understand?
7F0X7 4 weeks ago
@nsengstad You are so right, The ignorance of the posts here is nauseating. This video serves no other purpose that to divert fools from looking into how Lincoln transformed a broken and bankrupt USA into the world's leading economy while fighting its bloodiest war in 5 short years. Not good news for NWO lovers.
charkee1 1 day ago
Fuck Ron Paul. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. The south was fighting to perpetuate and expand slavery . Stay classy south you cornpone sheepshaggers...
lakeozarkify 1 month ago
@lakeozarkify Yeah of course they did. Maybe you should read history first. For one thing some notheren states had slaves, not just the south. And it wasn't about slavery, it had to more with tariffs, trade and a lot of economic problems. Why don't you explain why it was ok for Lincoln to burn down buildings, arrest journalists who spoke out against the war and killed civilians? Don't be a moron and read a book.
Yabuturtle 1 month ago 2
@Yabuturtle Yeah read some history. Starting with the history of abolition in the North and Midwest. EVERY Northern state had abolished slavery by 1810.
Tariffs? SC Congressman Lawrence Keit stated empatically that SC came to secession because of slavery, NOT tariffs.
"the South fought on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about, I never heard of any other cause for quarrel, THAN SLAVERY"..Col. John Singleton Mosby...CSA.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@UnionStatesHeritage Explain why it was okay for the CSA to do the same thing on a more brutal scale to Southerners who oppossed secession...Ever hear of the East TN declaration?
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@UnionStatesHeritage "EVERY Northern state had abolished slavery by 1810." You do realize that is a blatant lie right? To name a few, New Jersey full abolition 1846, Rhode Island 1842, Connecticut 1848, Pennslyvania 1850, not to mention the 5 border states with the Union which didnt abolish slavery until the '60s. There is a difference with getting your facts wrong, and flat out lying. You do the latter. Typical revisionist.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins It's not a lie at all. It's fact. Northern states abolished slavery and provided for gradual emancipation, and they did so INDEPENDENTLY of the Federal Union. A model the South could have easily follwed. LOL...where's the crime? The 5 border states were SOUTHERN states that remained in the Union. States where slavery was already dying out, due to the lack of a cotton based economy.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@UnionStatesHeritage No thats not a fact, thats a lie. Most northern states, above the mason dixon line, abolished slavery after 1810. I never proclaimed the border states were northern states, I simply included them as states that remained with the Union. But Missouri is not a southern state as defind by the Census Bureua.
Of course slavery was dying up there, industrialization was taking strong roots.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Funny, Neo-Confederates claim MO, as a Southern state. Pennsylvania has the 18th largest economy in the world, guess what the dominant industry STILL is...Agriculture. Fact is the North was as agrarian as the South in 1860. The North had more industry, but was not an industrial power, in the way that England was, at the time.
Not a lie, fact. BTW...Slavery in Northern states NEVER existed to the degree it did in the South.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Fact is, there were few if any people still held in bondage at the time of the termination dates. You know those people Neo-Confederates like to claim were freed by NJ, AFTER the war? They were classified as people who were "indentured", and NJ law provided them to right to seek compensation for their services, in court. Of course that fact is ommitted, when Neo-Confederates make their claims.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@UnionStatesHeritage "slavery, NOT tariffs." Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address: "Our policy is peace, and the freest trade our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon interchange of commodities." You should try reading primary sources.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Really? If Davis was so committed to peace, why did the Territorial Governor of Colorado, William Gilpin, correctly predict that the CSA would invade Colorado in an attempt to force it into the CSA, as a means to seize its mineral wealth? Gilpin made the prediction BEFORE the war actuall started, while Davis was telling the world that "the South just wanted to be left alone".
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@UnionStatesHeritage Oh yeah, Davis evidently missed out on all those secession documents made by Southern states focusing on slavery. Ever hear of Lawrence Keit? SC Congressman made a stirring speech delcaring that slavery not tariffs were the reason the South came to secession.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@UnionStatesHeritage So what if the CS invaded CO? They invaded MD and PA, its war. What do you expect?
Ever read The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government? Davis spells it out all there.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins LOL...but Davis claimed to fighting a defensive war. He lied.
The New Mexico Campaign was pure territorial expansion, against a people who DID NOT want to be part of the CSA. Davis planned to push his invasion into California (a Union STATE), and seize more territory.
"We will never submit to the enemy's miltiary, OR HIS SLAVE DESPOTISM"...New Mexico Territorial Legislature.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Gotta a question for 'ya about the tariff nonsense. If the war was about tariffs and "Northern agression", why did Mid-Atlantic states like PA, with economies dominated by agriculture, or western states like CA, & OR, who were frontier areas not side with the CSA. Those areas had to buy tariffed goods too. In fact, why is it that no free state or territory chose to fight with the CSA, or at least refuse to send troops to the Union Army?
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@UnionStatesHeritage I dont believe this war was over the sole issue of tariffs, I believe there was a collection of issues. But there is a difference between what the soldiers fought for and what the polticians went to war for. I think its obvious why the soldeirs fought and in my opinion thats the most important.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins No, there's no difference at all. Southerners knew exactly what they were fighting for...Virginia recruitment poster circa 1862 urged men to enlist and "Fight the abolition foe". NOT 'states rights suppressing foe', or 'tariff supporting foe', or any other kind of foe. When Southerners invaded my home Commonwealth they referred to Pennsylvania's farming communites as "abolition Dutch", in their letters home.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@UnionStatesHeritage Most soldiers in the war fought for whatever they perceived as patriotism, for me it ends there.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@UnionStatesHeritage -- All that suggests is that then, as now, people were readily manipulated and instigated to fight via political bombast that appealed to cultural prejudices and exaggerated differences over provocative issues. Many of the driving societal 'causes' thru history were far less publicly advertsed or evident than more immediate biases which lent themselves to emotional catchphrases and propagandistic bombast. Surely you must at least suspect your examples are deeply flawed.
starmanskye 1 month ago
@starmanskye -- I mean, your examples of using the combatants own words of scorn, insult & derision to 'prove' what past conflicts were REALLY over is like referring to the letters of US Troops in Iraq & Afghanistan or their rude, mistrustful treatment of civilians to 'prove' the US's current M.E. wars are something other than about, say, Globalist agenda, Imperialist expansion, MIC Corporate Welfare, geostrategic maneuvering vis-a-vis Russia and China, & on behalf of Israel's Zionist policies
starmanskye 1 month ago
@starmanskye Wow, that's a large mouthful of bitg words and concepts which really says nuttin.
"Our sympathies cannot go with the Southern states, who, in the second half of the 19th Century, are proclaiming a doctrine, the foulest and most revolting that has ever been enunciated since our blessed Redeemer hung upon the cross of shame, and bore away the sins of the world. Sympathy with the Southern states! We have as much sympathy with them as with a gang of thieves or a crew of pirates"...
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@starmanskye That assessment of the war was penned by Presbyterian scholars in Scotland, half a world away from the war. Their condemnation of the CSA was not based on "Yankee propagada", but what the CSA was proclaiming ITSELF to be, AT THE TIME, unfiltered by 21st century political correctness.
Frankly, I tend to believe the views of people who were on the scene, over self-important, PC psuedo intellectuals, in the here and now.
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@UnionStatesHeritage -- Pa, Ca and Or were not directly affected by the trade of mostly southern Atlantic ports where Federal gov derived the majority of operating revenue via import duties. Frankly, your myopia re: the issue of protectionist practices that sqeezed the South's agricultural economy looks like nothing so much as extreme bias-reinforcement to prop-up the conventional myth which held slavery as the driving cause of the Civil War -- in which you seem to be emotionally invested.
starmanskye 1 month ago
@starmanskye So, people in states outside the South, didn't buy imported goods? Protectionist practices, which squeezed the South's economy...so how did all those planters become fabulously wealthy? Among the wealthiest in the nation, at the time?
If slavery wan't the driving cause of the war, WHY didn't any freesstates or territories outside the South, fight with the CSA, or at least refuse to support the Unoin, with troops?
UnionStatesHeritage 1 month ago
@Yabuturtle
sounds like the current government
PhoenixDarkWWA4 1 month ago
@lakeozarkify Hardly. The southern states were in no way perpetuating and expanding slavery than the Union was. The Union had 5 slaves states, thousands of slaves amassed between them. They werent subject to freedom under the Emancipation Proclamation.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@lakeozarkify you cant prove your point by insulting people, try using the facts, but you would lose the arugement. you have obviously never heard what ron paul has said on this subject, and you must have ignored the video
remshot1998 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrOsorum Actually they are not socialist mate. Head over to Sweden and ask them about their "Socialism" and they will laugh at you. They do have what we refer to as a single payer for things like healthcare however they maintain the free market in terms of quality/competition. The drawback to the single payer is that the more expensive the treatment the harder it is to authorize. Some cancer treatments for instance are not covered. Still a HUGE step up from our Fascist healthcare system.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
★★★(VOTE FRAUD ALERT): Iowa GOP Moving Vote Count to Secret Location★★★
Ron Paul supporters, now is the time to act! No matter how much you do for
Ron Paul, if you don't help prevent the votes from being fixed, your hard work was in vain and he isn't going to win. Demand fair elections! To allow secret vote count is to hand the election victory to the frauds!
COPY AND PASTE TO ALL RON PAUL VIDEOS YOU SEE
shalom77771 1 month ago
"If you don't believe in succession, then you do believe in slavery."
Exactly!
JesusDillinger 1 month ago 2
Lincoln tried to suppress the FIRST AMENDMENT. Those of you trying to defend him.. just think about that, seriously.
ambigroove 2 months ago
@ambigroove if he hadn't, we might not have the first amendment today.
warblerab 2 months ago
@warblerab Well im sorry but as pragmatic as i sometimes tend to be that was going way to far. The guy was a tyrant that put everything over basic rights.
ambigroove 2 months ago
Secession is rebellion, which the federal government has the explicit right to suppress. And James Buchanan did nothing to stop secession because he was overtly pro-slavery.
Also, slavery was the foundation of Southern society. It went beyond just economic interests, so no, the slaveowners wouldn't have accepted the government buying and freeing their slaves.
BTW, Lew Rockwell is a notorious racist, to the point that Ron Paul fans like to blame him for those racist newsletters in Paul's name.
RedXlV 2 months ago
@RedXlV Um no Red. because the states joined the union freely, they should have been able to leave freely. The states where sovereign in of themselves until the civil war where the federal government became the greater power be Lincoln FORCED them to stay. It was never supposed to be this way under the Constitution.
ambigroove 2 months ago
And as Paul said.. slavery had begun being eradicated everywhere else in the world, and yet you think the slavery would not have been abolished in the south eventually if the civil war didnt happen? DO you really think we would have slaves today if the civil war didnt happen?
ambigroove 2 months ago
@ambigroove
Yes, but the method by which Ron Paul suggests that slavery should have been ended - compensated emancipation - was rejected by the four border states when Lincoln offered it to them. Would the Cotton Seven have accepted it?
Yes, slavery would have been abolished "eventually" but how long is an acceptable wait? For a man who claims personal liberty as his political cornerstone Paul seems to care little for the liberty of the slaves - the greater affront to freedom.
MrSeBoyle 1 month ago
@MrSeBoyle "For a man who claims personal liberty as his political cornerstone Paul seems to care little for the liberty of the slaves - the greater affront to freedom." Just remember over 620,000 lives were at stake when this all went down. Even I would have said lets find a better way than war so we can avoid all those deaths.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins
There is the assumprtion being made here that Lincoln was responsible for this. He wasn't. He neither started the war nor did it to end slavery. From what I know of Lincoln I am pretty convinced that he would have been very happy to do what RP claims he should have done. He didn't get the chance.
My point is only that, for a libertarian, RP has an interesting outlook on slavery. He seems happy for it to exist but angry about the imposition of other laws.
MrSeBoyle 1 month ago
@MrSeBoyle "He seems happy for it to exist but angry about the imposition of other laws." He does not justify slavery, he is simply saying 620,000 lives are more important.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins
I did not say he justifies it. I said he seems happy for it to exist. Any true libertarian ought to see this as the greatest affront to their beliefs and to unequivocally condemn it FIRST and foremost. He doesn't. As I said he appears to be happy for it to exist until some time that the slaveholders would accept compensation. Instead he expends all his energy on condemning Lincoln for restricting other freedoms that are surely (continued...)
MrSeBoyle 1 month ago
(Cont.)
of a lesser crime (to the libertarian) than involuntry servitude? He appears to think it's acceptable to fight a war over the imposition of taxes and tariffs & such like but not over slavery. To me that seems a strange position for a libertarian to hold. If he said he thought it was good that the Confederacy was defeated but sad that some other freedoms were lost in ending it I could see his position as consistent, because slavery is a bigger crime against liberty than taxes.
MrSeBoyle 1 month ago
@MrSeBoyle "Any true libertarian ought to see..." The man is running for President of the United States of America on the Republican ticket, I wouldn't consider that a true libertarian.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins
Good point and I probably agree however I think my argument still stands. I could make the same assertion about anyone who claims that personal liberty is a fundamental good yet supports the Confederate secession as RP appears to do.
MrSeBoyle 1 month ago
@MrSeBoyle Ron Paul said once before that slavery should never of occured but they should have at least ended it in 1776 or during the adoption of the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. He celebrates personal liberty and he champions the idea that the states have the constitutional right to secede. The problem with your statement is that it appears you believe the southern secession was over slavery, it wasnt. Their secession was over many reasons. 1) Are they going to allow the
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@MrSeBoyle Feds to tell them what to do, does the 10 amend still stand? 2) As Jefferson Davis said, the election of Lincoln could cause possible slave insurrections due to his support from an outspoken abolitionist movement. 3) The tarriff issue which was opposed by the south and supported by Lincoln. 4) The Feds have no right to call for 75k volunteers and invade another state.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins
It actually makes no difference if the secession was over slavery or not. The practical outcome of secession, whatever it was for, would have been slavery in perpetuity in the Confederacy. You say he "celebrates personal liberty". Generally he does, but in this case he's elevating the supposed "constitutional right to secession" above the personal liberty of 4 million. He's rating a constitutional right as more important than a natural right to liberty.
MrSeBoyle 1 month ago
@MrSeBoyle "He's rating a constitutional right as more important than a natural right to liberty." He's taking over 620,000 peoples lives as more important. Nothing is worth that many deaths.
"would have been slavery in perpetuity in the Confederacy." Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee both proclaimed that they believe slavery would die off naturally, especially from the growing usage of synthetis fibers and rising European pressure to free the slaves.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins
"Nothing is worth that many deaths" Really?:
1) That's easy for you to say since neither you or your family were held in servitude.
2) Are you including unjust taxes & tariffs?
3) "Give me liberty or give me death".
As for slavery dying a natural death;
1) They said the same before the invention of the cotton gin.
2) In the Confederacy it was a constitutional right & as such would have been extremely difficult to end.
3) 250 years was too long already.
MrSeBoyle 1 month ago
@MrSeBoyle I dont know if Id be willing to give my life for unjust taxes and tariffs, I would do my hardest to be free though. But you also have to know that all of the other wars combined that the US was in dont equal the amount of lives lost in the War between the States.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
Only dumb hicks like this shit.
thenguyen1 2 months ago
@thenguyen1 No, only people who love the country, the truth and their freedom love it.
ambigroove 2 months ago
This is so wrong...
Prowsky 2 months ago
@Prowsky Whats more wrong is the federal governments propaganda fed down my throat in grade school. Your view of this countries history has been challenged. No dont shrug it off.. RESEARCH and find the truth on your own.
ambigroove 2 months ago
@ambigroove
Seriously. This video is so bullshitty I don't even know where to start. But it's fundamental message is: screw the rights of slaves, as long as you respect the rights of states. Yeah right, the right to own slaves, the right to violate the first amendment, the right to engage in the Kansas civil war (Bleeding Kansas), the right to social darwinism, and of course, the right to have a less free and less democratic society. No sorry, but you don't get those "rights"!!
Prowsky 2 months ago
@Prowsky
this video is great. It is a great example of how Ron Paul is an idiot.
taledarkside 2 months ago
@taledarkside go watch fox news and get a goot brainwash
MrLittle123456789 1 month ago
@MrLittle123456789
I don't have to watch fox news to know that you are a stupid ron paul sheep. oh and a politician sheep too.
taledarkside 1 month ago
@taledarkside tel me way is ron paul stupid ?
MrLittle123456789 1 month ago
@MrLittle123456789
you are stupid just because you can't read.
taledarkside 1 month ago
@Prowsky
That's it precisely. RP shrugs off the most heinous affront to liberty imagineable - the complete ownership of 4 million peoples' liberty by others but gets angry about the limited denial of the 'liberty' of perhaps double that number through democratically imposed taxes and tariffs. Go figure? What is it about those 4 million that RP thinks isn't important?
MrSeBoyle 1 month ago
The north still had slaves after the war was over...anyone who takes the public education system as truth or watches cnn msnbc or fox for news is simply ignorant and brainwashed..
vSHADOWVIPERv 2 months ago
Maybe some day the South will rise again. If things keep going the way they are now, it may be sooner than later.
spatinco 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The federal government is so out of control today i just cant help but believe we would be better off if the south had won. My idea is to break the federal government up into 4 "super states" so to speak by region. Each having their own 3 branches of government.
ambigroove 2 months ago
The federal government is so out of control today i just cant help but believe we would be better off if the south had one. My idea is to break the federal government up into 4 "super states" so to speak by region. Each having their own 3 branches of government.
ambigroove 2 months ago
@ambigroove the only problem with that is that the occupied Confederate States of America doesn't want to be a part of this nation. We never have wanted to be a part of it. We want to be our own country.
5ti01qs 2 months ago
@5ti01qs You never wanted to be a part of the United States? Then why did you originally join? Southern states adopted the Constitution just like the northern ones. Southern reps signatures are on the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The first President was a southerner as was the guy that wrote the Declaration of Independence. So don't act like the south never wanted to be a part of the United States.
warblerab 2 months ago
@warblerab In 1776 we did because the founding fathers designed it to be a republic but then in 1860 the South seceded because the north had a majority rule in congress and was passing high taxes that hurt the common southerner and so the South then decided to become its own nation. So yes at first we did but then we were forced back in and ever since then we have wanted out.
5ti01qs 2 months ago
@5ti01qs So you seceded because you were in the minority? that seems stupid to me. Look in a republic/democracy, sometimes you will find yourself in the minority. Its just the way it works. But you still had representation in the house, senate, and electoral college. btw, why didn't the southern Senators use the filibuster in the Senate to block some of these taxes that you didn't like? I am sure not all southerners want out of the USA right now.
warblerab 2 months ago
If I could have been anyone in history, I would have been John and happily blew that piece of shit's brains out. He destroyed the entire planet and the human condition. He was a filthy pig fucker, railroad tycoon, corporateer, banker, Lawyer and the single greatest bullshitter in all of human history. I live in a corporate nightmare today because of that physically deformed penis face Rothschild relative. I hope Thomas Jackson is anal raping him eternally with his bayonet.
channelasatourian 3 months ago
@channelasatourian So you'd like to be a murderer/Presidential assassin? You're a sick sick jackass.
warblerab 2 months ago
Wow, ive never been lincoln in a bad light before
sy2pie 3 months ago
Look up Declaration of Causes of Secession. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world" - Mississippi 1861. Check out the other states. Same thing. That's history. Was the Civil War about States' rights? Yes, the purported State right to slavery. RP's suggestion is wildly hypothetical. Would the South sell the slaves? Probably not. What about the attack on Fort Sumter? AL should have ignored an attack on the US? Silly shit
skullface216 3 months ago
@skullface216 The North with their tariff moves escalated aggression and created an economic need to break away. With regards to your question about buying slaves yes it would have worked. As every other nation showed us. The reason slavery was so contingent in the south is because the entire economy relied on those slaves, as it had been built around it. If the north had bought the slaves, then the Southern states would have been able to hire workers, expand enterprise, and maintain wealth.
YaHuWaHservant 3 months ago
Problem with this bullshit logic is that the confederacy was opprng people. And not just the slave. The slave owners were the richer upper class and every other white mana nd woman struggled to get by while being brainwashed by the rich and the southern baptist christians that slavery was a god-given right and that they had to destroy the union to become truly free.
NUTCASE71733 3 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 And how was that different from the way the North was? Fact is, the North was raping the Southern states, and they got fed up with it. Slavery was a minor collateral issue. Even Lincoln said that he would have started the war with or without slavery. Damn him that bastard.
spatinco 2 months ago
@spatinco Slavery wasn't a minor issue to the slave.
warblerab 2 months ago
@warblerab I didn't say it was a minor issue to the slave. I said slavery was only a collateral issue to the war of northern aggression. It was just an excuse to have a war, but the real reasons were not slavery.
spatinco 2 months ago
@spatinco yeah sure slavery was just an excuse. How come the Vice President of the Confederacy called slavery "the cornerstone of the Confederacy"? How come slavery is in the Declaration of Causes of Secession? How come all the states that seceded just happened to be slave states? Why did the Confederate states not free their slaves?
warblerab 2 months ago
@warblerab The Vice-President of the CSA was virtually a non-contributor in the CSA's short existence. His speech drew little applause even in the South. He made it at a small, private gathering and was not claiming to speak on behalf of the government.
eflint1 2 months ago
@warblerab Not sure why anybody said it was an excuse but it was not a reason for the war. Lincoln did not care about slavery either way, all he wanted to do was keep the union together. He killed journalists in the north who disagreed with the war, and ordered the destruction of entire southern cities killing innoncent men, women and children. The point of this video is not to argue the reasons for the civil war, but that Lincoln was a TYRANT.
ambigroove 2 months ago
@ambigroove Lincoln saved the nation!! The country was destroying itself. Yes, he took some extremes measures. But if he hadn't, there might not be a United States today. Yes, he killed journalists. He did that because he didn't want the journalist convincing others to join the south. He thought it was either the journalists, or the countless numbers that the journalists would have convinced to join the south.
warblerab 2 months ago
@ambigroove As for Sherman's march to sea. It was done to make the south sick and tired of war. It was done in hopes that it would convince the south to surrender sooner and end the war. Lincoln was not a tyrant. He was the President at the time the country was the closest it ever was to being destroyed. It required extreme measures to prevent that.
warblerab 2 months ago
@warblerab Im sorry bout holding the union together was not worth the lives of over 600k people.
He was a tyrant.
ambigroove 2 months ago
@ambigroove The south is just as much responsible for the war deaths as the north. I could just as easily say that attempting to create the Confederacy was not worth the lives of over 600k people.
warblerab 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@warblerab Because the southern economy ran on slavery. America is no exception to this as all slave owning nations had this dynamic. How other nations dealt with this was that the Government purchased all the slaves and freed them. America divided and tried to force one side to give up. The North restricted the south's trade and the south were being pricks in Congress. It was a mess having to do with special interests using Government to one up each other. cont
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago