Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a reflection of the times as we struggle with divisions in society. The old divisions bubble up anew and we hear people talking about secession, nullification, and various unpatriotic allegations, insurrections, and even treason. Those concepts had been pretty quiet in our 20th century American consciousness and perspectives of history. The notion that states can nullify Federal law and the notion of secession was settled in the 1800s. So, perhaps it is good to phrase things in no uncertain terms in case weaker minds or wishful thinkers don't "get it".
YesCalifornia was headed by two Republicans - Louis Marinelli and Marcus Evans. Marinelli - who says he voted for Trump - is literally a dual American-Russian citizen who lives in Yekaterinburg. It's one of the the clumsier Russian attempts at spreading chaos and division.
Whether you call Marinelli an enemy is up to you. He's certainly no friend of the United States.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 25 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
BS- it was formed to save the South.
States rights died in the Civil War and was replaced by Federalism, which has become out of control in the last forty years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy
Yes and what was the state right that the southern states were so desperate to protect that they would attempt to secede from the union in order to do so? Slavery would be the correct answer.
Only because that is what you've been told and you believed it ...
In 1787 northern states voted against abolition of slavery, the southern states voted for it; history books are silent on the two events of that year, that makes that a fact, The Northwest Ordinance ( First American Congress 1774 - 1789) and the voting record and the Constitutional Convention, in 1787 (vol II, pg 416) and its voting record. To include it screws up the slave narrative. It's not one of those things a person has to believe, it's one of those things documented in the laws of 1787.
Just to be clear --- the Confederate (majority south at the time of vote) voted to abolish slavery and that very same year at the Constitutional convention the Northern States put it back and decided not to redress the issue for 20 years.
The war for the south was absolutely about preserving and expanding slavery. And they stated this rather explicitly. And they were indeed evil, to a much greater extent than most Americans know.
and Lincoln and the Whites in the North wanted to free the slaves and killing is good and slavery bad. This is the same people that had no problem in killing and stealing the West from "inferior" nations but they put their evil aside to free black slaves because you know they had a moral line they couldn't cross.
Lincoln and the politicians in the North said why they fought the war over and over. They even passed the Corwin Amendment 13th (All North with Lincoln support) and were waiting for the South to vote (they didn't) and you still repeat the b.s.
So explain to me if Lincoln and the North were willing to put in the constitution the 13th that slavery was a constitutional right and the FED government could never interfere, why would the South leave and never return of they left because of "slavery"? that kills your silly post.
it's like me King San Juan telling Puerto Rico: " You can practice rooster fighting and I'm putting in the constitution that the feds could never interfere, that's your power" Puerto Rico still leaves and then 200 years later fools saying they left because of preserving rooster fighting. You know how dumb that sounds?
Funny reading these posts and how typical those that hate the Confederacy don’t know jack about history other than what they’ve seen or heard on the MSM the past few years.
You're cherry-picking history to fit your narrative. Sure, on paper the official use of blacks as Rebel soldiers wasn't until 1865 but they were used behind the lines for years prior to that, for labor, carrying supplies and so on.
The right is trying to desperately spin the Civil War to make the Union into somehow pro-slavery. It's ridiculous.
cherry picking? no, I am accurately recounting history. You used a specific example by bastardizing war powers - your words, not mine. You are wrong. Just own it and move on.
facts are either facts, or they are not facts. I do not buy into the new leftist speak where facts are optional or dependent on voting choice.
'The rules of warfare' as set by britain were still pretty much in play until the 1920's. non-combatants are not legitimate targets. period. Besides, lincoln decreed that anything the CSA had, could be put to use by the union. ergo, if they did capture a slave, they could work em. Seems a better used of a resource than shooting them or hanging them, but Sherman just wasnt interested.
and no, the 'right' is not doing anything. But the educated are pointing out that the north, union, non slave states were not as virtuous as the revisionists make them out to be. Slaves were held in far greater numbers than you are aware.
what did ole honest abe say on the subject? recall your 6th grade history:
Quote:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. -- Honest Abe
who is general John Fremont and what did HE do?
Do you know there were *2* 'emancipation proclamations? The first simply said if the CSA ceased hostilities they could keep all the slaves they wanted - forever. This proclamation was ALSO well after the start of the war and therefore, not a precursor to war.
Ridiculous, is being an american and not knowledgeable of your own history. And im not suggesting the vote roll call of some buffalo stamp act but rather a sorta big deal 5 year period in american history.
If you find yourself in this group, be ashamed yes, but start reading
"slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition"..
[yellow flag thrown]
<click> personal foul, partial quoting....
so it seems people are starting to read what I tell em, good, but finish the statement...that belief you quoted above was held by **ALL** states and was written into the federal record.
when the 13th was passed a bit later, did non slaves, freed slaves or freemen have civil right guarantees? NO.
If you recall history, as the 13th was passing, the ex -CSA govt and supporters founded what we call today the democratic party. you also recall that they instituted Jim crow around 1870 and it survived a USSC challenge near the turn of the century. they were in force until 1965 when the same people, ultimately failed in their fillibuster and civil rights took place in 65. did it end there? no. in fact, 55 years the same democrats now - in increasing numbers - are getting separate but equal installed once again.
so in terms of govt, not a helluva lot has changed
did you just get banned on FB? all of those links failed...did you get busted for posting non-dnc approved narrative? heh heh
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the same people that had no problem in killing and stealing the West from "inferior" nations but they put their evil aside to free black slaves because you know they had a moral line they couldn't cross.
