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.
Would Abraham Lincoln, a president many consider the father of the Republican Party, be considered a RINO today? Lincoln is consistently ranked as the greatest president of all time in multiple polls. Would the Republican Party's current leadership see him as unfit to represent the party that he led into existence?
It was mass murder. If states wish to secede from the union they have every right to. You cant just label it was and pretend it is ok. A war of aggression that isnt justified is mass murder.
How is attempting to secede with half the country not an insurrection?
He would probably be disgusted with all the bickering and extremism from both parties. Abe served the people in his time politicians today serve themselves.
How is attempting to secede with half the country not an insurrection?
I never used that term. Like I have said, if a state wants to secede it has every right to. The government in the north lost the right to govern the south when the south announced secession plans as they withdrew their consent to be governed.
You think states owe their allegiance to a federal government? I have no idea why one would think so nor why one would support that idea.
The federal government is concerned with keeping the control of land mass to have a advantage in size over it's adverssaries. If the U.S were to split, I'm willing to wager that your flyover redstate will eventually choke from being isolated away from major coastal ports.
It isnt the right of the federal government to force land masses under its governance who do not wish to be under its governance. Plenty of countries on this planet exist with smaller landmasses than the US. Should the US annex them to increase its land mass? I suppose you think so.
I never used that term. Like I have said, if a state wants to secede it has every right to. The government in the north lost the right to govern the south when the south announced secession plans as they withdrew their consent to be governed.
You think states owe their allegiance to a federal government? I have no idea why one would think so nor why one would support that idea.
So then it IS an insurrection? And if it’s an insurrection, the federal government has the right to quell an insurrection as it sees fit.
So then it IS an insurrection? And if it’s an insurrection, the federal government has the right to quell an insurrection as it sees fit.
There was only violence because the federal government decided that consent of the governed wasnt necessary and they would murder anyone who tried to leave.
Yes, the federal gov will keep the land it currently has to contend againsts the likes of China and Russia.. a real divide between any of the current 50 states will be percieved by the federal government as a threat just like it did in the Civil War in the 1860s.
And please don't let it be Joe Biden that will do this to you like Lincoln.
The federal government has no right to land. It is a service provider and has no business governing people in a land area who doesnt want its governance.
I would support the right of any state to leave the US and I actually would not expect the federal government to go on a killing spree if one wished to leave.
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.
