[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish' Dear Horse, which one of your posts has the Deep State so spun up that's causing 4um to run slow? Bomb Cyclone Pacific Northwest Death Certificates Reveal FBI 'Revised' Murder Stats Still Bogus A $110B bubble on $500M earnings. History warns: Bubbles always burst. Joy Behar says people like their show because they tell the truth, unlike "dragon believer" Joe Rogan. Male Passenger Disappointed After Another Flight Ends Without A Stewardess Frantically Asking If Anyone Can Land The Plane Could the Rapid Growth of AI Boost Gold Demand? LOOK AT MY ASS! Elon Musk Responds As British Government "Summons" Him To 'Disinformation' Hearing MSNBC Contributor Panics Over Trump Nominating Bondi For AG: Dangerous Because Shes Competent House passes dangerous bill that targets nonprofits, pro-Palestine groups Navy Will Sideline 17 Support Vessels to Ease Strain on Civilian Mariners Israel carries out field executions, massacres in north Gaza AOC votes to back Israel Lobby's bogus anti-Semitism definition Biden to launch ICE mobile app, further disrupting Trump's mass deportation plan: Report Panic at Mar-a-Lago: How the Fake Press Pool Fueled Global Fear Until X Set the Record Straight Donald Trumps Nominee for the FCC Will Remove DEI as a Priority of the Agency Stealing JFK's Body Trump plans to revive Keystone XL pipeline to solidify U.S. energy independence ASHEVILLE UPDATE: Bodies Being Stacked in Warehouses & Children Being Taken Away American news is mostly written by Israeli lobbyists pushing Zionist agenda Biden's Missile Crisis British Operation Kiss kill Instantly Skripals Has Failed to Kill But Succeeded at Covering Up, Almost NASA chooses SpaceX and Blue Origin to deliver rover, astronaut base to the moon The Female Fantasy Exposed: Why Women Love Toxic Love Stories United States will NOT comply with the ICC arrest warrant for Prime Minister Netanyahu: Mississippi’s GDP Beats France: A Shocking Look at Economic Policy Failures (Per Capita) White House Refuses to Recognize US Responsibility for Escalation of Conflict in Ukraine MAKE EDUCATION GREAT AGAIN!!

Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Judge Napolitano: Lincoln Set About On The Most Murderous War In American History
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 9, 2015
Author: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Post Date: 2015-03-09 12:57:06 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 1785
Comments: 92

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

From the source at my post #32: All states reserved the right to abolish slavery in their domains

Nope. 100% wrong.

ARTICLE IV

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

That is a separate, independent clause and states quite clearly that according to the law...once a slave always a slave...

Also from the above linked source at my post #32: and new states could be admitted without slavery if two-thirds of the existing states agreed— the idea being that the tier of free states bordering the Ohio River might in time wish to join the Confederacy. (States’ Rights and the Union, University of Kansas Press, 2000, p. 204)

Again...once they joined the confederacy their constitution established slavery within their borders.

You have misread your own Article IV example of the Confederate Constitution, which actually doesn't prohibit the abolition of slavery in those States nor does it prohibit the admission of new States without slavery. It's simply a citizenry rights clause, inclusive of their interstate travel and property protection rights, which is also inclusive of slaves as property. By stipulating all of that, it extends protecton of travel and property for slave owners (of any race) within existing States of the Confederacy and/or new ones which might choose to be independent of whatever slave-commerce entanglements and such were still extant among the others. It doesn't even go to the enforcement extent there of the U.S. Constitution's Article IV fugitive slave clause. [Edit to add also that a two-thirds majority vote in agreement for the admission of new States, with or without slaves, was nothing unusual. Compare to the U.S. standard operating procedure so.]

There were many freed Blacks within the Confederacy, so your assertion of perpetual slavery is ostentatious as well as 100% wrong, as is your assertion about an establishment of slavery intra-territorially as a condition of Confederate statehood. The U.S. Constitution established slavery lawfully within its domain. Slavery was notoriously even a legality Biblically. Not only did South America have more slaves than we did, there's problaby no realm on earth that didn't have slavery at some point and likely more of it longer. The most unusual thing about it here is that it ended much quicker after America's nationhood than it did in virtually all other places throughout history.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   2:00:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territories

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:

"Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings."

That's the wrong clause from which to argue your contention because it's about the establishment of D.C. (not exceeding ten Miles square) as the positional seat of Federal government under Congressional authority and upon its locality acceptance of land(s) granted for that construction project by one or more of the States; as well as structural appropriations therein requiring consent of the State legislature(s) wherein "the Same" D.C./District of Columbia was to be situated for administrative purposes -- not for a monarchal ownership of the United States. Better for you to cite the actual so-called "Property Clause", which is the 2nd at Section 3 of Article IV:

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.[8]

That amounts to a "power of attorney" for Congress to act regulatorily as needed on behalf of the States and per agreed land zoning for Indian tribes too -- not a title transferance of State Property to "the government" or even to the Congress of it. As I said before, "government property" arguably amounts only to donated supplies not purchased with our taxes and a strong case could be made against even that much being "unduly" considered joint-property of all the States as acquired in the course of duties for the Constitutional Union. It does not have the power, for example, to dispose of the Constitution's Union by disposing of our States if it wants to (secessionist though they leaningly may be, like Hawaii and Texas).

Edited formatting + 1st and last sentences of comment paragraph 1.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   4:27:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Virginia seceded to the Confederacy after Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter...

When Virginia voted to secede it did not agree to join the confederacy. What it did do was enter in to a temporary military treaty with it. They had called a May 1861 plebiscite to determine if they should join the confederacy or remain an independent republic. About 10 days after the secession vote and after intense negotiations with the provisional government of the confederacy led by the VP, Alexander Hamilton something(his last name escapes me and I'm too lazy to google at this time) they decided to join IF Richmond was made the capital.

West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession.

Actually, it's evidence of the opposite.

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-19   7:07:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You're a microcosm of exactly why we'll never get anywhere in this country by anything close to a majority.

Okay thanks for that...

You'd rather be right than accurate and factual.

You can't be *right* unless you are accurate and factual. Nor can you be *right* simply by stating your beliefs in the broadest of terms while offering no support whatsoever for them. That's why religion is so screwed up.

PS: Now would be a good time for you to make an argument.

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-19   7:10:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"There were no states North of Mason Dixon that allowed slavery."

There was one...Delaware...sorry...I stand corrected...

You've also been provided evidence that Blacks were slave owners here too.

Can you point out where I have disputed that?

America was still a new nation struggling to become strong enough to free itself from the business of slavery that other nations had entrenched here.

Huh? You sound like my neighbor. He's a high end general contractor who seems to be on a mission to educate everyone about the *evils* of illegal immigration. 75% of this *workforce* is itinerant Hispanic labor. So It Goes.

The subject of ending slavery was contemporary to just about every eve3nt that led to the Revolution. America did that to itself. We cannot blame other nations.

Even so, a quarter of a million lives could have been spared by a Compensated Emancipation transition for less than it cost financially to wage that war.

Legal manumission was free. You, yourself, stated that states could determine if slaveholding was legal or not.

Your compulsion to exonerate "the North" and blame "the South" by arguing against the encompassing evidence in a narrowed misfocus on Slavery as "righteous justification" or whatever for the slaughter and carnage very nearly borders irrationally on the absurb (sic) but is rather worse than that, imo.

I haven't exonerated anyone. What I have done is state, factually, that slavery was at the root of the issues that have been cited that caused the Civil War.

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-19   7:22:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That's the wrong clause from which to argue your contention because it's about the establishment of D.C....

That particular clause was quoted directly to you and it clearly establishes the power to acquire property for forts. IF we were discussing speech and I cited the First Amendment would you state that I was *wrong* because 1A was the *religious* amendment?

But giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you did not read the *entire* clause:

Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever...over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings...

Better for you to cite the actual so-called "Property Clause", which is the 2nd at Section 3 of Article IV:

Art IV (3) assumes that the property is already purchased and grants the government the power of rule making over their assets or *management* and *control* over it.

As I said before, "government property" arguably amounts only to donated supplies not purchased with our taxes

You were wrong *before*, too.

and a strong case could be made against even that much being "unduly" considered joint-property of all the States as acquired in the course of duties for the Constitutional Union.

See: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 143 (1937).

Only when the state makes a clear claim of concurrent governance. South Carolina, as I showed above, did not when it deeded Sumter to the Fed Gov...

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-19   8:03:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Boy, nothin' gets by you, does it. (sarc)

Katniss  posted on  2015-03-19   8:21:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Nope.

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-19   8:36:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You at #22: Fort Sumter was US government property.

Me at #29: No it was not. The US government isn't the property owner of our States and Territories. US government property would be like office supplies donated to it by businesses and not purchased with our taxes. Even D.C. isn't the property of "the government" but all of the United States plural.

You at #40: Sure it was and, in fact, still is.

Committee on Federal Relations In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R." "In Senate, December 21st, 1836

Don't try to pass off that Committee on Federal Relations review as Congressionally titling D.C. to Fort Sumter. It didn't. And undoubtedly you're not as totally oblivious (as you seem to be acting in this case) to the dissolution of prior agreements when governmental bonds are no longer mutually recognized as valid. Reference the withdrawl of American colonies from Britain comparative to South Carolina's withdrawl from the Union in that aspect -- and that Revolutionary founding of the States as Sovereign Republics of a voluntary Union which acts equitably for them in accordance with our Constitution is still the correct view in perpetuity, regardless of how many govbot claims have accrued to the contrary since then. The difference secessionally now is that individuals opposed to the Constitution have been seceding from it, as well as their rogue commercial entities and such, not our States -- all of which are established in agreement with it.

Lincoln won the November election of 1860 because all but 30 of the required electoral vote tally of 152 to do so were concentrated in 6 northern States. Even then, South Carolina considered staying in the Union for about a month and a half until December 20th, when it seceded alone and peacefully before Lincoln was officially inaugurated. Even the firing of warning shots in January of 1861 to turn back ships sent to Fort Sumter then wasn't construed by Buchanan as cause for war, who was still President of the Union at the time. That episode of Federal encroachment, though, did effectively prompt some other States to secede. When Lincoln was officiated into office March 4, he began moving to invade by Military force and seizure of Fort Sumter, which prompted more States to secede. Even after he had maliciously done that, South Carolina tried to peacefully negotiate an evacuation from its premises which was refused. South Carolina was within its self-defense rights to dislodge what amounted to an armed and hostile foreign power inserting itself dictatorially and advantageously into its midst.

"In July 1861, after the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) had been fought, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, by an overwhelming majority, that declared the war was not being fought to disturb slavery, nor to subjugate the South, but only to 'maintain the Union.'" -- THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE CIVIL WAR:

Edited for punctuation + sentences 1, 5 and 6 of comment paragraph 2.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   9:09:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I haven't exonerated anyone. What I have done is state, factually, that slavery was at the root of the issues that have been cited that caused the Civil War.

war, no matter how insistently you push slavery as the root cause of the Civil War, starkly at the root of slavery it's a property and economics issue among the divisive others and not simply a bondage issue of injustice, racially or otherwise.

Spelling edit and to move an appended block of text to another post.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   9:35:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

war, not (sic) matter how insistently you push slavery as the root cause of the Civil War, starkly at the root of slavery it's a property and economics issue among the divisive others and not simply a bondage issue of injustice, racially or otherwise.

Never stated that it was not.

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-19   9:41:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Don't try to pass off that Committee on Federal Relations review as Congressionally titling D.C. to Fort Sumter. It didn't. And undoubtedly you're not as totally oblivious (as you seem to be acting in this case) to the dissolution of prior agreements when governmental bonds are no longer mutually recognized as valid.

That's like saying that if Sears bought Best Buy and you had bought your TV from Best Buy, that Sears could confiscate it for resale.

The land purchase was an act of Commerce.

"In July 1861, after the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) had been fought, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, by an overwhelming majority, that declared the war was not being fought to disturb slavery, nor to subjugate the South, but only to 'maintain the Union."

I'm aware of the Crittenden Resolution and have stated here that a good case is made that the war was fought to preserve the Union. That is a separate issue form the casus belli the root of which was slavery...neither of you have addressed what I have asked you to address...would there have been a Civil War had slavery not existed?

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-19   9:53:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm aware of the Crittenden Resolution and have stated here that a good case is made that the war was fought to preserve the Union. That is a separate issue form the casus belli the root of which was slavery...

Comments previously at #55 moved here: Try to stay mindful of fact that slavery was protected by the U.S. Constitution. As such and also conjunctive with all of the Union's slave states and territories, it cannot reasonably be assigned as the flashpoint for war.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   10:05:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Try to stay mindful of fact that slavery was protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Okay...I am...

And your point is?

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-19   10:19:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You're still arguing/debating with the fence post I see. If you enjoy beating your head over the wall then carry on.

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends. Paul Craig Roberts

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat

James Deffenbach  posted on  2015-03-19   10:33:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

In the late 19th century, James McCrellis embarked on a title search of all Federal properties to ensure that Fed Gov did, in fact, own, among other forts and properties, Sumter:

Bottom of page 214:

tinyurl.com/lfab3qw

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-19   10:53:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Don't try to pass off that Committee on Federal Relations review as Congressionally titling D.C. to Fort Sumter. It didn't. And undoubtedly you're not as totally oblivious (as you seem to be acting in this case) to the dissolution of prior agreements when governmental bonds are no longer mutually recognized as valid.

That's like saying that if Sears bought Best Buy and you had bought your TV from Best Buy, that Sears could confiscate it for resale.

The land purchase was an act of Commerce.

Ah, an "act of Commerce" -- which isn't "co-Governor" of the U.S. But that wasn't documentation of a purchase either, just movements-in-process directionally towards acquisition-clearance.

As there's scarcely anything much worth watching on TV as it is and so difficult to find, too, I might just give mine to Sears if they wanted to cart it away for me and especially if they offered to reimburse my costs expended on it, as South Carolina did regarding any Union claims of improvements made to the property of Fort Sumter and other usage expenses; which would probably have been in the range of negligible, if not overinflated, and largely offset by deliberately destructive U.S. damages to Fort Moultrie, another of South Carolina's. Here's a reason for why I suspect that D.C. owed substantial compensation to South Carolina instead of the other way around:

Southern Side of the Civil War

One of the commissioners from South Carolina, I. W. Hayne, said the following in a letter to President Buchanan after he refused [under pressure politically] to evacuate the fort:

[...] Fort Sumter was never garrisoned at all until South Carolina had dissolved her connection with your government. This garrison entered it in the night, with every circumstance of secrecy, after spiking the guns and burning the gun-carriages and cutting down the flag-staff of an adjacent [South Carolina] fort, which was then abandoned [Fort Moultrie].

Edited spacing and spelling.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   11:16:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

As there's scarcely anything much worth watching on TV as it as and so difficult to find, too, I might just give mine to Sears if they wanted to cart it away for me and especially if they offered to reimburse my costs

Ha...

Ah, an "act of Commerce" -- which isn't "co-Governor" of the U.S. But that wasn't documentation of a purchase either, just movements-in-process directionally towards acquisition-clearance.

I posted a link which cites the legislative transfer. That link also provides where the sale is recorded.

Fort Sumter was never garrisoned at all until South Carolina had dissolved her connection with your government.

100% horseshit...even though it was still under construction at the time of the Southern Hissy Fit, there were men and cannon there...

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-19   11:38:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession.

Actually, it's evidence of the opposite.

Not only is it evidence that the Union endorsed secession, it's also evidence that it violated the Constitution in the process -- unless Virginia's secession was endorsed first:

At Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: ... no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;

Edited formatting.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-19   12:29:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Not only is it evidence that the Union endorsed secession, it's also evidence that it violated the Constitution in the process -- unless Virginia's secession was endorsed first:

Other States had internal squabbles as well in which a government was formed...Missouri is a classic example..they had delegates in the confederate legislature while the government of Missouri, itself, was part of the Union...they didn't have the geographical advantage that the ante-bellum Northwestern Virginians had in establishing a government.

At Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: ... no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;

A state in rebellion is, in fact, a State that not is acting in a manner legitimate to their powers and thus Article IV GUARANTEE would prevail.

Alexander Hamilton Stephens is the name I was looking for previously...

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-19   13:53:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

neither of you have addressed what I have asked you to address...would there have been a Civil War had slavery not existed?

I answered that at #20.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-20   13:07:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Yes, with a high degree of probability because swarms of warmongers agitated methodically then, before that and as they still do now to achieve their massive slaughters and destructions. The only difference to them would have been that they couldn't have instigated for slave revolts to massacre Southerners like they were doing, even though there were northern slave-holding states throughout the entire war and even D.C. had some there.

Sorry...I didn't consider that a very good answer...still don't...and if any *faction* of the time was filled with warmongers it was Calhoun's.

And as has been pointed out to you, when the Southern states threw their hissy fit they all cited slavery in their statements and ordinances of secession.

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-20   13:44:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Me at #42: ... West Virginia seceding from Confederate Virginia to the Union would be evidence of Lincoln and the Union endorsing secession.

Me at 64: Not only is it evidence that the Union endorsed secession, it's also evidence that it violated the Constitution in the process -- unless Virginia's secession was endorsed first:

At Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: ... no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;

You at #65: A state in rebellion is, in fact, a State that not is acting in a manner legitimate to their powers and thus Article IV GUARANTEE would prevail.

Am not sure what prevailing Guarantee point you're trying to make about Article IV but your categorizing of Virginia as a State in rebellion supports my assertion that the Union violated the Constitution by establishing a new State, West Virginia, in the jurisdiction of Virginia unless it endorsed Virginia's secession first. Rebellion doesn't give the U.S. government power to subvert the Constitution.

Another example of the Union violating the Constitution:

Southern Side of the Civil War

If the Southern states were still actually in the Union, as Lincoln incredibly claimed, then the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional. Neither Lincoln nor Congress had the right to abolish slavery in any state. The only legal ways to abolish it would have been by a constitutional amendment or by the states abolishing it on their own.

Thanks for the info about Missouri at #65 and Virginia at #48. Even though it wasn't exactly counterpoints, was interesting nonetheless. Will check the link you supplied about Fort Sumter when I can.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-20   14:04:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

OK ...

Katniss  posted on  2015-03-20   14:05:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You're wasting your time at this point GL as am I.

He's made up his mind and no factual evidence in the world is going to alter his mindset.

As I said, it's a perfect microcosm of all that's entirely wrong with our current world.

As you said, he's not "totally oblivious," yet, he knows better than all of the contrary evidence and facts out there, much as everyone seems to "know" that muslims and Islam are our core problems and that every muslim in the ME wants to come to America and kill them, or that our "men in blue" "protect and serve" anything but the establishment and the forces against both individual as well as corporate liberty, or that our wars are all good wars.

I guess I'm just stunned to see it here.

Katniss  posted on  2015-03-20   14:09:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You're still arguing/debating with the fence post I see. If you enjoy beating your head over the wall then carry on.

LOL

Yes, that's exactly where this is.

Katniss  posted on  2015-03-20   14:10:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"neither of you have addressed what I have asked you to address...would there have been a Civil War had slavery not existed?"

I answered that at #20.

You know, it's funny, indeed there would have been, it's just that the 20/20 hindsight historical reasons would have been different.

I'll contrast it with WWII. Everyone says, due to incessant propaganda since 1945, that WWII never would have happened had Hitler not come to power.

Well the truth is that just about everyone with a brain in a political position 20 years earlier was predicting, and long before anyone knew who Hitler even was, that a WWII would be spawned from the results of WWI, namely the Versailles Treaty. In fact, many allied politicians lobbied for easing the stipulations of that ridiculous treaty shortly after it was formalized, hell, and even during.

The other truth is that WWII never would have started had Churchill not been in power, really the one pushing for the War on all fronts, politically that is, and had England not given a blank-check to bail out Poland should Germany attempt to reannex the portion of Poland which was almost entirely occupied by German speaking Germans that was part of Germany prior to WWI.

The lies after the fact truly are fabricated by the winners of the wars.

Katniss  posted on  2015-03-20   14:16:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

as has been pointed out to you, when the Southern states threw their hissy fit they all cited slavery in their statements and ordinances of secession.

It was, as I've said, a property and economics issue of the times -- in Union slave states as well. So, it would have been unusual if it wasn't mentioned as an aggravating factor but it wasn't what started the war. What else did they cite?

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-20   14:18:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Am not sure what prevailing Guarantee point you're trying to make about Article IV but your categorizing of Virginia as a State in rebellion supports my assertion that the Union violated the Constitution by establishing a new State...

*Virginia* was in rebellion. By that fact, it was no longer a *state*.

Approach it this way. Under what circumstances and by what method would Fed Gov first determine that a State no longer had a *republican* form of government and what action or actions could it then take?

If the Southern states were still actually in the Union, as Lincoln incredibly claimed, then the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional.

Again, a *conundrum* is being created where none exists. Put simply, there are executive powers that exist in time of war that do not exist in time of peace. A person who openly rebels is, in fact, no longer a civilian. What would that be any different for a legislature or a governor who does?

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-20   14:21:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

What else did they cite?

They cited acts of the federal legislature that were directed solely at slaveholding states to punish them for...wait for it...allowing slavery...

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-20   14:22:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Just because you're in over your head, please don't lash out.

Sit back, read and learn...

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-20   14:23:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You're wasting your time at this point GL as am I.

Don't have much time to continue with this today -- screen going dark. Good points about the World Wars.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-20   14:25:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

*Virginia* was in rebellion. By that fact, it was no longer a *state*.

If it wasn't a State, it wasn't in rebellion.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-20   14:28:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Story Behind The Most Insidious Rothschild Dynasty Conspiracy The

Hailed as the pioneers of modern finance, the Rothschilds have amassed an incredible fortune that has lasted for centuries.

The family's vast wealth and secrecy have also made it a target of countless conspiracy theories.

If you believe everything you read, the Rothschilds have facilitated the assassination of multiple U.S. Presidents, control the world's money supply, and have a network of clandestine agents that served as puppet business associates during the family's rise to power.

While most of these theories fail to present a shred of evidence, we thought we'd investigate one of the more famous stories regarding the family that has ever been told: that Nathan Rothschild was the driving force behind the War of 1812.

Conspiracy theorists allege that:

• Alexander Hamilton acted as an agent of the Rothschild family when he helped create the First National Bank;
• The First National Bank was dominated by foreign investors, including the Rothschilds; and
• Nathan Rothschild ordered the War of 1812 after the charter for the First National Bank was not renewed in 1811.

Lines between truth and inaccuracies may have blurred as time passed, but it's clear as day that this war wasn't a one-man show.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rothschild-family-war-of-1812-conspiracy-2013-1?op=1#ixzz3Ux51cdP1

Neo TryingtoWarnYou  posted on  2015-03-20   14:30:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The other truth is that WWII never would have started had Churchill not been in power,

WWII started with Chamberlain in power. It wasn't until Germany took over Norway in 1940 that Chamberlain realized that his efforts to avoid war were all for naught and so he stepped aside. The ink hadn't even been dry on Churchill's appointment when Germany invaded France.

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-20   14:32:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm sorry, I don't recall responding to you.

You and I are finished here.

Katniss  posted on  2015-03-20   14:33:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

WWII started with Chamberlain in power. It wasn't until Germany took over Norway in 1940 that Chamberlain realized that his efforts to avoid war were all for naught and so he stepped aside. The ink hadn't even been dry on Churchill's appointment when Germany invaded France.

I'd quit while people reading here simply think that you're biased on one topic.

You're starting to come off as an idiot.

Chamberlain is the one that gave Poland that idiotic guarantee.

I'm not going to start arguing with retarded points about WWII with you at this point.

We're finished in this thread. I will not respond further to you in it.

Katniss  posted on  2015-03-20   14:36:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Maybe another concept that you need to learn is that the *Reply* button on a forum is not user specific.

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-20   14:45:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'd quit while people reading here simply think that you're biased on one topic.

I see no reason for you to refer to yourself in the plural.

Chamberlain is the one that (sic - s/b *who*) gave Poland that idiotic guarantee.

Nice non-sequitur there, Sparky.

I'm not going to start arguing with retarded points about WWII with you at this point.

Chuckles...you may want to *edit* that sentence...unless you're *proud* that the points that you use to argue are *retarded*...

WWII started because Hitler wanted WWII. In his sequel to Mein Kempf, he expressed the hope that Great Britain would understand the benefit of German rule over the Continent and not react to it as hegemony.

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-03-20   14:57:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Comments (85 - 92) not displayed.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]