- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 54,930
- Reaction score
- 51,835
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
the sad thing about all of this is we as a nation, for all the good we have done nationally (abolishing slavery primarily) and globally, we are still cursed with racism and our need for white supremacy......a large portion of Caucasian people in the US and around the world simply believe that people of color are inferior......millions to the degree that it is ordained from God......
here we are 150 years after the Civil War still discussing the CW.......millions still arguing that it was about 'northern aggression/attrition' and 'states rights' and imo every dam one of those millions knows in their heart that it is about racism and white supremacy.......some of them (KKK, American Nazis, Oath Keepers etc etc) will actually say it up front that they believe people of color are inferior.....but sadly those millions of white Americans who tolerate and turn a deaf ear to the actions of WS's are silently condoning and approving them......
Except, Democrats haven't done anything for the black communities except harvest votes by promising things they never delivered
South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States on December 17, 1836. The unarmed merchant ships sent to resupply Fort Sumter with provisions had on board 200 Federal troops and ammunition. Not enough really to fully man the fort and certainly nowhere an amount to be able to pose any threat of a seaborne landing assault being launched from the fort. Lincoln's orders directed the merchant ships to land only the provisions and not any of the troops and ammunition if they are not fired upon and permitted to peacefully resupply the fort. Lincoln also told South Carolina's Governor that he would inform him well in advance of any future intentions to resupply the fort.Its their property. Clearly land within their borders. No different than if there was a foreign countries base somewhere on land. And they first tried to get it back peacefully. It wasnt until the US sent troops to reinforce it that SC attacked.
South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States on December 17, 1836. The unarmed merchant ships sent to resupply Fort Sumter with provisions had on board 200 Federal troops and ammunition. Not enough really to fully man the fort and certainly nowhere an amount to be able to pose any threat of a seaborne landing assault being launched from the fort. Lincoln's orders directed the merchant ships to land only the provisions and not any of the troops and ammunition if they are not fired upon and permitted to peacefully resupply the fort. Lincoln also told South Carolina's Governor that he would inform him well in advance of any future intentions to resupply the fort.
I accept your concessionAlready refuted.
You mean like having a military base in Cuba? LolIt doesnt matter if they ceded it when they were part of the US. When they left the US, it became a political issue. Clearly an island in the middle of a river in a country is that countries, not some foreign country. Its entirely impractical for the US to have a military base in the middle of SC. They attempted to settle it peacefully and the union chose to instead go to war.
In the end, nothing happened, no one got hurt, and the union left.
If Puerto Rico became independent, would we still own Camp Santiago?
The Confederacy was never a "nation". No other government in the world ever recognized it as being such.If the governor of a different nation tells your nation to get out, you get out.
They had no right to commandeer federal forts either, nor attack federal forts. Why do you cling to defending the confederacy? Do you think that is the best the southern states are capable of? Clinging to a dead white supremacist regime?
The Confederacy was never a "nation". No other government in the world ever recognized it as being such.
Since you respect federal power so much, can you defend the Union on the original question: showing something in the Constitution that explicitly forbids secession?
The Constitution also does not permit unilateral secession either. So if that wasn't in there how exactly was Lincoln to abide by and honor something in the Constitution that does not exist. Except in you fervent mind?No one will ever know what might have happened had Lincoln abided by the Constitution and honored secession.
To be honest, I have no ****ing idea what it is you're trying to say here. Care to translate?membership much as the independent state of Texas had. Modern Libs assume that a nation devoted to slave labor would have set some sort of inalterable precedent, which is why they virtue signal by showing utter abhorrence to the idea. But what if the nation had been permitted to exist long enough to fail?
Lincoln was open to permitting slavery to continue to exist in those states where it had previously existed. He said as much in his inaugural address; “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”Could a few more years of legalized slavery have led to a compromise that MIGHT have obviated the South’s Black Codes?
Not that I expect an answer beyond “I reject slavery, so I’m virtuous.”
Since you respect federal power so much, can you defend the Union on the original question: showing something in the Constitution that explicitly forbids secession?
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Only rebels without a Cause, say that.That's more of a stretch than the old cartoon Gumby can do
Doesn't help you(LOL)Only rebels without a Cause, say that.
I cited our federal Constitution.Doesn't help you(LOL)
And stretch........................... it a mileI cited our federal Constitution.
For the Good not for the Bad.And stretch........................... it a mile
For the Good not for the Bad.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a market friendly manner when not expressly for the common defense. The higher the multiplier return on investment the better.I don't even think Lincoln used that one during the Civil war(LOL)
Secession must be agreed to by both parties. And even if agreed to the US has a right to defend itself from a hostile countrySince you respect federal power so much, can you defend the Union on the original question: showing something in the Constitution that explicitly forbids secession?
Secession must be agreed to by both parties. And even if agreed to the US has a right to defend itself from a hostile country
Secession must be agreed to by both parties.
Secession must be agreed to by both parties. And even if agreed to the US has a right to defend itself from a hostile country
And even if agreed to the US has a right to defend itself from a hostile country
Dont care. Dont fire on US troops if you dont want a warPerhaps there would not have been any Hostility if they allowed for secession?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?