Secession should be considered and allowed

[lforrest]

So you're saying that loyal Americans don't demonstrate or don't voice their displeasure?

Against the democratic process, yes. The will of the majority should be given the second highest regard. The first consideration though should be protections under the Constitution; also being the will of the people through their representatives.

If there is a social justice issue, protests can be the recourse for those. They have first amendment right to protest. They do not have the right to superceded the democratic process, attempting to do so causes me to question their loyalty.

And we know a liberal's loyalty is for their agenda. If forced to choose they choose treason.

 

[StanJ]

Against the democratic process, yes. The will of the majority should be given the second highest regard. The first consideration though should be protections under the Constitution; also being the will of the people through their representatives.
If there is a social justice issue, protests can be the recourse for those. They have first amendment right to protest. They do not have the right to superceded the democratic process, attempting to do so causes me to question their loyalty.
And we know a liberal's loyalty is for their agenda. If forced to choose they choose treason.

So Americans do demonstrate, and just as long as they're Republican, it's OK? I'd like to point out to you again that the will of the majority was not to have Donald Trump.

 

[katabole]

Supposedly, over three million illegals cast votes for the Democrats in the election, though the Liberal-biased mainstream media would never report it.

http://www.infowars.com/report-three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

Of the 19 states that do not require an ID to vote, the Democrats won 15 of them.

If those statistics are correct, then Trump actually won the election by a landslide.

I also find it interesting that the most Democrat (Liberal) based geographic areas are in the large cities of Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, all of whose states voted Democrat, have the most illegals and the most crime in the U.S.A.

 

[lforrest]

So Americans do demonstrate, and just as long as they're Republican, it's OK? I'd like to point out to you again that the will of the majority was not to have Donald Trump.

If they don't like the system under which Trump was elected protest that, and get their representatives to amend the Constitution. All these people are doing now is whining because they didn't get their way.

 

[StanJ]

Supposedly, over three million illegals cast votes for the Democrats in the election, though the Liberal-biased mainstream media would never report it.

http://www.infowars.com/report-three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

Of the 19 states that do not require an ID to vote, the Democrats won 15 of them.

If those statistics are correct, then Trump actually won the election by a landslide.

I also find it interesting that the most Democrat (Liberal) based geographic areas are in the large cities of Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, all of whose states voted Democrat, have the most illegals and the most crime in the U.S.A.

This is so obviously a biased, right wing, money generator website, that I can't believe anybody would take anything it has to say with any kind of credibility.

Supposedly, over three million illegals cast votes for the Democrats in the election, though the Liberal-biased mainstream media would never report it.

http://www.infowars.com/report-three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

Of the 19 states that do not require an ID to vote, the Democrats won 15 of them.

If those statistics are correct, then Trump actually won the election by a landslide.

I also find it interesting that the most Democrat (Liberal) based geographic areas are in the large cities of Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, all of whose states voted Democrat, have the most illegals and the most crime in the U.S.A.

The key word here in your post is 'supposedly' and after that it goes downhill. Paul Joseph Watson has no credibility as a real unbiased journalists whatsoever and how exactly did Gregg Phillips verify that over 3 million non-citizens were able to vote in the USA? Despite him constantly reiterating that he is consulting his legal team I doubt very much she has one and just put that in there. How could nondocumented aliens come up with the proper documentation to vote?

 

[StanJ]

If they don't like the system under which Trump was elected protest that, and get their representatives to amend the Constitution. All these people are doing now is whining because they didn't get their way.

Apparently you're not paying attention to what they're actually protesting about. It's not about the party, it's about the person and if you can actually justify in your heart of hearts that Donald Trump is the right person for the job then I can only imagine that you're going to be pretty miserable for the next four years.

 

[lforrest]

Apparently you're not paying attention to what they're actually protesting about. It's not about the party, it's about the person and if you can actually justify in your heart of hearts that Donald Trump is the right person for the job then I can only imagine that you're going to be pretty miserable for the next four years.

How can you misconstrue everything I say?

 

[StanJ]

How can you misconstrue everything I say?

Maybe you should be less equivocal and more straightforward or tell me exactly what I have misconstrued?
Do you ever misconstrue anything I say?

 

[tom55]

tom55

Yes, prior to the War between the States, the States voluntarily united, agreeing with the Constitution.

Yes the Republican party began in response to the Kansas/Nebraska bill with concern over the 'expansion' of slavery.

The Republican party was not devoted to the abolition of slavery. Understand, the north's concern over the South's slavery, was an economical and racial concern only. They on the whole, cared not one wit for the negro. They did care that slavery fueled the economy of the South, and the economy of the South was doing much better than the industrialized north. For that reason, they feared the 'expansion' of slavery into new territories which would later become states. For power reasons they feared this. Not for humanitarian reasons, as everyone is led to believe. And the north wanted the black man to stay in the South. Not expand to other territories where they wanted to go. My point is, its easy to throw that term slavery around to gain an audience. But be sure you identify what is really being said.

You need to check up on your history. The Constitution protected slavery. The South was right with the Constitution. The North ignored the Constitution. Slavery was extremely protected in 1860. The Supreme Court had just passed a law saying the South could take it's slaves in any state it wanted, according to the Constitution. Why would the South secede to protect slavery when it was already protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Court? The violation of the Constitution was by the North. I recognize these things are not taught, but check your history. The South was fighting for the Constitution. The North was fighting against it. The South seceded because the North ignored their rights under the Constitution.

The 'Federal Govt.' didn't bring any peace in conquering the South. You apparently know nothing of the 'Reconstruction' of the South. Of course you don't. You don't know much of the causes of the War itself. You have simply bought into the PC explanation of that war today.

The US is united only by the bayonet because we left and the north forced us back by war. That is a unity based on war. No other way to put it. It is not based on the Constitution, becasuse we were defenders of the Constitution. After the War, the north changed the Constitution. Is that the one your talking about? Or did you even know? To the victor goes the spoils, and the history, and the myth making.

Stranger

You are basically right when you said: The Constitution protected slavery.

At the Constitutional Convention most delegates were opposed to slavery and they compromised on the issue when the representatives from Georgia and South Carolina threatened to walk out. The reason they COMPROMISED is because the delegates realized slavery would continue in these states with or without the union. They knew that a strong union of all the colonies was the best means of securing their liberty which is why they compromised. They did not agree to abolish slavery but they did take the forward step of giving the Congress the power to end the slave trade after 20 years.

I hope that answers your question: Why would the South secede to protect slavery when it was already protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Court? Answer: because they knew it wasn't going to last forever....the winds of change were against them.


If the US is united by bayonet then there would still be soldiers in the street and we would be under martial law. I think what you are saying is historically we are united by bayonet since a war was fought to keep the nation united. With that logic the original 13 Colonies were united by bayonet also since a war was fought to separate them from England.

 

[Stranger]

You are basically right when you said: The Constitution protected slavery.

At the Constitutional Convention most delegates were opposed to slavery and they compromised on the issue when the representatives from Georgia and South Carolina threatened to walk out. The reason they COMPROMISED is because the delegates realized slavery would continue in these states with or without the union. They knew that a strong union of all the colonies was the best means of securing their liberty which is why they compromised. They did not agree to abolish slavery but they did take the forward step of giving the Congress the power to end the slave trade after 20 years.

I hope that answers your question: Why would the South secede to protect slavery when it was already protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Court? Answer: because they knew it wasn't going to last forever....the winds of change were against them.


If the US is united by bayonet then there would still be soldiers in the street and we would be under martial law. I think what you are saying is historically we are united by bayonet since a war was fought to keep the nation united. With that logic the original 13 Colonies were united by bayonet also since a war was fought to separate them from England.

Yes the Constitution and the Supreme Court protected slavery. And my point was that it was the South that fought for the Constitution, not against it. The North did fight against the Constitution. So who are the real 'traitors'.

No, the South didn't secede because they knew slavery wouldn't last forever. The seceded because they knew with Lincolns election that the North would continue its violence against the South and continue to ignore the Constitution. They seceded in short to protect its people and live peaceably. The North already had shown it did not care about the Constitution.

No, the same is not true with the 13 colonies of the American Revolution compared to the Southern States of the War between the States. The States of the Revolution voluntarily entered that Union against England. The Southern States left the Union of States in the War between the States and were forced back with the bayonet. Therefore, no matter how much time you allow after the war, and after the removal of the forced military rule, the only reason the Southern States are 'united' is because that unity is based on our being forced back. Thus your United States of America is united by the bayonet only.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

Yes the Constitution and the Supreme Court protected slavery. And my point was that it was the South that fought for the Constitution, not against it. The North did fight against the Constitution. So who are the real 'traitors'.

No, the South didn't secede because they knew slavery wouldn't last forever. The seceded because they knew with Lincolns election that the North would continue its violence against the South and continue to ignore the Constitution. They seceded in short to protect its people and live peaceably. The North already had shown it did not care about the Constitution.

No, the same is not true with the 13 colonies of the American Revolution compared to the Southern States of the War between the States. The States of the Revolution voluntarily entered that Union against England. The Southern States left the Union of States in the War between the States and were forced back with the bayonet. Therefore, no matter how much time you allow after the war, and after the removal of the forced military rule, the only reason the Southern States are 'united' is because that unity is based on our being forced back. Thus your United States of America is united by the bayonet only.

Stranger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

 

[Stranger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

And?

Stranger

 

[tom55]

And?

Stranger

Did you watch the video?

It is a very articulate and accurate summary of the Civil War. Some of the historical facts put forth in the video seem opposite of your historical theory/revision.

 

[Stranger]

Did you watch the video?

It is a very articulate and accurate summary of the Civil War. Some of the historical facts put forth in the video seem opposite of your historical theory/revision.

I watched part of it. It is just the same old song and dance that everyone wants to believe. You say, 'accurate'. But you don't know. That is why you give me a video instead of discussing here on the forum. You simply found a video that gives what you believe but you haven't done the study yourself to see if these things are so.

Just remember, the victors write the history. If you want to believe their slant, go ahead. At least study it yourself.

So, how about my statements in my previous post that you ignored. Was slavery protected by the Constitution? Who was fighting to support the Constitution, North or South? So who are the traitors? Simple questions for one who wants to know the truth.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

I watched part of it. It is just the same old song and dance that everyone wants to believe. You say, 'accurate'. But you don't know. That is why you give me a video instead of discussing here on the forum. You simply found a video that gives what you believe but you haven't done the study yourself to see if these things are so.

Just remember, the victors write the history. If you want to believe their slant, go ahead. At least study it yourself.

So, how about my statements in my previous post that you ignored. Was slavery protected by the Constitution? Who was fighting to support the Constitution, North or South? So who are the traitors? Simple questions for one who wants to know the truth.

Stranger

In post #29 I did answer your question: Was slavery protected by the Constitution?

[SIZE=medium]I said: "You are basically right when you said: The Constitution protected slavery". Read the rest of post #29 for the FACTS.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Who was fighting to support the Constitution, North or South?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]There was the 3/5 Compromise where every 5 slaves counted as 3 people in terms of apportionment for the House of Representatives with the ultimate goal to end slavery AND THE SOUTHERN POLITICIANS KNEW THAT. Furthermore, in the Constitution, the Federal Government was given the power to restrict the slave trade. Also there was a section where it says that if people held to service or labor (slavery) in one State escape them must not be freed by the laws of another State.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Face it. The South fought to keep slavery. States Rights and other alleged issues were just a RUSE!![/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]So who are the traitors?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]No one was a traitor both fought for their interpretation of the Constitution. But the Southern State politicians were promoting slavery which is the owning of another human being. Why are you defending them? Are you pro-slavery? Are you sad that the South lost the Civil War?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Where are you getting your "TRUTH" from???? (a book or a website link would be helpful) [/SIZE]

 

[Stranger]

In post #29 I did answer your question: Was slavery protected by the Constitution?

[SIZE=medium]I said: "You are basically right when you said: The Constitution protected slavery". Read the rest of post #29 for the FACTS.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Who was fighting to support the Constitution, North or South?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]There was the 3/5 Compromise where every 5 slaves counted as 3 people in terms of apportionment for the House of Representatives with the ultimate goal to end slavery AND THE SOUTHERN POLITICIANS KNEW THAT. Furthermore, in the Constitution, the Federal Government was given the power to restrict the slave trade. Also there was a section where it says that if people held to service or labor (slavery) in one State escape them must not be freed by the laws of another State.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Face it. The South fought to keep slavery. States Rights and other alleged issues were just a RUSE!![/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]So who are the traitors?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]No one was a traitor both fought for their interpretation of the Constitution. But the Southern State politicians were promoting slavery which is the owning of another human being. Why are you defending them? Are you pro-slavery? Are you sad that the South lost the Civil War?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Where are you getting your "TRUTH" from???? (a book or a website link would be helpful) [/SIZE]

The 3/5 clause was for representation only. It wasn't put there to end slavery. The north did not want the slaves counted as one man/one person because of fear of more representation for the South. 'Power'

Plus, the North was required by the Constitution to return every runaway slave back to its owner. 'The Fugitive Slave Law'.

Plus, the Dred Scott decision allowed the slave owner the freedom of moving to any state he wanted and to be able to take his slaves with him.

But, guess what. The North, and the abolitionists instead of obeying the Constitution, rebelled against it. They bombarded the South with incendiary literature to try and invoke slave revolts. They planned and funded terroristic attacks on the South.

This is what the South wanted to separate themselves from by seceding, a north that treated them unequally in the union. And yes one side was a traitor. The north. They fought against the Constitution. Why are they not traitors?

Slavery is the ruse used by the north to make them appear as the great slave liberators. Great posturing.

I am Southern and am defending my folk. I despise the lies that are told and believed by those like yourself. I have studied it for a number of years and am just reciting from what I have learned from many books over the years. If there is anything you doubt that I have said is true, let me know and I will document it.

Answer me this. When was the emancipation proclamation given?

Stranger

 

[tom55]

The 3/5 clause was for representation only. It wasn't put there to end slavery. The north did not want the slaves counted as one man/one person because of fear of more representation for the South. 'Power'

Plus, the North was required by the Constitution to return every runaway slave back to its owner. 'The Fugitive Slave Law'.

Plus, the Dred Scott decision allowed the slave owner the freedom of moving to any state he wanted and to be able to take his slaves with him.

But, guess what. The North, and the abolitionists instead of obeying the Constitution, rebelled against it. They bombarded the South with incendiary literature to try and invoke slave revolts. They planned and funded terroristic attacks on the South.

This is what the South wanted to separate themselves from by seceding, a north that treated them unequally in the union. And yes one side was a traitor. The north. They fought against the Constitution. Why are they not traitors?

Slavery is the ruse used by the north to make them appear as the great slave liberators. Great posturing.

I am Southern and am defending my folk. I despise the lies that are told and believed by those like yourself. I have studied it for a number of years and am just reciting from what I have learned from many books over the years. If there is anything you doubt that I have said is true, let me know and I will document it.

Answer me this. When was the emancipation proclamation given?

Stranger

You dodged my questions:

Why are you defending them? Are you pro-slavery? Are you sad that the South lost the Civil War?

 

[Stranger]

You dodged my questions:

Why are you defending them? Are you pro-slavery? Are you sad that the South lost the Civil War?

It's easy to see you cannot hold an argument for the north so you must attack me and try and paint me with the broad brush of 'slavery'.

I told you why I defend the South. Why do you defend those who are traitor to the Constitution? Do a little study and find out who was right in that war for Southern independence.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

It's easy to see you cannot hold an argument for the north so you must attack me and try and paint me with the broad brush of 'slavery'.

I told you why I defend the South. Why do you defend those who are traitor to the Constitution? Do a little study and find out who was right in that war for Southern independence.

Stranger

Are you pro-slavery? Are you sad that the South lost the Civil War?

 

[Stranger]

Are you pro-slavery? Are you sad that the South lost the Civil War?

Yes, I am pro-slavery...I have been bought with the blood of Jesus Christ. Are you a slave of Jesus Christ?

Yes, I wish the South had won the War between the States.

Stranger