- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
Sure you care. It eats you libtards alive.
Confederates were Patriots, Antifa and BLM are SCUM of the Earth!
- Thread starter Blazor
- Start date
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
biden was just cheated in as president, ya fuckhead faggit!How come we don't have a Statue of Osama Bin Laden at the 9/11 Memorial?Fact is you don't even know.The Union won!The Founding Fathers did not include a reference to “Almighty God” into the U.S. Constitution.
The Confederate Constitution did the reference to God and the national motto of the Confederacy is Deo Vindice: God will vindicate.
Kinda says a lot about what side god was on.
By forcing people to fight for them when they hopped off the boats. Sure, very Godly like of them. Dipshit.
If you dont know what the South was fighting for by know, you truly are a "lost cause".
Fact is you were bitterly defeated.
Fact is Grant made Lee grovel.
Davis was hunted down and imprisoned.
Federal military bases were scattered throughout the south to ensure peace.
Soon to be renamed baha!
I dont need some Yankee telling me my own area's history. We know what you tyrants did to our beloved homeland. It will never be forgotten, bet.
All the name changing is a waste of money. But as long as it soothes y'all's widdle feelings, Im sure its ok if more homeless folks go without.
I'm not a liberal, and no it doesnt.
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
Oh, you must be a lotus......
Is a full bloom lotus that never reaches the top of the water any less beautiful?
Jest sayin'-
OP
OP
- Messages
- 27,508
How come we don't have a Statue of Osama Bin Laden at the 9/11 Memorial?Fact is you don't even know.The Union won!The Founding Fathers did not include a reference to “Almighty God” into the U.S. Constitution.
The Confederate Constitution did the reference to God and the national motto of the Confederacy is Deo Vindice: God will vindicate.
Kinda says a lot about what side god was on.
By forcing people to fight for them when they hopped off the boats. Sure, very Godly like of them. Dipshit.
If you dont know what the South was fighting for by know, you truly are a "lost cause".
Fact is you were bitterly defeated.
Fact is Grant made Lee grovel.
Davis was hunted down and imprisoned.
Federal military bases were scattered throughout the south to ensure peace.
Soon to be renamed baha!
I dont need some Yankee telling me my own area's history. We know what you tyrants did to our beloved homeland. It will never be forgotten, bet.
All the name changing is a waste of money. But as long as it soothes y'all's widdle feelings, Im sure its ok if more homeless folks go without.
How come we have a statue of Lenin in Seattle?
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
Cause Soiattle cucks love failure!How come we don't have a Statue of Osama Bin Laden at the 9/11 Memorial?Fact is you don't even know.The Union won!The Founding Fathers did not include a reference to “Almighty God” into the U.S. Constitution.
The Confederate Constitution did the reference to God and the national motto of the Confederacy is Deo Vindice: God will vindicate.
Kinda says a lot about what side god was on.
By forcing people to fight for them when they hopped off the boats. Sure, very Godly like of them. Dipshit.
If you dont know what the South was fighting for by know, you truly are a "lost cause".
Fact is you were bitterly defeated.
Fact is Grant made Lee grovel.
Davis was hunted down and imprisoned.
Federal military bases were scattered throughout the south to ensure peace.
Soon to be renamed baha!
I dont need some Yankee telling me my own area's history. We know what you tyrants did to our beloved homeland. It will never be forgotten, bet.
All the name changing is a waste of money. But as long as it soothes y'all's widdle feelings, Im sure its ok if more homeless folks go without.
How come we have a statue of Lenin in Seattle?
OP
OP
- Messages
- 27,508
“We’ll fight them until hell freezes over, then we’ll fight them on the ice.” Unidentified Confederate soldier…
Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in Southern dust
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us.
They died of Southern fever
And Southern steel and shot
I wish they was three million
Instead of what we got.
Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in Southern dust
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us.
They died of Southern fever
And Southern steel and shot
I wish they was three million
Instead of what we got.
OP
OP
- Messages
- 27,508
"They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest....
These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They (the North) are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it." New Orleans Daily Crescent-1861
These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They (the North) are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it." New Orleans Daily Crescent-1861
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
- Messages
- 46,178
- Location
- De donde me da la gana.
OP
OP
- Messages
- 27,508
“Our Southern ideals of patriotism provided us with the concepts of chivalry. I tried to excel in these virtues, but others provided a truer interpretation of gallant conduct. A devoted champion of the South was one who possessed a heart intrepid, a spirit invincible, a patriotism too lofty to admit a selfish thought and a conscience that scorned to do a mean act. His legacy would be to leave a shining example of heroism and patriotism to those who survive.” - Jeb Stuart
OP
OP
- Messages
- 27,508
“The contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered on a new and enlarged arena. The champions of constitutional liberty must spring to the struggle, like the armed men from the seminated dragon's teeth, until the government of the United States is brought back to its constitutional limits.”
- Confederate President Jefferson Davis, 1881
- Confederate President Jefferson Davis, 1881
OP
OP
- Messages
- 27,508
Excerpt of a Jeb Stuart letter on January 11, 1861 to Major Henry Hill concerning his thoughts about remaining in the U.S. Army or defending his home State of Virginia upon the secession of Virginia --
“For my part I have had no hesitancy from the first that, right or wrong, alone or otherwise, I go with Virginia and I know very well where to find you. Of course, every true patriot deplores even the possibility of disunion, yet let its blessings not be purchased at too great a price. Put equality and independence in one scale and Union in the other, and if the latter outweigh the former, I for one would, like Brennus, throw my sabre in the scale consecrated by the principles and blood of our forefathers – our constitutional rights without which the Union is a mere mockery."
“For my part I have had no hesitancy from the first that, right or wrong, alone or otherwise, I go with Virginia and I know very well where to find you. Of course, every true patriot deplores even the possibility of disunion, yet let its blessings not be purchased at too great a price. Put equality and independence in one scale and Union in the other, and if the latter outweigh the former, I for one would, like Brennus, throw my sabre in the scale consecrated by the principles and blood of our forefathers – our constitutional rights without which the Union is a mere mockery."
OP
OP
- Messages
- 27,508
What was the true nature of the Union in 1861?
I. In May, 1777, the Legislature of Virginia passed an act requiring all free-born male citizens, above the age of 16 years, to "swear allegiance to the Commonwealth of Virginia as a free and independent State," and the other States, or most of them certainly, passed similar laws. No one was required by any authority to swear allegiance to the United States, or its government. In 1781, the Articles of Confederation, adopted that year, called the Union "a firm league of friendship," and provided that each State "retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence." In the treaty of peace (1783), Great Britain recognized the United States, mentioning the thirteen States by name, as "free, sovereign and independent States." Nevertheless, Lincoln, with characteristic sophistry, tried to fool people into thinking that the States had never been sovereign.
But against his views may be placed the facts, and the opinion of another man of national ideas, far his superior in every way - John Marshall - who in a noted case (Gibbons versus Ogden), declared the Union previous to 1787 a league.
II. John Marshall never resorted to rhetoric or dishonest sophistical argument like Lincoln, but his intense party spirit led him often unto untenable positions. As a member of the Federalist party, he espoused the British doctrine, "once a citizen, always a citizen," denied the Jeffersonian slogan "free ships make free goods," wanted, like the other Federalists, to make the common law a part of the law of the United States, and stood for aristocracy, instead of democracy, as the correct principle of government. All Marshall's views on these subjects stand repudiated by even the present intensely consolidated government of the United States.
So when in the same case (Gibbons vs. Ogden) he reasoned that under the new constitution the Union lost the character of a league, he simply spoke as father to the thought, and .appeared to forget that, if the Union was a league of sovereign States anterior to 1787, as he said it was, the States could not lose that character without some express provision in the new constitution to that effect. It is a fundamental provision of public law that in construing grants from sovereign States, nothing can pass by mere implication or inference (Brown's Legal Maxims, p. 260); Vattel, 2nd Book, chapter SVII, sect. 305-308). And this is especially true when the grant concerns so serious a matter as the sovereignty of the State.
Now no one can show any express revocation of sovereignty in the constitution, and Marshall's argument proceeds by way of implication or inference from powers in the constitution which may be explained wholly otherwise. To reason that from a mere change in the operation of the government or distribution of the powers, the sovereignty can be destroyed, is absurd.
There is no real antagonism between a Federal government of despotic power and a Union of sovereign States, and the difference between the articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787 lies not in the nature of the Union but in the grants of power. To render this perfectly plain, suppose there was a clause added to the present constitution, "And this Union is a league from which each State may peaceably withdraw," how would this provision interfere with the operation of the Federal government, as long as the States chose to remain together?
The Confederate Constitution was a mere copy of the Federal Constitution, created "a government proper," but no one has denied that its object was to establish a league of sovereign States.
III. Not only was there no express provision in the constitution or the amendments by which the States surrendered their sovereignty, but there were provisions in it which declare and defend that sovereignty. The seventh article declares that the parties to this constitution are "the States so ratifying the same," and the tenth amendment repels all implications hostile to sovereignty by declaring that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or the people respectively." No one was ever required by the Constitution to swear allegiance to the Federal government or the United States.
How was secession connected with sovereignty?
As members of a league, each State, in the exercise of its sovereignty, by which its will is meant, had a right, under the law of nations, to withdraw from the Union at any time, for reasons to be judged of by itself. But this did not relieve it from its share of the public debt or other obligations incurred as a member of the league, and these were the proper subjects of negotiation. The denial of the right of secession was a denial of sovereignty, and secession was an obvious power reserved to the States under the tenth amendment. Indeed, three States � Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York � in their ratification of the constitution expressly reserved the right of secession, and this reservation, according to the rules of law, enured to the benefit of the other States as well.
William Rawle, who stood at the head of the bar of Philadelphia, published in 1825 a book on the Constitution, in which he showed very conclusively the constitutionality of secession, and this book was used as a textbook to teach the young officers at West Point. (Tyler's Quarterly, XII, p. 87.)
:Confederacy::Confederacy::Confederacy::Confederacy::Confederacy:
I. In May, 1777, the Legislature of Virginia passed an act requiring all free-born male citizens, above the age of 16 years, to "swear allegiance to the Commonwealth of Virginia as a free and independent State," and the other States, or most of them certainly, passed similar laws. No one was required by any authority to swear allegiance to the United States, or its government. In 1781, the Articles of Confederation, adopted that year, called the Union "a firm league of friendship," and provided that each State "retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence." In the treaty of peace (1783), Great Britain recognized the United States, mentioning the thirteen States by name, as "free, sovereign and independent States." Nevertheless, Lincoln, with characteristic sophistry, tried to fool people into thinking that the States had never been sovereign.
But against his views may be placed the facts, and the opinion of another man of national ideas, far his superior in every way - John Marshall - who in a noted case (Gibbons versus Ogden), declared the Union previous to 1787 a league.
II. John Marshall never resorted to rhetoric or dishonest sophistical argument like Lincoln, but his intense party spirit led him often unto untenable positions. As a member of the Federalist party, he espoused the British doctrine, "once a citizen, always a citizen," denied the Jeffersonian slogan "free ships make free goods," wanted, like the other Federalists, to make the common law a part of the law of the United States, and stood for aristocracy, instead of democracy, as the correct principle of government. All Marshall's views on these subjects stand repudiated by even the present intensely consolidated government of the United States.
So when in the same case (Gibbons vs. Ogden) he reasoned that under the new constitution the Union lost the character of a league, he simply spoke as father to the thought, and .appeared to forget that, if the Union was a league of sovereign States anterior to 1787, as he said it was, the States could not lose that character without some express provision in the new constitution to that effect. It is a fundamental provision of public law that in construing grants from sovereign States, nothing can pass by mere implication or inference (Brown's Legal Maxims, p. 260); Vattel, 2nd Book, chapter SVII, sect. 305-308). And this is especially true when the grant concerns so serious a matter as the sovereignty of the State.
Now no one can show any express revocation of sovereignty in the constitution, and Marshall's argument proceeds by way of implication or inference from powers in the constitution which may be explained wholly otherwise. To reason that from a mere change in the operation of the government or distribution of the powers, the sovereignty can be destroyed, is absurd.
There is no real antagonism between a Federal government of despotic power and a Union of sovereign States, and the difference between the articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787 lies not in the nature of the Union but in the grants of power. To render this perfectly plain, suppose there was a clause added to the present constitution, "And this Union is a league from which each State may peaceably withdraw," how would this provision interfere with the operation of the Federal government, as long as the States chose to remain together?
The Confederate Constitution was a mere copy of the Federal Constitution, created "a government proper," but no one has denied that its object was to establish a league of sovereign States.
III. Not only was there no express provision in the constitution or the amendments by which the States surrendered their sovereignty, but there were provisions in it which declare and defend that sovereignty. The seventh article declares that the parties to this constitution are "the States so ratifying the same," and the tenth amendment repels all implications hostile to sovereignty by declaring that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or the people respectively." No one was ever required by the Constitution to swear allegiance to the Federal government or the United States.
How was secession connected with sovereignty?
As members of a league, each State, in the exercise of its sovereignty, by which its will is meant, had a right, under the law of nations, to withdraw from the Union at any time, for reasons to be judged of by itself. But this did not relieve it from its share of the public debt or other obligations incurred as a member of the league, and these were the proper subjects of negotiation. The denial of the right of secession was a denial of sovereignty, and secession was an obvious power reserved to the States under the tenth amendment. Indeed, three States � Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York � in their ratification of the constitution expressly reserved the right of secession, and this reservation, according to the rules of law, enured to the benefit of the other States as well.
William Rawle, who stood at the head of the bar of Philadelphia, published in 1825 a book on the Constitution, in which he showed very conclusively the constitutionality of secession, and this book was used as a textbook to teach the young officers at West Point. (Tyler's Quarterly, XII, p. 87.)
:Confederacy::Confederacy::Confederacy::Confederacy::Confederacy:
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
Secession is enshrined in The Declaration of Independence.
- Messages
- 47,898
- Location
- Great Southern Land
Your mouth gets a rogering from da black cawk! Lol
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
^^^nigger cawk sucker alert!
OP
OP
- Messages
- 27,508
“The fact that one army was fighting for union and the other for disunion is a political expression; the actual fact on the battlefield, in the face of cannon and musket, was that the Federal troops came as invaders and the Southern troops stood as defenders of their homes and further than this we need not go.” ~General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard~
OP
OP
- Messages
- 27,508
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THEM…
When John B. Gordon entered York, Pennsylvania he found the population in a state of Panic, fearing retaliation for Union atrocities against Southern Civilians. He gathered a large crowd of women in the street and told them this:
“Our Southern homes have been pillaged, sacked and burned; our mothers, wives and little ones driven forth amid the brutal insults of your soldiers. Is it any wonder that we fight with desperation? A natural revenge would prompt us to retaliate in kind. But we scorn to war on women and children. We are fighting for the God given rights of liberty and independence as handed down in the Constitution by our fathers. So fear not. If a torch is applied to a single dwelling or an insult offered to a female of your town by a soldier of this command, point me out that man and you shall have his life.”
When John B. Gordon entered York, Pennsylvania he found the population in a state of Panic, fearing retaliation for Union atrocities against Southern Civilians. He gathered a large crowd of women in the street and told them this:
“Our Southern homes have been pillaged, sacked and burned; our mothers, wives and little ones driven forth amid the brutal insults of your soldiers. Is it any wonder that we fight with desperation? A natural revenge would prompt us to retaliate in kind. But we scorn to war on women and children. We are fighting for the God given rights of liberty and independence as handed down in the Constitution by our fathers. So fear not. If a torch is applied to a single dwelling or an insult offered to a female of your town by a soldier of this command, point me out that man and you shall have his life.”
OP
OP
- Messages
- 27,508
"It is incorrect to state, the South went to war over slavery. The South went to war because of her love for liberty, because of jealousy of her rights, her liberties and her independence...Southern people who owned no slaves offered their husbands, sons, fathers, brothers upon the altar of their country, a willing sacrifice for independence...not slavery."
OP
OP
- Messages
- 27,508
"The cause in which we are engaged is the cause of the advocacy of rights to which we were born, those for which our fathers of the Revolution bled - the richest inheritance that ever fell to man, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit untarnished to our children.
Upon us is devolved the high and holy responsibility of preserving the Constitutional liberty of a free government." ~ President Jefferson Davis, June 1, 1861
Upon us is devolved the high and holy responsibility of preserving the Constitutional liberty of a free government." ~ President Jefferson Davis, June 1, 1861
OP
OP
- Messages
- 27,508
THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE WAR are the same problems today—big, intrusive government. The reason we don’t face the specter of another Civil War is because today’s Americans don’t have yesteryear’s spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.
Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."
History books have misled today’s Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves. Walter Williams (well known syndicated columnist and economist.)
Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."
History books have misled today’s Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves. Walter Williams (well known syndicated columnist and economist.)
Similar threads
