Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $31,858
36%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 36% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • ***THE OFFICIAL FRIDAY SILLINESS THREAD***

    07/31/2015 4:14:42 PM PDT · 89 of 90
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Heartlander; BenLurkin
  • 'Muslim-free' Florida gun store sued (by CAIR)

    07/31/2015 3:52:54 PM PDT · 38 of 39
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to cricket
    this is a business that does require ‘discretion and judgment’

    I know right. On the one hand the Libs keep saying that gun store owners need to be super super super careful who they sell guns to because their next customer might be a soon-to-be serial killer, then on the other hand they say gun shop owners can't discriminate. Go figure.

  • Pray For the Peace of Jerusalem(7/31/15)[Prayer]

    07/31/2015 3:48:55 PM PDT · 13 of 14
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to left that other site

    prayers up

  • A Modest Proposal: The Thread Hijack Drinking Game [vanity]

    07/31/2015 3:48:31 PM PDT · 94 of 100
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Slings and Arrows
  • Author Ronald Kessler On Bill Clinton: ‘He Has A Blonde, Busty Mistress’

    07/29/2015 5:23:36 PM PDT · 35 of 74
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Cats Pajamas

    Sure if you want. I’ll let you start it. And we can add to it over time until he dies.

  • Author Ronald Kessler On Bill Clinton: ‘He Has A Blonde, Busty Mistress’

    07/29/2015 5:19:33 PM PDT · 32 of 74
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Cats Pajamas
  • Author Ronald Kessler On Bill Clinton: ‘He Has A Blonde, Busty Mistress’

    07/29/2015 5:15:38 PM PDT · 28 of 74
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Cats Pajamas

    Yeah but would it be possible to find pics of ALL of them? I mean he’s probably been with 1000+....

  • Author Ronald Kessler On Bill Clinton: ‘He Has A Blonde, Busty Mistress’

    07/29/2015 5:14:35 PM PDT · 26 of 74
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to central_va
  • Author Ronald Kessler On Bill Clinton: ‘He Has A Blonde, Busty Mistress’

    07/29/2015 5:10:30 PM PDT · 22 of 74
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Cats Pajamas

    I know, right. Who could ever guess how many women either of those scumbags have been with in their lives?

  • Author Ronald Kessler On Bill Clinton: ‘He Has A Blonde, Busty Mistress’

    07/29/2015 5:01:14 PM PDT · 11 of 74
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Snickering Hound
    Only 1?

    Can't see a man like Bill Clinton limiting himself to one....

  • 'Muslim-free' Florida gun store sued (by CAIR)

    07/29/2015 4:57:58 PM PDT · 3 of 39
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to E. Pluribus Unum
  • Gay dads who shot to fame after posting photos with their children announce they're splitting up

    07/29/2015 4:53:43 PM PDT · 10 of 60
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to vladimir998
    I’m betting the same-sex divorce rate will be much higher than the heterosexual divorce rate.

    Oh I'm sure. Look at these studies:

    "A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners." [1]

    "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners." [2]

    "A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners." [3]

    "In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that 'few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.'" [4]

    1. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see also Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

    2. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.

    3. "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.

    4. M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 25.

  • Prayer Request for Freeper Goodwithagun

    07/29/2015 4:47:39 PM PDT · 14 of 96
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Tired of Taxes

    Prayers up!

  • Hizbullah Sec.-Gen. Nasrallah: The U.S. Will Remain the Great Satan after Nuclear Deal

    07/29/2015 4:39:46 PM PDT · 8 of 10
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to yoe
  • Hizbullah Sec.-Gen. Nasrallah: The U.S. Will Remain the Great Satan after Nuclear Deal

    07/29/2015 4:32:53 PM PDT · 4 of 10
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to DoughtyOne
    He should know, being on a first name basis with him

    LOL

  • Sheik in Al-Aqsa Mosque Address: The Caliphate Will Eliminate the West in Its Entirety

    07/29/2015 4:31:40 PM PDT · 1 of 20
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

    Video at link

  • Hizbullah Sec.-Gen. Nasrallah: The U.S. Will Remain the Great Satan after Nuclear Deal

    07/29/2015 4:23:09 PM PDT · 1 of 10
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

    Video at the link

  • Peaceful pro-life prisoner Mary Wagner freed after seven months in jail

    07/29/2015 3:48:35 PM PDT · 11 of 12
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Slyfox

    So true!

  • The Bride is In the ER: Prayer Request

    07/29/2015 3:34:53 PM PDT · 158 of 162
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Old Sarge

    prayers up!

  • Pray For the Peace of Jerusalem(7/29/15)[Prayer]

    07/29/2015 3:28:37 PM PDT · 5 of 12
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to left that other site

    prayers up

  • When will Jim Robinson banish Trump supporters from FR, like he did in 2007 with Giuliani advocates?

    07/25/2015 2:40:40 PM PDT · 51 of 422
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to humblegunner
    Jim might ZOT you and your little dog, too

    LOL

  • Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

    07/25/2015 11:20:45 AM PDT · 552 of 556
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to DoodleDawg
    You mean Texas's rebellion from Mexico

    It was secession. Look it up. Anytime people break away and declare their own new country it is secession.

    Or lack of law allowing such. In this case, the state constitution didn't grant the legislature the authority.

    The state's constitution doesn't need to. After all, the powers of the states are almost too many to list out anyway. In The Federalist, no. 45, Madison said, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

  • Watch: Kerry Indicates US Will Defend Iran from Israel

    07/25/2015 11:13:11 AM PDT · 32 of 32
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Nachum

    WTH?!?! Go to hell, JK! >:-(

  • Pray For the Peace of Jerusalem(7/25/15)[Prayer]

    07/25/2015 11:09:37 AM PDT · 8 of 16
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to left that other site

    prayers up

  • Iranian President on Nuclear Deal: The Superpowers Have Officially Recognized a Nuclear Iran

    07/23/2015 3:21:24 PM PDT · 4 of 14
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to skeeter
  • Iranian President on Nuclear Deal: The Superpowers Have Officially Recognized a Nuclear Iran

    07/23/2015 3:14:12 PM PDT · 1 of 14
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

    Video at link

  • Black Southern Heritage defender possibly murdered by Black Panthers in returning from Flag Rally

    07/23/2015 2:50:57 PM PDT · 150 of 153
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Salamander

    I love your tagline.

  • Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

    07/23/2015 2:48:54 PM PDT · 549 of 556
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to DoodleDawg
    Lincoln was speaking of the right to rebellion.

    The quote was actually in reference to Texas' secession from Mexico.

    Rawle is not suggesting anything. He is stating legal fact as he sees it.

    To be truly legal fact, there has to be a law indicating such.

  • Pray For the Peace of Jerusalem(7/23/15)[Prayer]

    07/23/2015 2:42:04 PM PDT · 9 of 16
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to left that other site

    prayers up

  • Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

    07/21/2015 4:20:33 PM PDT · 543 of 556
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to DoodleDawg
    In 1848 he said that: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right."

    So do you agree or disagree with Lincoln here? Do people have the right to self government or not?

    The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state

    This is the main point, a theme taken directly from the Declaration of Independence. The part about the legislatures adding this to their constitutions is something he is strongly recommending (because he believes, as you see, that this right will be abused). Their is no law anywhere saying that such is a requirement to leave.

  • Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

    07/21/2015 4:03:32 PM PDT · 542 of 556
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to DoodleDawg
    requires the approval of those staying as well as those leaving.

    Actually, no (and I can see you didn't read all those nice quotes I gave you) There is nothing to that effect in the constitution or in any law whatsoever, and any rights or powers not delegated to the fed gov belong to the states. Period.

    And it's pretty clear that any action involving admitting states, changing them one they've been admitted, and any actions that might affect the other states requires the consent of the states.

    Notice how those all apply to states that are in the union or territories looking to join it. Doesn't follow for states looking to leave.

    Remember, the constitution only applies to states that are in the union.

    that property is still the property of the U.S" That was property that was delegated the fed gov. It belonged to the States before it ever belonged to the fed gov and when withdrawing the rest of their delegated powers they withdrew the fed gov's right to use those properties as well. Although by right these "federal" properties reverted back to the states when they were no long under the Federal government, the South still offered to pay for the forts, but Lincoln refused.

    Napolitano's opinion and some Confederate leaders saying Lincoln provoked the war. What is that supposed to prove?

    I thought you might find Napolitano interesting since he is a legal analyst. As to the opinions of Jefferson Davis and his VP Stevens, I posted it because it shows how they saw the situation. Here they had a hostile fort guarding their harbor. They had asked the garrison to leave numerous times and been refused. Now, after Lincoln had hinted that he would withdraw the garrison, Lincoln goes on to sent ships loaded with supplies, as well as soldiers and arms. Could they trust Lincoln? They knew he was a very wily politician, and where afraid of the harbor being exposed to the combined fire of a hostile fort and fleet combined. They were not acting on the offensive. They were acting on the defensive by making a preemptive strike because they felt threatened. Lincoln was very happy, as this was the result he had anticipated and hoped for when he sent out the fleet:

    Lincoln in a letter to Gustavus Fox in May 1861. Fox was the commander of the expedition Abe sent to reinforce Ft. Sumter:

    "You (FOX) and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result (WAR).”

    If the South had really wanted to be aggressive and start a war, they would have attacked much sooner, rather than waiting until the situation forced them to act. And they wouldn't have sent peace delegations to Washington in early 1861 (Lincoln refused to listen to these). Also, they would have declared war first (or at least right after Lincoln did). Rather they waited over two weeks after Lincoln declared war before they issued a declaration. In their declaration of war, they wrote that

    "earnest efforts made by this government to establish friendly relations between the government of the United States and the Confederate States and to settle all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity and good faith, have proved unavailing, by reason of the refusal of the government of the United States to hold any intercourse with the Commissioners appointed by the government for the purposes aforesaid or to listen to any proposal they had to make for the peaceful solution of all causes of difficulties between the two governments...the President of the United States of America has issued his Proclamation, making the requisition upon the states of the American Union for seventy-five thousand men, for the purpose as therein indicated of capturing forts, and other strongholds of the jurisdiction of, and belonging to the Confederate States of America, and has detailed Naval armaments upon the coast of the Confederate States of America, and raised, organized and equipped a large military force to execute the purpose aforesaid, and has issued his other Proclamations announcing his purpose to set foot a blockage of the ports of the Confederate States"

    They declared that these were "acts of hostilities and wanton aggression, which are plainly intended to oppress and finally, subjugate the people of the Confederate States."

  • Black Southern Heritage defender possibly murdered by Black Panthers in returning from Flag Rally

    07/21/2015 3:01:28 PM PDT · 144 of 153
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to wardaddy
    He had the guts to say what most people wouldn't. What a brave man.

    Looks like he wrote a book too. Gonna have to see if I can get it.

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    Rest in peace brave hero.

  • Pray For the Peace of Jerusalem(7/21/15)[Prayer]

    07/21/2015 2:49:32 PM PDT · 9 of 14
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to left that other site

    prayers up

  • Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

    07/19/2015 3:41:58 PM PDT · 517 of 556
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to DoodleDawg
    Oh I forgot to mention that Lincoln was in favor of secession before he was against it (typical politician flip flop). In 1848 he said that: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right."

    I also forgot to mention that the principle of secession was being taught in the constitution classes at West Point in the early 1800s, classes and textbooks that the US government was paying for. In William Rawle's Views of the Constitution it said that

    "It depends of the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle of which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
    This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which though not expressed, was mutually understood."

    Rawle also had this to say about secession:

    The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution. But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. To withdraw from the Union is a solemn, serious act. Whenever it may appear expedient to the people of a state, it must be manifest in a direct and unequivocal manner."

    (As a note: Rawle was a Northerner [born in Philadelphia], a contemporary of the Founders, and his book was warmly received when published. The North American Review, a journal of Boston political orthodoxy, blessed his book as an "intelligent guide.")

    As an American, Rawle knew that the Union was dear to all and offered many advantages to member states. But as an American, he also knew that when the people of a state felt that those advantages no longer existed and that the Union had become a thread to their happiness, the very reason for the Union's existence was no longer valid.

    Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, said:
    "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right."

  • Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

    07/19/2015 3:13:46 PM PDT · 515 of 556
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to DoodleDawg
    I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of the Constitution. Its entire purpose was to create a federal government with LIMITED power. Most of the document is spent in saying what the federal government can and can't do. Its purpose was to limit the federal government. No limits placed on the federal government in the constitution where ever meant to be placed upon the states. The states delegated certain powers, and retained all the rest. So are you trying to imply that the people of a sovereign state do not have the right to government of the people, by the people, and for the people? After all, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the people." While you are trying to imply that it would be illegal for the South to leave, if you actually look at the situation, it goes against EVERYTHING the founders taught and believed about good government to force a state to accept government to which they do not consent or to deny them the right to "institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

    Unless the rules said leaving required consultations and approval of the other members.

    But the Constitution says no such thing. It never touches the topic, because that topic falls under the Tenth Amendment, as a right left to the States. :-)

    Article I, Section 8 makes it clear that Congress exercises sole authority over the property of the other states. There is nothing in there that says when states leave they can take what they want.

    Remember, the constitution only applies to states while they are in the Union. Congress and the constitution has no power over anything in any state which has withdrawn its delegated powers.

    Regarding Fort Sumter, here are a couple interested articles for you to read:

    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/04/lincolns-war/

    http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html

    Lincoln in a letter to Gustavus Fox in May 1861. Fox was the commander of the expedition Abe sent to reinforce Ft. Sumter:

    "You (FOX) and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result (WAR) .”

  • Angry Clashes in S. Carolina - KKK and Black Panthers

    07/19/2015 8:13:19 AM PDT · 22 of 31
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Texas Eagle

    LOL. May they all go to hell together.

  • Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

    07/19/2015 8:11:32 AM PDT · 502 of 556
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to DoodleDawg
    it's no great stretch to assume that the approval of the other states is needed for a state to leave

    Yes, but there you are assuming, and nowhere is it stated in the Construction. And nowhere did the states surrender the right of secession or allow it to be limited in any way.

    You still seem confused about the way the states joined. The states that joined later may have needed approval but then again the Constitution says that it is the job of the federal government to make sure all the states have a republican form of government. If the original constitution of Kansas wasn't really along the lines of a proper republic, they may have gotten refused for a time. That does not negate the fact that ALL the states that entered the Union did so of their own free will and not by force, and thus could leave by their own free will. If you were to join a club, and even if they had to review your credentials and approve you before you became a member, that would not take away your right to leave the club later if you chose.

    I think Jefferson Davis summed up the situation very well in his inaugural address:
    "Our present position has been achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations. It illustrates the American idea that government rests upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established. The declared purposes of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn were to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, to provide for the common defence, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity; and when in the judgment of the sovereign States now comprising this Confederacy it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, an appeal to the ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 defined to be inalienable. Of the time and occasion for its exercise, they, as sovereign, were the final judges each for itself. The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge the sincerity with which we have labored to preserve the government of our fathers, in its spirit and in those rights inherent in it, which were solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which have been affirmed and reaffirmed in the Bills of Rights of the several States. When they entered into the Union of 1789, it was with the undeniable recognition of the power of the people to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of that government whenever, in their opinion, its functions were perverted and its ends defeated. By virtue of this authority, the time and occasion requiring them to exercise it having arrived, the sovereign States here represented have seceded from that Union, and it is a gross abuse of language to denominate the act rebellion or revolution. They have formed a new alliance, but in each State its government has remained as before."

    From what part of the Constitution do you draw this opinion? When the property didn't belong to the state in the first place?

    (regarding govn't property in southern states) From the fact that all power that the government has was delegated to the government by its creators, the states. Certain properties were delegated by the states to the fed gov for the fulfillment of its delegated duties (such as tax collection houses and military forts for the protection of the states). However, when the states reassumed their delegated powers, the federal government now had no right to maintain tax houses and forts and such in those states, as the power and right to do so had been withdrawn.

    An attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumters with provisions only

    Except they weren't. They were also bringing more troops and ammunition.

    Here are the newspaper articles I promised to post (They are almost all Northern btw). I also included a few sources besides newspaper articles.

    "The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe . This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually."
    Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860

    "...the Union must obtain full victory as essential to preserve the economy of the country. Concessions to the South would lead to a new nation...which would destroy the U.S. Economy."
    - Pamphlet No 14. "The Preservation of the Union A National Economic Necessity," The Loyal Publication Society, printed in New York , May 1863, by Wm. C. Bryant & Co. Printers

    "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, January 21, 1861

    Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat: "The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it. Literally nothing. The transportation of cottonand its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No - We MUST NOT 'let the South go.'"

    New York Evening Post article titled "What Shall Be Done For A Revenue?":
    That either revenue from dutues must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad....If neither of these things is done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which suppoly our treasure will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is rip....Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, wchih is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railways would be supplied from southern ports."

    In an article titled "What is the Issue?" appearing on page 290 in the May 11,1861 issue of Harper's Weekly we find
    "A RECENT number of Once a Week has a summary of foreign news, and it remarks: "There is a revolution in America, involving impracticable tariffs and a menace of a dearth of cotton." The article goes on to state "Impracticable tariffs have as much to do with the struggle as they have with Garibaldi"s war in Italy."

    W.C. Fowler (Author of The Sectional Controversy (published 1864), recounted an incident when some years previously, he met a friend from his college days who was at that time a prominent Northern member of Congress. The Congressman was leaving a heated meeting regarding abolition and other sectional issues. Fowler asked the Congressman what was the real reason that Northerners were encouraging abolitionist petitions. The Congressman replied: "The real reason is that the South will not let us have a tariff, and we touch them were they will feel it."

    President James Buchanan's message to Congress declared,
    "The South had not had her share of money from the treasury, and unjust discrimination had been made against her...."

    In 1828, Senator Thomas H. Benton declared:
    "Before the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars and the North had exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact?...Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths, of the annual expense of supporting the Federal government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this."

    The Ten Causes Of The War Between The States by James W. King and LtCol Thomas M. Nelson
    "Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to themselves. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 era (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement."
    The Ten Causes Of The War Between The States by James W. King and LtCol Thomas M. Nelson

  • Pray For the Peace of Jerusalem (7/19/15)[Prayer]

    07/19/2015 7:09:56 AM PDT · 5 of 18
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to left that other site

    prayers up

  • Pray For the Peace of Jerusalem(7/18/15)[Prayer]

    07/18/2015 6:07:02 AM PDT · 6 of 15
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to left that other site

    prayers up

  • Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

    07/17/2015 10:33:52 AM PDT · 453 of 556
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to DoodleDawg
    If they thought that was an option under the Constitution that they ratified then it turns out they were mistaken.

    From what part of the Constitution do you draw this opinion? Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit states from leaving, and if it is not prohibited then it falls under the Tenth Amendment (rights left to the states).

    Not sure why you are getting all confused about the supposed difference between joining and being admitted. The point is that all the states that entered the union came in voluntarily, they were not forced.

    They walked out without discussion. They walked away from any responsibility for debt or treaty obligations the country took on while they were a part. The walked away with every bit of government property they could get their hands on. Seems to me that conduct like that was guaranteed to lead to more that simple disagreement.

    Government property, lol. Whatever was government property in those states was delegated to the government for use while the state was under the federal government. Once out of the union, all rights to such property reverted back to the states. Why would the states allow foreign governments to own property on their land?

    It had been pretty peaceful from the time the states announced their secession up to the point where the South blew up Fort Sumter. So it's not that the North wouldn't let them go in peace, the South chose not to leave in peace.

    Not sure if you are aware that Lincoln made the first move of the war, and did so in a cunning way which would make the South appear the aggressor:

    April 8, 1861 Lincoln started the war by a surprise attack on Charleston Harbor with a fleet of U.S. warships led by the USS Harriet Lane to occupy Fort Sumter, a Federal tax collection fort in the territorial waters of South Carolina. April 29, 1861 President Jefferson Davis described the South’s response in self-defense in his Message To the Confederate States Congress: “These preparations commenced in secrecy and on the 5th, 6th, and 7th of April transports and vessels of war with troops, munitions, and military supplies sailed from Northern ports bound southward.” “That this maneuver (Lincoln’s surprise attack) failed in its purpose was not the fault of those who contrived it. A heavy tempest delayed the arrival of the expedition.” “I directed a proposal to be made to the commander of Fort Sumter that we would abstain from directing our fire on Fort Sumter if he would promise not to open fire on our forces unless first attacked.” “This proposal was refused and the conclusion was reached that the design of the United States was to place the besieging (Confederate) force at Charleston between the simultaneous fire of the (U.S.) fleet and the fort.” “There remained, therefore, no alternative but to direct that the fort (Sumter) should at once be reduced (on April 12).” (Paragraphs 8-9)

    From a purely business and economic standpoint, an independent Confederacy would have had almost no impact on the rest of the U.S.

    No doubt they would have continued to sell cotton to the US. However you are wrong to supposed that it would have had no impact. The impact would have been huge. There would have been a huge loss of federal revenue since the South paid such a large proportion of the tariffs. And because there would be no tariff, the South would be buying more of the cheaper European goods, and the economy up North would suffer. Thus the South was the gainer and the North the loser economically. That is why the North would not let the South go. Perhaps later when I am not at work (am on lunch) I can attached some articles from Northern newspapers in which they are fretting about how much Southern secession was going to damage their economy. :-)

  • Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

    07/17/2015 10:18:40 AM PDT · 449 of 556
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to rockrr
    Secession implies an orderly, negotiated settlement as part of the withdrawal

    Negotiated settlement? Where are you finding that? These are the definitions I found. Secession: the act of separating from a nation or state and becoming independent (Merriam-Webster)

    Secession: the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state (Oxford Dictionary)

    Secession: the act of leaving an organization or government (Cambridge Dictionary)

    SECEDE, verb intransitive [L. secedo; se, from, and cedo, to move. Se is an inseparable preposition or prefix in Latin, but denoting departure or separation.] To withdraw from fellowship, communion or association; to separate ones's self; as, certain ministers seceded from the church of Scotland about the year 1733. (Webster's 1828 Dictionary)

  • Pray For the Peace of Jerusalem(7/17/15)[Prayer]

    07/17/2015 10:10:53 AM PDT · 7 of 14
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to left that other site

    prayers up

  • Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

    07/16/2015 10:38:35 AM PDT · 393 of 556
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to rockrr
    As I said, many did call it rebellion because that was what Britain called it (although I'm not seeing it used in that quote you gave). And in a way it was a rebellion against tyranny and British oppression. However, since they also declared themselves to be free and independent it was also secession. Please please please re-read the definition of secession again. I think you missed it.
  • Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

    07/16/2015 10:33:50 AM PDT · 392 of 556
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to DoodleDawg
    They didn't assume they could walk out. They joined with that condition. And as we know, a right that one state has is a right that all states have. Not sure where you are getting the idea that a state can't leave a union that they voluntarily joined. If France were to leave the European Union, should all the other countries wage war against them to make them stay, in order to "preserve the union?" A true union is voluntary. A "union" where you are not allowed to leave is like the Soviet "Union".

    Do you really believe that the Founders would allow states to leave in a way guaranteed to cause disagreement and conflict?

    It wasn't guaranteed to cause conflict. Disagreement, sure, but conflict, no. They had hoped that the states if necessary could just part in peace and there would be no conflict. The only reason there was conflict was because the North refused to simply let the South go in peace, just like Great Britain would not let the colonies go peacefully. Both stood to lose too much economically. They didn't care about the rights of the other states.

  • 4,500 supporters of the Confederate flag create a spectacular EIGHT-MILE convoy (Trunc)

    07/16/2015 10:25:14 AM PDT · 83 of 129
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to RginTN

    No problem with it. It just keeps the Confederate government from legislating on that issue. It doesn’t keep the states from doing so. After all, that is a State issue, not a federal one.

  • 4,500 supporters of the Confederate flag create a spectacular EIGHT-MILE convoy (Trunc)

    07/16/2015 10:23:00 AM PDT · 82 of 129
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to Salamander

    Those guys were terrible. The atrocities that happened under Sherman were especially bad.

  • Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

    07/16/2015 10:22:10 AM PDT · 391 of 556
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to RaceBannon

    Well I suppose you can say the same thing about the founders.

  • Pray For the Peace of Jerusalem(7/16/15)[Prayer]

    07/16/2015 10:21:21 AM PDT · 8 of 18
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to left that other site

    prayers up

  • Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

    07/15/2015 4:33:58 PM PDT · 382 of 556
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to rockrr

    Because the British called it so. And many Southerners called themselves rebels too, because the North called them so. It was still a case of secession in both cases. Re-read the definition of secession again please.

  • 4,500 supporters of the Confederate flag create a spectacular EIGHT-MILE convoy (Trunc)

    07/15/2015 4:32:15 PM PDT · 21 of 129
    DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis to SoConPubbie; RginTN

    That’s true. 70-80% of confederate soldiers didn’t even own slaves. They were fighting to defend their homes from invaders. And considering the pillaging, raping, and burning done by the Union armies in their marches through the South, I would say they were justified.