Posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by cowboyway
One of the greatest misconceptions of American history is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Those who subscribe to this belief see President Abraham Lincoln as the benevolent leader who made unimaginable sacrifices in human blood to wipe out America’s greatest sin. While the human sacrifice is indisputable and the sin was monumental, the war’s purpose was not to free blacks from the shackles of bondage. Rather, the Civil War was fought with one purpose in mind: To preserve the Union at all costs. And, to put it in Lincoln’s terms, with no ifs, ands, or buts. You’d better agree with the president, or else.
(Excerpt) Read more at tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
But are you saying that you'll add unemployed and crippled to your list of those to be rounded up and dealt with?”
Anything with an Obama sign on their car is being deported! If you don't like it- Then feel free to do some deporting of your own! Maybe a nice trailer community in the heart of Tornado alley would work?
Obvious you didn't pay attention to what Obama has been taught for the last 20+ years.
"If God is not for us & against whites, then he is a murderer, and we'd best kill him." " Dr.David Cone creator of Black liberation theology.
They will take your money, they will take your freedom and they will take your life. Those are their goals.
and you are naive enough to believe you can have a bloodless secession.
In your view there is blood either way.
Yes, yes, yes we know already. You hate the U.S. You hate the Constitution. You hate Yankees. You hate the Declaration of Independence. You hate anything and everything connected with this country. It must suck to be you, what with having to live here and all.
Like it or not, I won't have much of a say in the matter. Unlike your Dixie redux I don't live in a police state.
I love my country, it is currently occupied by a foreign government right now, that I don't like so much.
Bullsh*t, not when you hold up Innes Randolph and his anti-American screed as your current gospel. Innes clearly states he hated anything and everything to do with the United States - from the Declaration of Independence to the current government. If you think he's right then obviously you hate everything about it as well. So please don't tap dance and back track and claim, "I love my country but..." You hate it. You hate everything to do with it. You want out. You want out now. You've said so time and again.
LMAO!!! He is talking about your FEDERAL occupying forces of a once Free and independent Dixie!! Just like a land grab on a larger scale
Then he's babbling about something that doesn't exist and never did exist. Just like you are.
Me? I would discuss my recent catch with you- a five pound Rainbow Trout
However it does appear that your more familiar with trouser trout than the swimming variety!
Yes- It DID exist before your Marxist of the North sent Armed lunatics to override the will of the people!
Consent of the Governed have any meaning to you?
Try 1795.
As long as she [the state of New Hampshire] continued to be one of the federal states, it must have been on equal terms. If she would not submit to the exercise of the act of sovereignty contended for by Congress, and the other states, she should have withdrawn herself from the confederacy.
Justice William Paterson, Penhallow, et al. v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 82 (1795).
Two principles appear to me to be clear. 1. The authority was not possessed by Congress, unless given by all the states. 2. If once given, no state could, by any act of its own, disavow and recall the authority previously given, without withdrawing from the confederation.
Justice James Iredell, Ibid., at 95.
[I]t was said that New Hampshire had a right to revoke any authority she may have consented to give to Congress, and that by her acts of assembly she did in fact revoke it, if it were ever given. To this a very satisfactory answer was made: if she had such a right, there was but one way of exercising it, that is, by withdrawing herself from the confederacy.
Justice John Blair, Ibid., at 112-113.
3 of the 4 justices held that unilateral secession was legal.
You are tool of the left, no question about it. You don't even know it. Sad. I guess I never will understand the Yankee Federalist at all cost Unionist attitude. I will go to my grave never understanding it, try as I might. I guess I am a stupid Southern rube, incapable of self governance.
That would be Major Innes Randolf P.A.C.S., please show proper respect.
You are tool of the left, no question about it. You don't even know it. Sad. I guess I never will understand the Yankee Federalist at all cost Unionist attitude. I will go to my grave never understanding it, try as I might. I guess I am a stupid Southern rube, incapable of self governance.
And you're a boob, no question about it.
Sad. I guess I never will understand the Yankee Federalist at all cost Unionist attitude.
Just use your imagination. That seems to be the source of everything else you post.
I guess I am a stupid Southern rube, incapable of self governance.
Half right.
That would be just plain Innes Randolph. Like you, he expressed his complete hatred of the U.S. and anything to do with it. And like you, he somehow managed to stomach it enough to make a good income while living here.
It was a "preservation" project, don't forget that. Or was it about slavery, or about "not seceding good enough" or you hurt or whittle Yankee feelings sup sup.
Impressive. What'd you use? Dynamite?
Yes- It DID exist before your Marxist of the North sent Armed lunatics to override the will of the people!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Who had seceded in the Penhallow case? What state?
Let me guess. 457 was meant for me, too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.