Posted on 12/03/2010 4:39:40 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
That's easy. It's because there's nobody here defending black on white racism or the black cultural morass.
I got one!
Let's have an in depth argument about the high incidence of white on black rape stats the last half of the 20th century...shucks...should be a quick rant eh?...instead let's just breastbeat about some freaks in robes and drone on and on about how the poor black man just lives and dies by how whitey treats him and all....that soft bigotry of low expectations is just fine and dandy for those whose white guilt cannot be sated
...The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."What your general has written is a bunch of equivocating codswallop. Substitute the above underlined with: child-sacrifice(s), homosexual, bestiality, or any other wantonly depraved, heneious, detestable and contemptible practice and/or institution known to Man. If you believe that rises to the levels and degree of tyranny for which the exercise of the unalienable right of Man is bloodshed of unimaginable to grimace-proportions, such that those pratices and / or institutions can be practiced and continued unfettered, quite frankly I'm ashamed to be a member of the same species as you.This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
...
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection...
You seem to have an issue with reading comprehension. Slavery was protected under Federal law. The Northern States nullified this law, violating the Constitution. Non-Slave States didn't have any more right than any other State since they were both governed by law. Are you claiming that we are not Governed by law, but by morality? If that is the case, I believe abortion is murder, should I go attack those who I consider immoral? Having said that, the North had no moral standing to pass such judgment, being they sold the South their slaves in the first place.
Would you like to discuss Secession or not?
Daniel Webster of Massachusetts:
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
Nor is anyone here defending the Klan either from what I can tell
Pray tell which is a bigger threat to the Republic and my liberty?
Colonel Reb?
CSA flags?
Or black crime, illegitimacy and entitlements addiction?
Which is a more worthy target of the ire of the high and mighty here?
As one who has spent my life in areas with high black population areas since entitlements began and the collapse really too off I already know.
Il mio è un po 'arrugginito, no, è molto arrugginito! Se non lo usi, lo perdi.
Italian and Spanish are pretty close, and where they differ they differ consistently so with some Spanish you can usually guess the Italian or at least communicate.
The two languages are similar. I speak Italian but can follow conversations in Spanish and pretty much understand what is being said. The only problem I've had is when we've been to Pamplona, Spain. In that immediate region I found communication difficult. They use the letter x in many of their words and it throws me off. It isn't like any Spanish I've read or heard before. Imagine, me speaking a mixture of broken Italian and English all wrapped up in a Southern accent. I could always tell if I was way off with my question or comment by the look on the locals faces! LOL! Our Spanish friends would bail me out after they got a good laugh:)
My family is from way up north, almost Switzerland. Mountain people.
Beautiful country in the Alps. That's an understatment, the scenery is breathtaking! I lived near Naples, but have been all over Italy and Europe. Learned to ski at Roccaraso, in Abruzzo. Most people can't envision a place to ski in central Italy.
We're going again next October.
I hope you have a wonderful time:) We try to get back back every couple of years. My mother and two of my siblings and their spouses went in June this year, but we couldn't make it this time. We're shooting for September, 2012. We stay two or three weeks, which is just long enough for me to get back into speaking Italian with ease, and then it's time to come home again. DH wants to know if we're going to have to carry an empty suitcase again to bring back shoes when we go next time. What can I say? They make the best and I can only buy them every two or three years....LOL! It's a female thing:)
This is the town. This the church where my great grandparents were married.
Grazie per le immagini, sono belle!
I hope Santa and Befana both bring you and yours what you are wishing for this year.
Buon Natale!
Sunshine
The Federal government couldn't make up its mind about the status of the defeated states. First, it treated them as states that never seceded and counted the "ratifications" of the thirteenth Amendment by these states or by the pseudo or puppet state legislatures that the Federal government recognized. This was Lincoln's position.
Then the Federal government treated the states as though they had seceded and were no longer in the Union. The states had to adopt constitutions approved by the Federal government (read Republican government) and ratify the proposed 14th Amendment, as yet unratified. Thaddeus Stevens remarks are representative of this second attitude toward the defeated states [Source: Thaddeus Stevens in the Congressional Globe, July 9, 1867, pg 545; my emphasis below].
Some twelve million of the inhabitants of the country claimed that they no longer belonged to this nation. They set up an independent government. They established all the machinery of government, both of a national government and of States under that national government. They raised large armies to defend their pretensions. We, at the period when we declared against them a blockade, admitted them to be, not an independent nation, but an independent belligerent, rising above the rank of insurrectionists, and entitled to all the privileges and subject to the liabilities of an independent belligerent. The nations of Europe so treated them. We so treated with them in our dealings with prisoners of war. In short, there could be no doubt of the fact.
We were, then, at war as two independent nations; ... For these conquered rebels to pretend that they had any rights under a Constitution which they had thus repudiated and attempted to destroy, and that the states which had been arrayed in hostility to the nation were still States within this Union, as asserted to-day by the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Eldridge,] seems to me a bold absurdity. Yet that was the doctrine of the President.
How is it that you list Virginia as having ratified the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution on February 9, 1865? The Confederate government and legislature in Richmond certainly never ratified such on that date. I looked in the Richmond Daily Dispatch newspaper and found the following in the February 11, 1865 edition:
That part of Virginia which is represented at Alexandria, by whatever name the Yankees call it, "ratified" the abolition amendment by its "Legislature" on Wednesday.
What good is such a ratification or the forced ratification of the 14th Amendment? Those are pretty poor legal underpinnings for such important amendments.
In addition to that, Thaddeus Stevens tried to force a state constitution on Alabama that the Alabama voters had rejected. This was objected to by Representative Beck of Kentucky [Congressional Globe, May 13, 1868; my bold below]:
Taxation without representation for the white man, and representation without taxation for the negro is now the rule in South Carolina.
Now as far as Alabama is concerned ... all the facts are known to this House. We all know that the constitution of Alabama was defeated, and defeated in the mode permitted by the laws passed by this Congress, and this House has so decided; yet we are called upon [by Stevens and the Radicals] to impose that constitution on the people of Alabama, a constitution which they themselves have rejected, which we have said they have rejected. The people of Alabama having rejected that constitution, it is now brought forward in an omnibus bill, along with constitutions of other States, and we are asked to declare that they have adopted that constitution.
Let me look hurriedly at the provisions respecting the other States. ... The fact appears in all the publications of the day, and is true beyond all peradventure, that hundreds or thousands of negroes who came to the polls to vote for the constitutions and the officers under them came from the plantations with halters in their hands, that they might lead home the mules they expected to receive; for forty acres of land and a mule were promised to every ignorant negro who would vote for the constitutions.
The parties have indeed switched philosophies.
ABBOTSFORD, Wisconsin - A sign excluding black people from a future Abbotsford, Wisconsin business is enraging some people in the small town.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2643000/posts
I don't believe that Madison's statement allows for the unilateral secession practised in 1860-61. The context was a discussion of the ratification of the Constitution. Later in #39, Madison states that the states are bound by their voluntary act of ratification. An entity that is bound does not possess absolute sovreignty, regardless whether the binding was involuntary or voluntary. Of course, the right of revolution is still available but that line of action is beyond the Constitution.
S. Carolina's whined about the fact that north of the Mason-Dixon line they weren't returning the South's sex-toy/foodstuffs that's either been absconded or that they couldn't keep on their plates (nor the klepto's responsible) in accordance to the extradition clause of the Constitution.
Too bad. You're claiming law trumps depravity. And don't hand me your pontificating self-righteousness about the north being the 'store'.
So, as long as legislation that is acceptable to you is passed you don't care if the legislaters and chief executive are all crooks, liars, perverts, communists and theives?
And don't hand me your pontificating self-righteousness about the north being the 'store'.
The typical yankee response to slavery: Point South and say, "I didn't do it! It was them!!"
Here's Madison's statement from Federalist 39: "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act."
If the state is "only to be bound by its own voluntary act," i.e., nothing else binds it, then the state can just as easily unbind itself. As long as it has not unbound itself, some aspects of sovereignty have been delegated to the Federal government under the Constitution. But once a state unbinds itself (i.e., secedes, for those of you in East Tennessee), it resumes the powers it delegated to the Federal government.
Consistent with that thought, here is Madison from June 24, 1788 in the Virginia Ratification Convention [my bold below]:
That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes. There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption — that every thing not granted is reserved. This is obviously and self-evidently the case, without the declaration.
As you know if you've read the ratification documents, Madison voted for such a resumption of governance statement in the Virginia ratification document. So did Hamilton and Jay, the other authors of the Federalist Papers, for a similar statement in the New York ratification document. The New York document said they could resume their governance if it made them happier.
Where in your opinion does sovereignty ultimately reside? The king, the federal government, the state, the people of the state, the lumpen mass of the people of the whole country, individuals?
Thanks for the laugh.
Here be there dragons
Such can not be reckoned with; they are nasty and have evil shaped teeth.
Put your hands up and slowly back away from the bong!
Do it now!!
Such can not be reckoned with; they are nasty and have evil shaped teeth.
Hear ye, Hear ye!
This meeting of the Knights of the Round Table is now in session! The Honorable King Arthur ( better known on Free Republic as Idabilly,) presiding over the table. At issue today my fellow Knights, is this colorful character known as Squirtgun and his fear of fire breathing dragons! With consent from my fellow Knights; I as King, wish to banish this "kleptomaniac child-raping necrophiliac cannibal" from our realm; forever forbidding his return. His punishment must fit his crime as he shall forever reside in that man made hell of yankeedom.
What say ye?
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.