Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52

Thread: Anyone else here hate Abraham Lincoln?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    32

    Anyone else here hate Abraham Lincoln?

    As a teacher and writer, and true student of history, I am appalled at the number of people who worship Abraham Lincoln. He was clearly an unpopular president from the beginning and won with less than 40% of the vote. I also always laugh when people try and argue that he ended slavery. If you carefully read the text of the emancipation proclamation, he clearly states it was a "WAR MEASURE" and that it did not apply to parts of VA, TN, and LA where the Union had occupied, nor did it apply to the border states. It also gave the south 100 days to return to the Union and keep its slaves. He explicitly said himself that he would have kept slavery if it could keep the Union together.

    The true cause of the war was tariffs. Southerners had to pay outrageous taxes on imports, since the early 1800s, just to "protect" and enrich northern manufacturers. All of the southern states seceded peacefully, and no shots were fired until Lincoln decided to invade Ft. Sumter. Even those shots were forewarned in a series of letters exchanged between the two commanding officers. Many of the states that were last to secede did so because Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade Virginia.

    He quickly silenced anyone who opposed him, jailing representatives in Delaware and Maryland who also wanted their states to secede. He also shut down newspapers that wrote negative things about him and bought German language newspapers in the north to try and sway public opinion anyway he could.

    He would not acknowledge the south as an independent nation, yet openly used tactics that were internationally recognized as official acts of war between nations (blockade, destruction of public property, and yes even murder of civilians). The fact is that he was always trying to use his slick lawyer rhetoric to claim that secession was treason, when in fact it is part of the American tradition. For example the Hartford convention during the War of 1812, where New England states threatened secession because their shipping industry was disrupted.

    What the south did in 1860 was no different than what our founding fathers did in 1776. NO DIFFERENT. The same people that declare the south committed treason are also saying that they support a bigger and more unlimited government. Basically over 650,000+ men died because Abraham Lincoln had a certain distorted view of the constitution...
    Last edited by Younger Longest; 11-30-2017 at 10:56 PM. Reason: added content

  2. #2
    Tennessee_Volunteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    4
    If you've any love for the South, I imagine you have to have some contempt in regards to Lincoln. He, just as Sherman or Grant, holds responsibility for the destruction of the Old South and the crushing of any hopes for Southern independence.

    But, hate? No, not really. His job was to preserve the Union and he did, if at the cost of 600K+ lives. I can't imagine anyone doing much better while in his position, if allowing secession was absolutely not a viable option. We could sit here all day and argue the particulars of whether he was a tyrant, murderer, or whatnot. In the end, he was just a man, not a devil.

    I'd much rather dwell on the great deeds of my ancestors and other Southerners than seethe with rage towards Lincoln.

  3. #3

    USA General of the Army

    Bravescot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Perthshire, Scotland
    Posts
    2,601
    :O is it the return of Vermont I see?

  4. #4

    USA Sergeant


    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    506
    Lost cause BS. and no evidence of any of your myths.
    I also always laugh when people try and argue that he ended slavery.
    The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery, not the EP... something that should be common knowledge.

    "Southerners had to pay outrageous taxes on imports, since the early 1800s, "
    Tariffs rates changed a lot over the 60 years since 1800. By 1857 the tariff rate was very low, both compared to earlier and to other countries.
    In 1848 it changed from 32% to 25%, then after the election in 1856 it changed to 17%. And why was it lowered? because the south controlled congress.
    (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html)

    Also in the fiscal year 1858 the federal government had a deficit of 27,529,904$ and with about 90% of all income being from the tariffs this was sort of a problem.
    Also everyone paid the same rate.

    If the south paid an unfair part of this, the obvipoulsy most of the money was collected in the south?

    Actually no.
    "New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million. "
    [Source: Douglas B. Ball, Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, “Trade Figures by Port in 1860” and “Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)”]

    "All of the southern states seceded peacefully, and no shots were fired until Lincoln decided to invade Ft. Sumter. "
    Below is a list of aggressive moves by the different southern states... all before Lincoln called up men.
    Many of them even happened before Lincoln even became the president.

    (put it as a "spoiler" since the list is very long)

    Attacks on Federal Facilities, Secession Winter (Source: The Beginning And The End, by Dayton Pryor):

    December 27, 1860. The first Federal property to fall into South Carolina hands is the U.S. revenue cutter William Aiken, turned over to secessionists by its commander, Capt. N. l. Coste, who did not resign his commission and herefore was in violation of his oath of office. The crew left the ship and went North.

    Castle Pickney was seized by South Carolina militia and a problem arose: were the two Federal soldiers capture in the fort to be considered prisoners of war? If so, it would imply there was, in fact, a war. Following a lengthy discussion, the one Federal officer was allowed to go to Fort Sumter while a sergeant and his family were given safe conduct to remain in their quarters at the fort. What was significant was that the secessionists no held, for the first time, a U.S. fort. Union officer Abner Doubleday called it "...the first overt act of the Secessionists against the Sovereignty of the United States."

    Fort Moultrie is taken by South Carolina militia.

    December 28, 1860. A detachment of South Carolina militia enters and takes control of Fort Johnson. Three out of four Federal forts have been seized and are now under the control of South Carolina militia troops.

    January 3, 1861. The War Department cancelled plans to ship guns from Pittsburgh to the forts in the South. Former Secretary of War Floyd, who resigned and went South, had been shipping weapons and large guns South for the past several months to help build up the Southern arsenals.

    January 4, 1861. Even though it has not yet seceded from the Union, Alabama troops seize the U.S. arsenal at Mt. Vernon, Alabama.

    January 5, 1861. Even though it STILL has not yet seceded fro the Union, Alabama seizes Fort Morgan and Gaines which protect the harbor at Mobile.

    January 6, 1861. Even though it has not yet seceded from the Union, Florida troops seize the Federal arsenal at Apalachiocola.

    January 7, 1861. Still not having yet separated from the Union, Florida troops seize Fort Marion at St. Augustine.

    January 8, 1861. At Fort Barrancas, guarding the entrance to Pensacola Harbor, Federal troops fired on a raiding party of about twenty men, who then fled.

    January 9, 1861. On this day, Senators Judah P. Benjamin and John Slidell of Louisiana telegraphed Gov. Moore of that state, which had not yet seceded from the Union, that Federal gunboats were secretly bringing supplies to the forts at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Here are a pair of men who were secretly betraying a government to which they still swore their allegiance. Gov. Moore ordered Braxton Bragg and 500 troops to seize the forts and the United States arsenal at Baton Roughe.

    The Star of the West attempted to resupply Fort Sumter, but was fired upon by a masked battery from Morris Island and then by guns from Fort Moultrie, in spite of the fact two U.S. flags were flown. The ship was repeatedly fired on, forcing it to turn and steam away.

    January 10, 1861. Gen. Bragg and the militia seize the U.S. forts and arsenals in Louisana.

    January 12, 1861. Capt. James Armstrong, commander of the Warrington Navy Yard at Pensacola, Florida, is captured and regarded as a prisoner of war, and ...placed on his parole of honor...not to bear arms against the State of Florida.

    January 13, 1861. Several men are seen near Fort Pickens in the night and were fired upon. These unknown men retired from the area of the fort.

    January 21, 1861. Mississippi troops seize Fort Massachusetts off the coast, in the Gulf. Ship Island is also taken.

    January 24, 1861. Georgia troops occupy the U.S. arsenal at Augusta.

    January 24, 1861. At Savannah, Georgia, Fort Jackson and the Oglethorpe Barracks are seized by state troops.

    January 29, 1861. Louisiana state troops take possession of Fort Macomb, outside New Orleans. The revenue cutter Robert McClelland was surrendered to Louisiana state authorities by Capt. Breshwood, despite orders not to do so by the Secretary of the Treasury.

    January 31, 1861. In New Orleans, the U.S. Branch Mint was seized by state troops along with the revenue schooner Washington.

    February 8, 1861. Before it had seceded from the Union, Arkansas troops seize the Little Rock U.S. arsenal.

    (February 11, 1861. Lincoln boards the train that will take him to Washington.)

    February 12, 1861. Confederate officials in Montgomery took charge of matters related to occupation of Federal property within the seceded states and all other military matters. On that date they "Resolved in the Congress of the Confederate States of American, That this government takes under its charge the questions and difficulties now existing between the several states of this Confederacy and the government of the United States of America, relative to the occupation of forts, arsenals, navy-yards, and other public establishments..."

    February 15, 1861. The Confederate Congress passes a second resolution "That it is the sense of this Congress that immediate steps should be taken to obtain possession of Forts Sumter and Pickens...either by negotiations or force, as early as practicable, and that the President is hereby authorized to make all necessary military preparations..."

    February 16, 1861. Before it had seceded from the Union, Texas militia in San Antonio seize the U.S. military compound, barracks and arsenal.

    February 19, 1861. In New Orleans, the U.S. Paymaster's office was seized by state troops.

    March 2, 1861. Texas, now out of the Union, seized the U.S. revenue schooner Henry Dodge at Galveston.

    (March 4, 1861. Lincoln is sworn in as the 16th President of the United States in Washington, D. C.)

    March 6, 1861. The Confederate Congress authorizes an army of 100,000 volunteers for twelve months.

    March 15, 1861. The State of Louisiana transferred over $536,000 in money taken from the U.S. Mint in New Orleans to the Confederate government.

    March 18, 1861. In the Florida panhandle, Gen. Braxton Bragg refused to permit further supply of Fort Pickens.

    March 20, 1861. Texas troops seize three more Federal forts. At Mobile, a Federal supply ship, the U.S. sloop Isabella, was seized before it could sail with supplies to Pensacola.

    April 3, 1861. In the South, a battery placed on Morris Island in Charleston harbor fired at the Federal schooner Rhoda H. Shannon.

    April 12, 1861. At 4:30AM, Fort Sumter was fired upon by Southern forces.

    April 15, 1861. President Lincoln calls for 75,000 volunteers.​


    to invade Ft. Sumter.
    You cant invade your own territory.

    Fort Sumter was a Federal fort on Federal soil. On 21st of december 1836 the South Carolina state house transferred the area to the federal government: "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory,"

    Full text of the bill:

    In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836​
    "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:


    "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.


    "Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.


    "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.


    "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
    "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."​

    "In Senate, December 21st, 1836​
    "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
    Jacob Warly, C. S.


    Even if we say that unilateral secession was legal then that would not effect the legal status of the fort. It was part of the USA.


    "that secession was treason, when in fact it is part of the American tradition."
    No it was not. Here is what slaveowner and southerner Andrews Jackson had to say about it.
    "Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences; on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment. On your unhappy state will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country."
    Pres. Andrew Jackson Dec, 1832

    R.E.Lee made a similar commend about it in a letter.

    Also didn't some of the founding fathers said something about hanging together if they lost?
    They knew very well that what they did was treason...


    For example the Hartford convention during the War of 1812, where New England states threatened secession because their shipping industry was disrupted.
    More myths. Was secession debated? properly. But thee is no evidence that it was seriously considered.
    If you think differently.... post the evidence. (primary sources please)


    And the last part is more BS.
    Please tell me who got the authority to change the makeup of the union?
    And then please explain how a US president can allow part of the union to break away without breaking his oath of office.


    Andrew Jackson certainly knew his duty in 1832.
    And If I remember my US history President Washington lead a small army to suppress a rebellion.
    We can also include the militia act of 1792. It give the president the authority to call up militia to suppress insurrections.

    ---

    But I will give you that the blockade was problematic and it did help push the UK and France to recognize the CSA as a belligerent power...
    Last edited by thomas aagaard; 12-01-2017 at 12:05 AM.
    1st SG Thomas Aagaard
    15th Wisconsin, Company B,
    Denmark.

  5. #5

    CSA Captain

    McMuffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Younger Longest View Post
    As a teacher and writer, and true student of history, I am appalled at the number of people who worship Abraham Lincoln. He was clearly an unpopular president from the beginning and won with less than 40% of the vote. I also always laugh when people try and argue that he ended slavery. If you carefully read the text of the emancipation proclamation, he clearly states it was a "WAR MEASURE" and that it did not apply to parts of VA, TN, and LA where the Union had occupied, nor did it apply to the border states. It also gave the south 100 days to return to the Union and keep its slaves. He explicitly said himself that he would have kept slavery if it could keep the Union together.
    In the parts he mentions, it is some counties and cities or towns, small parts of the states. The biggest amount he mentions in Virginia were the ones that were part of the recently created West Virginia,"...except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia...".

    Quote Originally Posted by Younger Longest View Post
    The true cause of the war was tariffs. Southerners had to pay outrageous taxes on imports, since the early 1800s, just to "protect" and enrich northern manufacturers. All of the southern states seceded peacefully, and no shots were fired until Lincoln decided to invade Ft. Sumter. Even those shots were forewarned in a series of letters exchanged between the two commanding officers. Many of the states that were last to secede did so because Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade Virginia.
    The south wanted to keep slavery, the civil war was about slavery. Go tell me how many times the word slavery comes up in the secession documents versus the word tariffs, I think in Georgia slavery comes up like 27-30 times. And the CSA forces invaded and took a federal military installation, that is treason and of course Lincoln would go and take it back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Younger Longest View Post
    He quickly silenced anyone who opposed him, jailing representatives in Delaware and Maryland who also wanted their states to secede. He also shut down newspapers that wrote negative things about him and bought German language newspapers in the north to try and sway public opinion anyway he could.
    This though was true, but it's pretty obvious why he did that, doesn't mean it was right. The south wasn't exactly hospitable to any pro-union or pro-Lincoln sources either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Younger Longest View Post
    He would not acknowledge the south as an independent nation, yet openly used tactics that were internationally recognized as official acts of war between nations (blockade, destruction of public property, and yes even murder of civilians). The fact is that he was always trying to use his slick lawyer rhetoric to claim that secession was treason, when in fact it is part of the American tradition. For example the Hartford convention during the War of 1812, where New England states threatened secession because their shipping industry was disrupted.
    The CSA was not a legal nation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Younger Longest View Post
    What the south did in 1860 was no different than what our founding fathers did in 1776. NO DIFFERENT. The same people that declare the south committed treason are also saying that they support a bigger and more unlimited government. Basically over 650,000+ men died because Abraham Lincoln had a certain distorted view of the constitution...
    True, both cases are where a group of subsidiary states declared themselves independent of their mother state or controller, but, neither were legal nor were they official. The US just beat the British back so they let us become our own state. And what the southern states did was one hundred percent treason, fighting federal troops, not following all laws imposed previously or new ones created, seizing federal land and installations and everything else they did as a nation.

    Sources:

    http://www.tnmuseum.org/files/1143/F...%20Text(1).pdf (Emancipation Proclamation)
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp (Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America)
    Last edited by McMuffin; 12-01-2017 at 12:10 AM. Reason: Revisions, added sources
    wait, im not supposed to shoot my teammates?




  6. #6
    WoR-Dev GeorgeCrecy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    626
    Hey there Younger Longest,

    I too am an avid student (and sometimes, just yet) teacher of history. But part of what is necessary as a historian is to drop any initial biases we might have as researchers and look for only the truth, and sift through the lies and biases of those we are researching. We should then present an unbiased view from there.
    So that being said, just looking at the dates as were amply provided above, it is clear that the war was that of Southern Aggression, contrary to the popular name.

    Secondly, there were various atrocities committed by both sides. It was a war after all. That does include various rather despotic acts done by Lincoln which were absolutely wrong. For that, Lincoln is rightly criticised.

    Finally, it is very important that this false narrative of the war being about tariffs or state rights be quashed right back under the apologetic rock it came from. It is very clear as from above in regards to the falsehood about tariffs. In regards to states rights, while that is definitely a term older than the Civil War, when applied to the Civil War the unanswered question is the states' rights to do what? To continue and regulate slavery. As was mentioned, nearly every document of secession from each state themselves explicitly stated that slavery was the main cause of their wanting to secede.

    Again, this is not a matter of Northern biases, this is a matter of simple facts. It is fact that post-war efforts were to create a Lost Cause movement that downplayed the obvious wrong of slavery, and to make pervasive a culture of victimhood in response to the wrongs committed on the south by the Radical Republicans in the Reconstruction.
    I look forward to this thread being a measured and calm discussion. The goal is to discuss the facts, not enflame ones' feelings.

  7. #7

    USA General of the Army

    A. P. Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    In Maryland State Near to both Antietam and Gettysburg, Harper's Ferry et al.
    Posts
    2,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravescot View Post
    :O is it the return of Vermont I see?
    Nah, it's too short.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    32
    To the person above that cited all of the forts being seized, again show me where shots were fired and southerners were killing people. The only example I know of was a man named James W Jackson who killed a Union soldier for taking a confederate flag from atop his hotel in Virginia. And regarding the "seizing" of the forts, if the state taxpayers had funded the building of the forts, I don't see any reason they wouldn't have the right to take it, seeing as how they had just formed their own sovereign state peacefully.

    To all the people saying slavery is some distinct southern evil: Tell me any major national political party that had a serious platform to end slavery before the Republicans (there's only 1). Slavery was foundational in America and southern presidents dominated for most of our early history. Not many, if any, northern presidents served two terms before Lincoln, and that was only with half of the country voting for him. But as far as the slave issue, Lincoln himself favored colonization because he wanted the western territory open for free white men, he said this himself in various letters, even Frederick Douglass said he was a "white man's president." The South compromised again and again on slavery, it was a national wrong. There's a huge list of countries that ended slavery peacefully. The best way to end slavery would have been to emancipate, compensate the owners (as England did), and form some type of integration. Instead they destroyed the south and segregated black and white people to sow discord between the races...

    Say what you will, but segregation was not an official law in the south until after the War Between the States. When Alexander de Tocqueville, a famous French political philosopher, visited America in the 1830's he remarked that southerners lived among blacks and had casual relations, whereas in the north they were more distinctly separated and outcast. Blacks and whites lived together in the south for a long time, meanwhile you had northern states like Lincoln's ILLINOIS, which did not even allow FREE BLACK PEOPLE for many years. Most of the northern states and Midwestern passed some type of laws that excluded or altogether banned blacks. I'm not trying to lessen the moral evils of slavery, but census data from 1850 even shows that slaves in the south were outliving people that worked in factories in the north. And the population of slaves went up by tens, hundreds of thousands every decade. That's not an indicator of a population that is being treated brutally all over.

    The fact that the War Between the States was "about" slavery was created as a fable to shape the event as some righteous crusade by Abraham Lincoln. Again, countries separate all the time peacefully and people don't die. JUST LOOK AT EUROPE PEOPLE... Adolf Hitler and Karl Marx both LOVED Abraham Lincoln because he was able to CRUSH state sovereignty and CENTRALIZE the government. America was a Confederacy for our first years, and the Articles of Confederation formed a "perpetual union." We all know how that worked out, the government was not strong enough to collect the taxes...so they brought in the Constitution, which do not say anything about being "perpetual" because they knew it would have been a mistake to do so.


    Finally TO ALL THE PEOPLE SAYING SECESSION IS TREASON / THE SOUTH WAS NOT A LEGITIMATE NATION: Again Article VII of the constitution states that "The ratification of this constitution between the nine states will be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution, between the states so ratified"...So you're telling me the 13 separate colonies can form a compact, fight a war over taxes and tea, then form a constitution between nine of them--but it was wrong for the South to have eleven states and try to form their own constitutional government? The short-sightedness and shallowness of your perception is quite obvious. I can definitely tell you were good public school students that really absorbed everything from your textbooks...

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennessee_Volunteer View Post
    If you've any love for the South, I imagine you have to have some contempt in regards to Lincoln. He, just as Sherman or Grant, holds responsibility for the destruction of the Old South and the crushing of any hopes for Southern independence.

    But, hate? No, not really. His job was to preserve the Union and he did, if at the cost of 600K+ lives. I can't imagine anyone doing much better while in his position, if allowing secession was absolutely not a viable option. We could sit here all day and argue the particulars of whether he was a tyrant, murderer, or whatnot. In the end, he was just a man, not a devil.

    I'd much rather dwell on the great deeds of my ancestors and other Southerners than seethe with rage towards Lincoln.
    I'm not saying I hate him in the sense that I'm going to bed angry. I respect him as a WAR president and as a leader. But I question his tactics and the blind worship of him. I've taught hundreds of students that all have the impression he ended slavery, when they have never even taken the time to read his own letters or debates. I question how a president who literally abused his power to invade another section of the country, among many other crimes...and then be consistently labeled as a great president. It confuses me.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    32
    Also, to the guy above that pointed out Andrew Jackson and the Nullification Crisis of 1832, you totally prove my point. You even take it a step further by adding Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion. Sure, you could use some slick rhetoric to argue those gave some precedence to Lincoln...but at the end of the day you prove that no president wants to be responsible for the break up of the Union, and you also prove my point that the protective tariff was a divisive and sectional problem in itself. THE SOUTH WANTED FREE TRADE, take a simple economics class today and you will find that is the most desirable thing we could implement from an economic standpoint. The tariff was for nothing other than to enrich northern industry. Look no further than Lincoln's lap-dog Thaddeus Stephens, who owned some iron producing plants and made thousands of dollars extra per mile of railroad laid when we could have imported it more cheaply from GB.

    And to the constant remarks about the treason and Hartford Convention not being a legitimate talk of secession, just look the document up on line...they clearly discussed it openly and it was considered an option. Just like Vermont still talks about secession its elections almost every other year. Just like Californians are talking about in 2018 because they are butt-hurt about Donald Trump. Just like America did to Great Britain. SECESSION IS AMERICAN TRADITION. In 1798, Jefferson and Madison wrote the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, which argued states had the right to interpose and nullify federal laws they did not agree with (alien and sedition acts). States do this on some level today through things like marijuana, and even cities now are embracing this with their immigrant "sanctuary" cities. ITS OKAY TO TELL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NO.

    You guys have been saying the pledge of allegiance so long and being brainwashed that we are "indivisible," like good sheep. Haters can cherry pick certain ideas to argue with my logic, but at the end of the day the fact remains that what the south did was NO DIFFERENT than what the colonies did in 1776, slavery and all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •