A big chess piece just moved - “Governor Ron DeSantis Announces Formation of Florida State Guard”
(theconservativetreehouse.com)
👀 EYES ON! 👀
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (144)
sorted by:
It is not moot at all. The Civil War was about who's brand of slavery was going to win.
And taxes
I believe your ancestors believed what they were fighting in. They were victims of the elitists of the north and south. Just like our soldiers in Iraq were used to fuel the military industrial complex, so too were your ancestors manipulated into doing the bidding of the slave owners. The slave owners didn't give a shit about your ancestors and never would have done anything for them if the South had won.
But it's okay. The North wasn't some mercy liberation force either. They had their own interests in beating the South that had nothing to do with slavery. The Civil War should have never happened and Jefferson and the other reformists should never have compromised.
Sorry fren, but your ancestors were conned into supporting an evil cause. They were motivated to fight and die to maintain a caste system where even the poorest white non-slaveowner, was still a racially superior class over any black, enslaved or free, didn't matter. A nation cannot invade itself. Lincoln, a constitutionally elected President (despite 10 slave states illegally barring Republican Electors from being on the ballot), did what the massive puss puppet Buchanan wouldn't do... Lincoln had balls and defended the Constitution against insurrection and rebellion that was started by butthurt, sore loser, slave-loving Democrats and their ex-Whig "popular sovereignty" tolerating faggots who like modern-day "pro-choice" abortion allies argued "if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave." They saw the writing on the wall. The Republicans won. The free soil party (ban the extension of slavery) took power. The only next logical step, was the rise of outright abolitionism. Race-based chattel slavery was doomed. Tic tok, tic tok. So what did they do? Engaged in actual traitorous insurrection and rebellion by deposing duly elected state officials, storming and taking control of United States military and civil installations (arsenals, forts, post offices), violating the constitutional rights of loyal US citizens and depriving them of a republican form of state government. Oh, and that was all BEFORE LINCOLN WAS INNAGURATED.
It's appalling to see so many professed Patriots on these boards, still promoting Lost Cause propaganda bullshit that Democrats pushed on the US, primarily southern, education system for the past 150 years.
Do you mean like how the British invaded the American colonies/states during the American Revolution?
Either people have a right to break free of a government they do not agree with, or they do not. American Revolution and Civil War were the same issue. But most people take opposite sides.
Slavery was and still is an evil institution. It existed for thousands of years, and continues to exist today.
But the issue of a people having the right to break free and form their own government is also an important issue, and Lincoln was wrong on that one.
Agreed, also the civil war had fuck all to do with slavery. As a North Carolinian I can tell you that the U.S. government dragged our state into that shit. They said pick a side and much like the vax mandate now. Most of our statesmen said “fuck you” to the Feds. “We” wanted to stay out but they forced “our” hands. Only 4% of people owned slaves. This smoothbrain above seems to have a gender studies degree in bullshit.
The Parliament never had jurisdiction in the colonies. The ministers sent in regular troops to deny British citizens of their political rights and natural rights. This was actual tyranny. An invasion did occur once the King abdicated his authority and treated the American Colonies as sovereign powers, thus giving the new American states their independence (see John Adams' explanation re: the act of independency).
No, the American Revolution was in the hearts and minds of the people. The American War of Independence was the defense of their sovereignty and separation from the British Empire, which made war up them. The American Civil War was initiated by an illegal rebellion by sore-losers who lost a constitutional presidential election. Not comparable events. Moreover, the rebels didn't even make a natural rights claim, but argued that "secession" (unilateral withdrawal) was a political right under the Constitution... despite Calhoun's sophistry, that argument isn't supported by the plain reading or original intent of the Constitution, nor of the facts of historical context.
Sorry, but your righteous defense of the natural right to resist tyranny has been wrongly chained to the wrong ship... American Revolution yay.... 1860 Rebellion noooo. Don't fall for the Democrat's Lost Cause trap :(
The losers of the failed rebellion wrote the vast majority of "history" books attempting to shift the narrative of their failed rebellion
Yep. History is written by whoever writes and documents it.
You're on the right track, but Lincoln was no hero. In fact, he was a racist himself and still saw the white man as superior. He didn't start the war to "do the right thing" he did it to keep power. He only made it about slavery when he was losing and needed more support.
Jefferson failed to settle this issue in 1776. With the French's help, the free colonies could have led their own resistance then dealt with the South. At that point the American Revolution would have been about freedom. It was not. America was never free until after the civil ended and the slaves were free and then in 1913 we were put into the paper irons of the Federal Reserve.
What's the story on that?
^^Here's a guy who knows his stuff!!^^ Great points GoingCamaro.
Lincoln was the first British BAR Attorney to be elected. The American BAR Association (ABA) wasn't founded until after the British won the civil war over the Vatican mercs in the south.
Are you aware of the original 13th amendment, barring anybody with a "Title of Nobility" from participating in the government? Hence, all "Esquires", a "Title of Nobility", aka "Attorneys", were barred due to questionable loyalties.
Lincoln's loyalty was to the British Nobility, as so sworn to the BAR - Temple BAR - Inns of the Court. Suffice it to say, the buck stops here. No organization on this planet makes any moves of significance without first running it through the BAR. And who oversees the BAR?
There are still remnants of the original 13th Amendment you can find online. A few examples: http://usavsus.info/usA--Original13thAmend.htm http://themillenniumreport.com/2015/10/the-missing-13th-amendment-no-lawyers-allowed-in-public-office/
The 1822 Treaty of Verona is what initiated the "Civil War". - The British Monarch and Pope secretly agree to undermine the American system of government via the Treaty of Verona. The British Monarch breaches the Treaty of Ghent and both the Pope and the King secretly breach their trust as International Trustees. They set out on a covert action and issued letters of Marque & Reprisal to the BAR and Jesuits, allowing them to act as foreign agents on American soil and as privateers free to plunder America’s economic, political and judicial systems.
Everything we've been taught of some significance that can be lied about, has been lied about to us.
Why did the Constitution of the CSA outlaw the slave trade?
Hint - Outlawing the slave trade was the first step in the process of all other "civilized countries" eliminating slavery.
The United States outlawed the slave trade in 1807. And yet, slavery not only continued but grew EXPONENTIALLY in the southern states for the next 60 years, so much so that they needed to expand westward and soutward. By the logic of your non-argument "argument", sounds like southern slavers weren't very "civilized" then eh? 🤔😉
Speaking of the Rebel "Constitution" and how it addressed slavery...
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
[...]
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
[...]
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried 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 slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.
[...]
In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
But yeah, sure, many civilized, much righteous, wonderful society.
There's a reason why the Virginian James Madison made certain that the word "slave" did not appear in the Constitution of the United States of America, because he "thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."
Quite the contrasting documents, eh?
Hadn't thought of it that way, but good point.