@no1marauder saidYou are talking about a SCOTUS decision that upheld slavery.
Read Texas v. White.
I could also quote numerous Founders and Framers regarding the unconstitutional nature of secession from the compact (Madison, Jefferson and Adam's for starters) but someone with a third grade education like yourself probably wouldn't like that much homework
Where in the constitution does it say negros are not people?
Nothing in the constitution omits Africans from being free people. SCOTUS just assumed it only applied to white men. Right?
@no1marauder saidYou are ignoring history to support your fairy tale. An invasion of SC almost happened before the civil war and it was about tariffs. States seceded and the reason they gave were constitutional reasons. Lincoln ignored the constitution and SC pointed it out in an attempt to avoid being invaded. They couldn't do that using tariffs as the reason because they were considered constitutional. Slavery however was constitutional even though it should not have been.
Tariffs were not the cause of secession. No new ones had been imposed by Lincoln because he wasn't even President when most of the CSA seceded.
You're spouting an ahistorical fairy tale.
Tariffs were the main reason for the northern invasion of the south. Slavery was just a better legal reason for leaving the union. It was ruled constitutional by SCOTUS with Dread/Scot. It had legal standing, but Lincoln rejected law and the constitution.
Lincoln was a horrible dictator who had no respect for the constitution and didn't really care about black people. He was a racist that wanted to end slavery by deporting them to Africa.
@Metal-Brain saidTheir crime was secession, not invading anyone. Stupid.
Prove the south invaded the north and I will shut up.....stupid!
@Metal-Brain saidStop lying!
You are ignoring history to support your fairy tale. An invasion of SC almost happened before the civil war and it was about tariffs. States seceded and the reason they gave were constitutional reasons. Lincoln ignored the constitution and SC pointed it out in an attempt to avoid being invaded. They couldn't do that using tariffs as the reason because they were considered ...[text shortened]... lly care about black people. He was a racist that wanted to end slavery by deporting them to Africa.
@spruce112358 saidNo, it is not the same idea, at all. Not even close.
Britain has left the European Union, so I don’t think IN GENERAL it is an outlandish idea for states to retain the right to secede from their associations. Europe did not declare war to keep Britain in. 😆
I know the EU is different, but it’s the same idea.
1. Britain did not fire any shots at the EU.
2. Britain invoked an exit clause in the treaty.
There is no 'exit clause' in the American Constitution. The southern states engaged in insurrection, not a lawful exit from a treaty.
@Metal-Brain saidNo, I'm not.
You are talking about a SCOTUS decision that upheld slavery.
Where in the constitution does it say negros are not people?
Nothing in the constitution omits Africans from being free people. SCOTUS just assumed it only applied to white men. Right?
Why is it soooooooooooooooooooooooo hard for you idiots to just follow a link and actually read it?
@Metal-Brain saidThe brouhaha about tariffs with South Carolina was almost 30 years before the Civil War.
You are ignoring history to support your fairy tale. An invasion of SC almost happened before the civil war and it was about tariffs. States seceded and the reason they gave were constitutional reasons. Lincoln ignored the constitution and SC pointed it out in an attempt to avoid being invaded. They couldn't do that using tariffs as the reason because they were considered ...[text shortened]... lly care about black people. He was a racist that wanted to end slavery by deporting them to Africa.
You're just making s**t up; the Southern States gave their reasons and it was all about slavery. They even put in the CSA Constitution a provision mandating that any State in the CSA and any territory added must have slavery.
And you pathetic moron, Lincoln could hardly enact tariffs BEFORE he was President but that's when 7 States seceded.
And, of course, the CSA attacked the US first, not the other way around.
@no1marauder saidLincoln Was A Racist and the “Civil War” Was NOT About Slavery
No, I'm not.
Why is it soooooooooooooooooooooooo hard for you idiots to just follow a link and actually read it?
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/20/the-cause-of-the-so-called-civil-war/
You have been indoctrinated with a false narrative of history. The War to Save the Union had nothing whatsoever to do with ending slavery is totally clear from everything Lincoln said prior to his presidency and during his presidency. The evidence is overwhelming. Consult the War Aims Resolution, Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln’s debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, the Corwin Amendment, the Emancipation Proclamation.
You see, you need to read something other than you conformation bias. History is often suppressed by omission, but important parts of history have to be suppressed by lies. The civil war is one of those. Congress authorized the president to use military force against SC decades BEFORE the civil war and that had nothing to do with slavery. It had everything to do with tariffs.
@Metal-Brain saidSecession was about slavery.
Lincoln Was A Racist and the “Civil War” Was NOT About Slavery
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/20/the-cause-of-the-so-called-civil-war/
You have been indoctrinated with a false narrative of history. The War to Save the Union had nothing whatsoever to do with ending slavery is totally clear from everything Lincoln said prior to his presidency and during his ...[text shortened]... BEFORE the civil war and that had nothing to do with slavery. It had everything to do with tariffs.
The Civil War was about preserving the Union AFTER it was attacked by rebels.
Those are really simple facts that Lost Causers continually lie about.
@no1marauder saidOnce again, they could not make it about tariffs because tariffs were constitutional. If you want to make a constitutional argument to avoid being invaded you pick something Lincoln is doing that is unconstitutional.
The brouhaha about tariffs with South Carolina was almost 30 years before the Civil War.
You're just making s**t up; the Southern States gave their reasons and it was all about slavery. They even put in the CSA Constitution a provision mandating that any State in the CSA and any territory added must have slavery.
And you pathetic moron, Lincoln could hardly enact ta ...[text shortened]... when 7 States seceded.
And, of course, the CSA attacked the US first, not the other way around.
Southern States gave their reasons and it was all about the constitution and how Lincoln was violating it. Unfortunately tariffs were considered constitutional to impose on your own states in the union for some reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations
@Metal-Brain saidPaul Craig Roberts is a right wing economist, not a historian, who happens to be a Holocaust denier and admirer of Hitler:
Lincoln Was A Racist and the “Civil War” Was NOT About Slavery
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/20/the-cause-of-the-so-called-civil-war/
You have been indoctrinated with a false narrative of history. The War to Save the Union had nothing whatsoever to do with ending slavery is totally clear from everything Lincoln said prior to his presidency and during his ...[text shortened]... BEFORE the civil war and that had nothing to do with slavery. It had everything to do with tariffs.
"The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.
Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. "
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/05/15/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/
The whole article is filled with despicable lies; it's no surprise he's an admirer of the CSA.
@no1marauder saidTake your own advice and read.
Secession was about slavery.
The Civil War was about preserving the Union AFTER it was attacked by rebels.
Those are really simple facts that Lost Causers continually lie about.
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/20/the-cause-of-the-so-called-civil-war/
@Metal-Brain saidYou continually saying something without a shred of evidence to support it doesn't make it so.
Once again, they could not make it about tariffs because tariffs were constitutional. If you want to make a constitutional argument to avoid being invaded you pick something Lincoln is doing that is unconstitutional.
Southern States gave their reasons and it was all about the constitution and how Lincoln was violating it. Unfortunately tariffs were considered constitut ...[text shortened]... ur own states in the union for some reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations
A tariff passed in 1828(!) didn't cause the Civil War.