It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Originally posted by relpobre000
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
Most of what you just said doesn't make any sense whatsoever. CT, NJ, etc. are all a part of the Union. It's the same principle. The Civil War was, largely, a political power struggle between the federal government and the sovereignty of the South. I think you need to hit the history books because it's true what they say: It tends to repeat itself.
You are too simple minded to understand something as complex as this and should not be participating in a convo of this proportion. You've proven my point with, "Southern Sovereignty" as the South has no right to sovereignty when it violated the basic human rights of African Americans. states do retain sovereign rights yes, but when it interferes or threatens to tear the nation apart the only soveriegnty that matters is that of The United States Of America and that is that.
you are being rather disingenuous. Lincoln made it very clear while running for office and re-expressed it in his first inaguarl address that he
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Second, no slave was freed until the Emancipation Proclamation, which only "freed" the slaves in southern control territories
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
The entire mantra of the Confederacy was to keep slaves and that was that and when The US Federal Government outlawed slavery and criminalized owning slaves a bunch of rich, white southern plantation owners got together and got a bunch of poor, disinfranchised Southerners to fight their war for them. They used the backwoods people the same way they did the slaves as that would mean that they'd have to start paying their slaves which by orders of the law reclassified them from slaves to employees and that cut into their pocketbooks who treated and saw them both like second class citizens. I know my history it is you who does not so suggest you reread yours.
True, Lincoln did not believe in the right of a State to secede from the Union, however the men who actually WROTE the document did. If they didn't then the whole notion of a Deceleration of Independence was hogwash.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Don't really think a link is required for that bit
Lincolns argument that the Union was established before the Constitution and as such made it somehow unbreakable is not logical.
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
Even while making the argument that it is unbreakable he uses the Declaration of Independence to show how it was improved upon
If they do pop off on some yipyap make no mistake everything will fall on Austin and have every other state looking at them asking "What's good?". We will not target DC or any other state for that matter as you engage the cause for Martial law in America.edit on 26-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Alien Abduct
reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN
So if they can't search then how do you expect them to find the bombs? How are they supposed to insure our safety?
If they didn't sea?rch there would be people demanding these searches especially after a a few more 9/11's.
If anyone has any other alternative idea to these searches that would be just as effective, then please be my guest and post your idea here in this thread. If not then your whining about it is pointless.
Originally posted by aceto
This is only found on one very questionable website..