The Twin Pillars that Trump's presidency relies on

It was an amendment, not ratified. Lincoln mentioned it in his inagurual address, sure. You negate the hail mary aspect of the timing. It is of no interest to you and your opinion that seems so desperately predicated that the war wasn't about slavery. 3/4s of the States are required to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution. The Confederacy didn't give it a thought, because they knew it wasn't going to happen.

No more insane than your proposition that the Confederacy went to war to protect the entire Constitution when it was only the continuous attack by the north on the slavery related portions of it that they were incensed by. Both of the SCOTUS cases you cite were about slavery. Nothing else. As my brothers would say, ****** please....

The "southern states" were not among the plaintiffs in either case.

No, those states which decided to violate their oath and commitment to the Constitution and more importantly to the concept of the United States, could have instead honored that commitment as the greater imperative by recognizing that the institution of slavery they supported was against all of the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded. They could have done this instead of seceding because, god forbid, Lincoln won the election. That was the spark, and slavery was the cause.

The day the US demands my guns under the penalty of a felony offense I will likely turn them in.

Wolfpack then, or more likely Puke. Good For You. You didn't answer my question which wasn't why your anti-black / pro-white shtick is important. My question was all about how far down the white rabbit hole you've apparently fallen. Don't like Jordan, fine. How far has your position carried you toward hating folk for the color of their skin? For being criminalized for being black, a corollary of the 13th Amendment, by the way. No Denzel for you eh? **** Training Day, it got dat damn negro actor in it. I'm serious here, by the way, because I know quite a few of your kind that love them some Jimi Hendrix and still spout off this racist bullshit. I'm addressing a position of yours earlier in this thread wherein you asked what all our diversity has gotten us. I could go on for quite a bit, and apparently all you acknowledge is open heart surgery. How about the gals profiled in Hidden Numbers? It is a false metric regardless, that our Black Americans have to substantiate their membership by proof of exceptionalism. How about a link to your wikipedia page, then, eh?

 

On what grounds do you come to the conclusion it wouldn’t have been ratified when 5 Union states actually ratified (only 2 of whom were slaveholding border states) and 11 southern states could have done so but chose not to. That puts the number at 16. It’s a certainty the other three border states would have passed it, putting the number at 19 and only needing 25 signatures to ratify. On what grounds do you assert that they couldn’t have got 6 states out of 14 to ratify when those EXACT same states had put forth representatives who passed the Corwin amendment to begin with?

It doesn’t MATTER what part of the constitution you’re violating. If you refuse to cease you have ZERO grounds whatsoever to then assert the other side isn’t allowed to violate it as well. That’s preposterous.

That’s irrelevant. The actions of the north and federal government were declared unconstitutional. They have an OBLIGATION to cease. Which they refused. Lincoln even OPENLY announced he would be continuing to enforce the requirement that a territory be non slaveholding as a prerequisite of entry in DIRECT violation of the SCOTUS decision.

If they don’t have to follow the constitution, why does the south?

So your assertion is they should have conceded that the federal government and union states can simply declare a portion of the constitution to be immoral and refuse to uphold it even in the face of direct judgments of unconstitutionality by the SCOTUS? Then the constitution becomes completely irrelevant and the ONLY authority it has is that which it is allowed to have by the government. If you actually believe that then you’re doing nothing but obfuscating a fascist ideology under the guise of moral superiority.

Then you deserve exactly what you get afterwards. He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security will receive none and deserves neither. Our forefathers and my ancestors fought and died to institute that constitution and the ideals set forth within so that tyrants can’t control and use weak, scared men who are more concerned with their safety guaranteed by the government than their freedoms granted by God, to violate the fundamental freedoms which they died for.

Whether you or I or ANYONE else likes it or not...by ANY objective measure you would like to use, the black population being freed from slavery and integrated into society has done FAR more harm than good. You can talk about all of the food and music and movies you wanna talk about.

What you can’t talk about are things that matter. You can’t talk about the crime rate. You can’t talk about social, scientific, technological, military, and societal level advancements and contributions. You can’t talk about gross level of drug abuse, single parent homes, foster children, abortions, spousal abuse and rampant gang activity. You can’t talk about the TRILLIONS of dollars pumped into their schools and communities which have netted us nothing but piss poor grades, an entitlement mentality and hateful rhetoric to the people who gave them those funds in the first place. You can’t talk about the dozens of local, state and federal programs that EXPLICITLY benefit them at the exclusion of whites. You can’t talk about the fact that out of 600,000 violent interracial felonies between blacks and whites committed, blacks were the offenders in 90%... let me say that again... NINETY PERCENT of them.

See you can’t talk about those things because you’re so inundated with politically correct emotional bullshit that you refuse to address actual issues and instead talk about ****ing actors and musicians and sports figures as their great contributions to society. Absolutely pathetic.

 

Yep, places like Britain and Australia are tyrannies aren't they.

 

As has been mentioned around here, it really requires a lot of work to smack down trash such as you offer on this subject.

Therefore, I'll just be giving this piece of your bullshit attention for the moment.

As of the 1860 Census there were 34 states.

At the time of the Corwin amendment that you are so in love with, 11 states +/- some marginal timing issues were no longer participating in the United States.

Their secession however was not acknowledged, which left the count at 34.

3/4's to ratify the amendment is 25.5 states, so that means 26 are required and 11 are no longer participating - get it?

So of the 34, with 11 having removed themselves from the process, there is no way to have reached 26.

Even with the 5 that actually ratified it, the best that could have been achieved was 23 ratifications.

Interesting that you've not delved into the Constitutional legalities of the Civil War that you claim was fought over the Constitution.

Ah, no, boring is perhaps what it is.....

I've shredded you this entire debate on this thread and when I find the time I'll shred the rest of your assertions....

Seriously, you assert the Corwin amendment would have been ratified when 11 states had already seceded and begun the first hostilities against the Union?

 

Wut

 

The question is not will a tyrant come into power. As history has proven that is an inevitability. The question becomes, when that tyrant comes into power will you have the ability to fight back?

 

You always do whether you have guns or not.

 

Lols Let’s address the factual in accuracies of your comment first. There were 33 states at the time of the 1860 census.

“The official enumeration day of the 1860 census was 1 June 1860. All questions asked were supposed to refer to that date. By 1860, there were a total of thirty-three states in the Union, with Minnesota and Oregon being the latest editions. There were no substantial state- or district-wide losses.”

Moreover only 7 States had seceded at that point, not 11.

But we’ll go with your uneducated numbers, because you’re still wrong lol... if the 11 states were not considered states then that only leaves 23 states.

Furthermore the idea that they couldn’t have signed is preposterous, given that the amendment was passed in the first place.

If your assertion is that they just WOULDN’T have signed it because the 7 had already seceded because it was “too late”; again that’s preposterous because at that point only SEVEN had seceded and those 7 had ZERO guarantee that anyone else would secede, making choosing war suicide and an impossible challenge to accept in the face of achieving their goal as you claim it was as opposed to simply signing the Corwin amendment.

You have absolutely zero grounds upon which to stand except for your emotionally charged bs again which is all you’ve been presenting.

 

No you don’t. Hence why tyrants always move to remove firearms from the populace as one of their first actions in nearly every case.

 

Sposed to be 22 not 23

 

Nope you still do.

 

North Korea, China, Russia, Venezuela.. once tyrant take power against an unarmed population, there is no going back.. one goon with a machine guns can keep a crowd under control, and one fighter jet can keep an entire city oppressed. If the Globalist ever figure out how to take our weapons, the entire world is doomed to oppression, the elite will take )even more than they do now) what ever they want, when they want, they want to rule like the 13th century peerage, they like your woman, they'll take her, use her and dump her and killyou if you resist and nothing will come of it (much as the democrats rule today!)

BTW it's the third anniversary of the Las Vegas massacre and we still have no answers to what the hell happened.

 

1 yep much of what the government does is guarantee that the poverty pimps will never have to find honest work. The dumbest idea ever was that government could win the war on poverty. All the incentives are in the wrong direction. Thus we get government job training programs that teach people skills that are no longer in demand. Hell the best of them don't do much more than teach you how to lie effectively on a resume. Reducing taxes grows jobs increases demand for labor and benefits workers. Increasing taxes and regulations adds to labor costs jobs without putting a dime in the working Man's pocket while simultaneously picking it.

2. The problem isn't diversity, it's importing whole sale lots of unskilled labor into a country with little demand for it there by creating a more or less permanent under class that makes sure that wages for unskilled workers remain flat. It is no accident that the minute Trump moved to close the southern border wages for unskilled workers began to climb.

 

What is the source of your quote?

Perhaps there is a conflict in the record.

The source I used for counting 34 states is this

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-02.pdf


So please post your source.

Either way, 33 or 34 states were the count.

The Constitution therefore required 25 or 26 states to ratify the amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment#Ratification_history

You are of course aware that ratifying a Constitutional amendment requires that it be passed just as a law is passed by the state government?

Of the five ratifications, the first was completed by KY 4/4/1861 and the last was completed by IL 6/2/1863.

Perhaps I am misreading your argument, or more likely you've not taken the time to compose it properly.

What is your estimate at which point 25 states would have completed ratification?

With 11 states having started a war with the United States?

Apparently the Confederate States suffered greatly from not having you there to advise them, "Hey, y'all, let's make sure we ratify this amendment."

Arguing that this congressional Hail Mary pass is proof that the Confederate states seceded in defense of the Constitution rather than the institution of slavery is of itself a big disingenuous, isn't it?

They seceded to defend the Constitution, as a Constitutional process to irrevocably encode slavery into permanent policy was in play?

Quite the wizard you are invoking the magikal Logik of the Ouroboros

 

Democrats have always used the courts to circumvent the Constitution. Until recently, they never admitted that they want to dictate which rights to allow Americans. In order to steal our rights and our stuff, they needed to stack the lower courts and own the majority in the supreme court. In 2013, Obama and Reid stacked the lower courts by nuking the Senate. All that was left to turn the US into a Communist state was a rubber stamp in the Supreme Court. Fortuitously or just about as fortuitously as the deaths of 40 people who had stuff on Clinton, Scalia suspiciously died. I support Trump to make sure the Constitution continues to stand.

 

Ok, I'll give another one a go.....

You shout MATTER and ZERO and claim victory, eh?

You cite one obscure and one well known SCOTUS case and then claim that violations resulting from these cases by free states justifies secession by the slave states.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania and Dred Scott v. Sanford and the Corwin amendment.

Is that all you've got?

To justify South Carolina's first act of war upon Fort Sumter 4/12/1861, 8 days after KY ratified the Corwin amendment, that you claim is proof that the Confederacy fought the war to defend the Constitution.

preposterous, indeed

When you argue violations by the North of the Constitution, why do you not include what I would think should be a first principle argument - that the North counted freed blacks as a full person rather than 3/5s a person?

From your point of view, wasn't it unconstitutional that three fifths of all other persons ever gained status as a free person?

Hmmm, another chunk of stuff that the great US Constitution of 1787 didn't quite dial in.

 

Ok, let's have some more fun, shall we?

You stated:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ency-relies-on.572727/page-15#post-1071718727


Yet now, we no longer agree apparently....

 

This has coalesced into one stanchion from my pov: The South Shall Rise Again. Led by a brat from Jamaica Queens NYC.