I have posted this before, but here is patriotism that was in a country that was much closer to what he described than US ever was:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfEezXJ7IyQ
I have posted this before, but here is patriotism that was in a country that was much closer to what he described than US ever was:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfEezXJ7IyQ
I don't think that just because a person didn't personally own slaves at that time meant they weren't against abolition. Never underestimate the power of racism or of wanting to know that there's someone out there that's less than you are, or fearing change, or fearing having to compete for wages with newly freed slaves. I honestly don't have data on hand to back this up, or the time to really research it fully at the moment, but I don't think you can say that just because only the wealthiest 10% of white men owned slaves that it automatically meant that the rest of the white male southern population were no more for or against slavery than the population in the North.
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
I would disagree with that. While the direct cause of the civil war was the secession and attack on Fort Sumter. Slavery was a major factor in bringing the country to that point. Politicians had been "kicking the can" down the road on Slavery since 1787. A final reckoning was inevitable. Now I am not talking about racism. I'm talking about the institution of Slavery.
I don't see anything actually wrong with secession. Whatever the legality and feasibility of it might be. What I see wrong is their justifications. They just don't hold up to any sort of serious examination.
Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.
Sure, I see a similarity, I see 3 pictures with similar shading, what I dont see is the link you are attempting to infer, with your slanderous, dishonest posting.
Might I remind you of the following... the Slaves were freed by a Republican.... the KKK supported the Democrats for more than 100 years... Segregation was brought back into style by a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson... it was Democrats that passed Jim Crowe laws over the objections of Republicans.... a Democrat, who was Ku Klux Klan grand dragon was a US senator until 2010 when he died.
Or do you want that in pictures?
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
The 10% doesn't really mean much, when we have tax cuts on the wealthy being supported by nearly half the country. That's 1-5% being supported by the vote of those who are not part of that percentage. The biggest issue was slaves, be it the imagined threat of the south and not actual action after the war, but the crux of all issues... From new state appropriation to economy, the crux involved the assumption that an abolitionist would abolish slavery.
Yeah. I think it's impossible to say the civil war was about anything other than slavery, in the guise of states rights.
Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
Because it's illegal. Any state joining the Union obeys by the federal laws of the Union. Hence why joining should not be done without thinking properly.
The funny part is, that it's those who want to leave try to use the constitution to justify their decision, yet the very constitution prohibits secession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessi..._United_States
The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
Wikipedia as a reference source? REALLY?!
From the link posted. I am sure the Supreme Court uses this as reference to define whether secession is legal or not:
So, if the USA says, farewell, don't let the door hit you on your way out. You can leave.... If the USA says nope, not gonna happen, you cannot leave. Unless you start a revolution..Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions reads: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. Some of the movements to partition states have or do identify themselves as "secessionist" movements.