Who flies this flag?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby MinnesotaDan » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:12 am

I can't believe people are still ignorant to fly that garbage.
Nobody cares about your season totals.
User avatar
MinnesotaDan
hunter
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:33 am
Location: Out Here


Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby WTN10 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:25 am

Your status as a Mohawk slayer will not save you.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby clampdaddy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:37 am

MODuckkiller wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:States can not join or split without congressional approval while they are part of the union, but if they secede then no such approval would be necessary.

So you really believe it's really just a club and not a union? You can just walk out on the contract at any time you want. There is no way that is a stable nation....

Clamp is right. Both sides of the case can be argued and neither one would be wrong.
This is an excerpt taken from a White House affiliated website titled "We the People" which I found clearer, and more concise on the website "DecodedScience".
"The constitution is completely silent on the issue of a state leaving the union. As many legal documents do, the omission leaves both sides of the argument to say the constitution supports their point of view. Those who favor the secession of a state say that states can decide to separate because the U.S. Constitution does not expressly forbid it. Those opposed to breaking up the country argue that since the constitution does not expressly provide for a state to leave the union, a state has no legal right to secede from the United States.
Despite how horrific Obama’s re-election is to those people who are demanding their state secede from the U.S., this is not the first time states have tried to secede. Texas attempted to leave the union just prior to the Civil War. And as keen observers will note, Texas is still one of the United States of America.
"

@ Spinner- Your first mistake was assuming we're in a stable nation.

To add to this, the allowance of states to enter the union under the expressed written condition that they be allowed to leave if the so desire in fact does set a presidence that secession is possible without going against the constitution.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby TheSkunk » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:39 am

slowshooter wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/opinion/obeidallah-confederate-flag/index.html

People that are dumb. Or people that don't want to be citizens of the USA.

Dumb is incurable. But if you hate the USA, flights leaving the country happen every few minutes.



The Civil War had NOTHING to do with Slavery.
Dozens of other nations practiced slavery and warring over abolition is something ONLY the USA did.
Martial law was employed by Lincoln the tyrant, and was basically to abolish/usurp States Rights and annex them via The almight, all powerful Federal Govt in D.C.
Its also interesting that slave auctions were cancelled IF they fell on a Jewish holiday, thats how controlled the industry was.

Image

General Grant sought to expel all Jews for their role in the 'Civil War' and the carpet bagging practices.
Image



In truth, more Irish Catholics were enslaved in North America than blacks from 1600-1700. But thats the story the establishment doesnt want heard or told.





The Forgotten Slaves
by Michael A. Hoffman II ©Copyright 1999. All Rights Reserved

Two years ago, Prime Minister Paul Keating of Australia refused to show "proper respect" to Britain's Queen Elizabeth II during her state visit. In response, Terry Dicks, a Conservative member of the British Parliament said, "It's a country of ex-convicts, so we should not be surprised by the rudeness of their prime minister."

A slur such as this would be considered unthinkable if it were uttered against any other class or race of people except the descendants of White slavery. Dicks' remark is not only offensive, it is ignorant and false. Most of Australia's "convicts" were shipped into servitude for such "crimes" as stealing seven yards of lace, cutting trees on an aristocrat's estate or poaching sheep to feed a starving family.

The arrogant disregard for the holocaust visited upon the poor and working class Whites of Britain by the aristocracy continues in our time because the history of that epoch has been almost completely extirpated from our collective memory.

When White servitude is acknowledged as having existed in America, it is almost always termed as temporary "indentured servitude" or part of the convict trade, which, after the Revolution of 1776, centered on Australia instead of America. The "convicts" transported to America under the 1723 Waltham Act, perhaps numbered 100,000.

The indentured servants who served a tidy little period of 4 to 7 years polishing the master's silver and china and then taking their place in colonial high society, were a minuscule fraction of the great unsung hundreds of thousands of White slaves who were worked to death in this country from the early l7th century onward.

Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.

Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and wives sold and separated from their husbands. Free Black property owners strutted the streets of northern and southern American cities while White slaves were worked to death in the sugar mills of Barbados and Jamaica and the plantations of Virginia.

The Establishment has created the misnomer of "indentured servitude" to explain away and minimize the fact of White slavery. But bound Whites in early America called themselves slaves. Nine-tenths of the White slavery in America was conducted without indentures of any kind but according to the so-called "custom of the country," as it was known, which was lifetime slavery administered by the White slave merchants themselves.

In George Sandys laws for Virginia, Whites were enslaved "forever." The service of Whites bound to Berkeley's Hundred was deemed "perpetual." These accounts have been policed out of the much touted "standard reference works" such as Abbott Emerson Smith's laughable whitewash, Colonists in Bondage.

I challenge any researcher to study 17th century colonial America, sifting the documents, the jargon and the statutes on both sides of the Atlantic and one will discover that White slavery was a far more extensive operation than Black enslavement. It is when we come to the 18th century that one begins to encounter more "servitude" on the basis of a contract of indenture. But even in that period there was kidnapping of Anglo-Saxons into slavery as well as convict slavery.

In 1855, Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York's Central Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship's hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into the hold were Negroes, the men in the hold were Irish.

Olmsted inquired about this to a shipworker. "Oh," said the worker, "the niggers are worth too much to be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs broke, nobody loses anything."

Before British slavers traveled to Africa's western coast to buy Black slaves from African chieftains, they sold their own White working class kindred ("the surplus poor" as they were known) from the streets and towns of England, into slavery. Tens of thousands of these White slaves were kidnapped children. In fact the very origin of the word kidnapped is kid-nabbed, the stealing of White children for enslavement.

According to the English Dictionary of the Underworld, under the heading kidnapper is the following definition: "A stealer of human beings, esp. of children; originally for exportation to the plantations of North America."

The center of the trade in child-slaves was in the port cities of Britain and Scotland:

"Press gangs in the hire of local merchants roamed the streets, seizing 'by force such boys as seemed proper subjects for the slave trade.' Children were driven in flocks through the town and confined for shipment in barns...So flagrant was the practice that people in the countryside about Aberdeen avoided bringing children into the city for fear they might be stolen; and so widespread was the collusion of merchants, shippers, suppliers and even magistrates that the man who exposed it was forced to recant and run out of town." (Van der Zee, Bound Over, p. 210).

White slaves transported to the colonies suffered a staggering loss of life in the 17th and 18th century. During the voyage to America it was customary to keep the White slaves below deck for the entire nine to twelve week journey. A White slave would be confined to a hole not more than sixteen feet long, chained with 50 other men to a board, with padlocked collars around their necks. The weeks of confinement below deck in the ship's stifling hold often resulted in outbreaks of contagious disease which would sweep through the "cargo" of White "freight" chained in the bowels of the ship.

Ships carrying White slaves to America often lost half their slaves to death. According to historian Sharon V. Salinger, "Scattered data reveal that the mortality for [White] servants at certain times equaled that for [Black] slaves in the 'middle passage,' and during other periods actually exceeded the death rate for [Black] slaves." Salinger reports a death rate of ten to twenty percent over the entire 18th century for Black slaves on board ships enroute to America compared with a death rate of 25% for White slaves enroute to America.

Foster R. Dulles writing in Labor in America: A History, states that whether convicts, children 'spirited' from the countryside or political prisoners, White slaves "experienced discomforts and sufferings on their voyage across the Atlantic that paralleled the cruel hardships undergone by negro slaves on the notorious Middle Passage."

Dulles says the Whites were "indiscriminately herded aboard the 'white guineamen,' often as many as 300 passengers on little vessels of not more than 200 tons burden--overcrowded, unsanitary...The mortality rate was sometimes as high as 50% and young children seldom survived the horrors of a voyage which might last anywhere from seven to twelve weeks."

Independent investigator A.B. Ellis in the Argosy writes concerning the transport of White slaves, "The human cargo, many of whom were still tormented by unhealed wounds, could not all lie down at once without lying on each other. They were never suffered to go on deck. The hatchway was constantly watched by sentinels armed with hangers and blunder busses. In the dungeons below all was darkness, stench, lamentation, disease and death."

Marcus Jernegan describes the greed of the shipmasters which led to horrendous loss of life for White slaves transported to America:

"The voyage over often repeated the horrors of the famous 'middle passage' of slavery fame. An average cargo was three hundred, but the shipmaster, for greater profit, would sometimes crowd as many as six hundred into a small vessel...The mortality under such circumstances was tremendous, sometimes more than half...Mittelberger (an eyewitness) says he saw thirty-two children thrown into the ocean during one voyage."

"The mercantile firms, as importers of (White) servants, were not too careful about their treatment, as the more important purpose of the transaction was to get ships over to South Carolina which could carry local produce back to Europe. Consequently the Irish--as well as others--suffered greatly...

"It was almost as if the British merchants had redirected their vessels from the African coast to the Irish coast, with the white servants coming over in much the same fashion as the African slaves." (Warren B. Smith, White Servitude in Colonial South Carolina).

A study of the middle passage of White slaves was included in a Parliamentary Petition of 1659. It reported that White slaves were locked below deck for two weeks while the slaveship was still in port. Once under way, they were "all the way locked up under decks...amongst horses." They were chained from their legs to their necks.

Those academics who insist that slavery is an exclusively Black racial condition forget or deliberately omit the fact that the word slave originally was a reference to Whites of East European origin - "Slavs."

Moreover, in the 18th century in Britain and America, the Industrial Revolution spawned the factory system whose first laborers were miserably oppressed White children as young as six years of age. They were locked in the factories for sixteen hours a day and mangled by the primitive machinery. Hands and arms were regularly ripped to pieces. Little girls often had their hair caught in the machinery and were scalped from their foreheads to the back of their necks.

White Children wounded and crippled in the factories were turned out without compensation of any kind and left to die of their injuries. Children late to work or who fell asleep were beaten with iron bars. Lest we imagine these horrors were limited to only the early years of the Industrial Revolution, eight and ten year old White children throughout America were hard at work in miserable factories and mines as late as 1920.

Because of the rank prostitution, stupidity and cowardice of America's teachers and educational system, White youth are taught that Black slaves, Mexican peons and Chinese coolies built this country while the vast majority of the Whites lorded it over them with a lash in one hand and a mint julep in the other.

The documentary record tells a very different story, however. When White Congressman David Wilmot authored the Wilmot Proviso to keep Black slaves out of the American West he did so, he said, to preserve that vast expanse of territory for "the sons of toil, my own race and color."

This is precisely what most White people in America were, "sons of toil," performing backbreaking labor such as few of us today can envision. They had no paternalistic welfare system; no Freedman's Bureau to coo sweet platitudes to them; no army of bleeding hearts to worry over their hardships. These Whites were the expendable frontline soldiers in the expansion of the American frontier. They won the country, felled the trees, cleared and planted the land.

The wealthy, educated White elite in America are the sick heirs of what Charles Dickens in Bleak House termed "telescopic philanthropy"--the concern for the condition of distant peoples while the plight of kindred in one's own backyard are ignored.

Today much of what we see on "Turner Television" and Pat Robertson's misnamed "Family Channel," are TV films depicting Blacks in chains, Blacks being whipped, Blacks oppressed. Nowhere can we find a cinematic chronicle of the Whites who were beaten and killed in White slavery. Four-fifths of the White slaves sent to Britain's sugar colonies in the West Indies did not survive their first year.

Soldiers in the American Revolution and sailors impressed into the American navy received upwards of two hundred whiplashes for minor infractions. But no TV show lifts the shirt of these White yeoman to reveal the scars on their backs.

The Establishment would rather weep over the poor persecuted Negroes, but leave the White working class "rednecks" and "crackers" (both of these terms of derision were first applied to White slaves), to live next door to the Blacks.

Little has changed since the early 1800s when the men of property and station of the English Parliament outlawed Black slavery throughout the Empire. While this Parliament was in session to enact this law, ragged five year old White orphan boys, beaten, starved and whipped, were being forced up the chimneys of the English parliament, to clean them. Sometimes the chimney masonry collapsed on these boys. Other times they suffocated to death inside their narrow smoke channels.

Long after Blacks were free throughout the British Empire, the British House of Lords refused to abolish chimney-sweeping by White children under the age of ten. The Lords contended that to do so would interfere with "property rights." The lives of the White children were not worth a farthing and were considered no subject for humanitarian concern.

The chronicle of White slavery in America comprises the dustiest shelf in the darkest corner of suppressed American history. Should the truth about that epoch ever emerge into the public consciousness of Americans, the whole basis for the swindle of "Affirmative action," "minority set-asides" and proposed "Reparations to African-Americans" will be swept away. The fact is, the White working people of this country owe no one. They are themselves the descendants, as Congressman Wilmot so aptly said, of "the sons of toil."

There will only be racial peace when knowledge of radical historical truths are widespread and both sides negotiate from positions of strength and not from fantasies of White working class guilt and the uniqueness of Black suffering.

Let it be said, in many cases Blacks in slavery had it better than poor Whites in the antebellum South. This is why there was such strong resistance to the Confederacy in the poverty-stricken areas of the mountain south, such as Winston County in Alabama and the Beech mountains of North Carolina. Those poor Whites could not imagine why any White laborer would want to die for the slave-owning plutocracy that more often than not, gave better care and attention to their Black servants than they did to the free white labor they scorned as "trash."

To this day, the White ruling class denigrates the White poor and patronizes Blacks.

If this seems admirable from the pathological viewpoint of Marxism or cosmopolitan liberalism, the Black and Third World "beneficiaries" of White ruling class "esteem" ought to consider what sort of "friends" they actually have.

The Bible declares that the man who does not take care of his own family is "worse than an infidel." This also applies to one's racial kindred. The man who neglects his own children to care for yours has true love for neither.

White, self-hating liberals and greed-head conservatives who claim to care for the "civil rights" of Black and Third World people, discard the working class of their own people on the garbage heap of history. When they are finished with their own they shall surely turn on others.

Those who care for their own kind first are not practicing "hate" but kindness, which is the very root of the word.
TheSkunk
hunter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:33 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby Einstein » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:45 am

beretta24 wrote:
Einstein wrote:Let me throw this out. Being from a former confederate state, and growing up in a time long gone by, I feel I have some horse in this race. To most, not all, but some, it is a sign of their heritage; a symbol of a group of people that against all odds stood up to a government that, for all intensive purposes, oppressed them as much as a British government a century earlier. I, personally, do not fly the flag nor have stickers of it, so forth. However, I do not feel those people that do are traitors, or racist, or so on. Also, with an advanced degree in American History, I must chime in and say I do 100% agree that the civil war WAS over slavery. It did not start that way, however when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation it became over slavery. That is exactly what Lincoln wanted it to be about, as he knew the British would not intervene for Southerners if it were, as they had long abolished slavery.


Lincoln never entertained the slavery angle until well into the war. In fact, as I recall he stated as much as he ran for office the first time. Slavery became a means to gain an edge after living through a long and bloody war. I'm not proclaiming that he condoned slavery, as he was clearly against it's expansion into the northern states, but the war didn't start over slavery. It started over money.



You're right. As I said, it didn't start over slavery, but it did become about slavery.
Einstein says: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Check out my build:
viewtopic.php?f=72&t=465930
User avatar
Einstein
hunter
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:51 pm
Location: Foothills, NC

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby TheSkunk » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:53 am

Einstein wrote:
beretta24 wrote:
Einstein wrote:Let me throw this out. Being from a former confederate state, and growing up in a time long gone by, I feel I have some horse in this race. To most, not all, but some, it is a sign of their heritage; a symbol of a group of people that against all odds stood up to a government that, for all intensive purposes, oppressed them as much as a British government a century earlier. I, personally, do not fly the flag nor have stickers of it, so forth. However, I do not feel those people that do are traitors, or racist, or so on. Also, with an advanced degree in American History, I must chime in and say I do 100% agree that the civil war WAS over slavery. It did not start that way, however when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation it became over slavery. That is exactly what Lincoln wanted it to be about, as he knew the British would not intervene for Southerners if it were, as they had long abolished slavery.


Lincoln never entertained the slavery angle until well into the war. In fact, as I recall he stated as much as he ran for office the first time. Slavery became a means to gain an edge after living through a long and bloody war. I'm not proclaiming that he condoned slavery, as he was clearly against it's expansion into the northern states, but the war didn't start over slavery. It started over money.


Not really.
The North (some states) was employing slavery at the time, and many Southern States had stopped this practice.
But of course Whites were being used as so called 'indentured servants' sentenced over Usurious debt and had to 'work off' their debt with decade plus of servitute, they were treated far worse than blacks who required an investment of some sort.
Their children were also property chattel. Wonder why Alex Haley omitted this.
His publisher Simon and Schusterstein might not have given him such a large bonus were it mentioned.

Many blacks owned slaves, including white slaves, in fact the first slave owner was a black man. But lets not let facts get in the way of an arguement.
TheSkunk
hunter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:33 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby TheSkunk » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:57 am

• American slavery got its start in the North

• the American abolition movement began in the South

• most Southern generals did not own slaves, and many, like Robert E. Lee, were abolitionists

• many Northern generals, like U.S. Grant, owned slaves and said they would not fight for abolition

• according to the 1860 Census a mere 4.8 percent of Southerners owned slaves, 95.2 percent did not, 75% of Jews owned slaves.

• Abraham Lincoln was a white separatist who wanted to send all blacks “back to Africa”

• Jefferson Davis adopted a black boy and freed Southern slaves before the North did

• Lincoln was not against slavery, he was against the spread of slavery

• Lincoln supported the idea of corralling African-Americans in their own all-black state

• true slavery was never practiced in the South

• Lincoln “won” both the 1860 and 1864 elections with less than 50 percent of the American vote

• Lincoln was a big government liberal, Davis was a small government conservative

• there were tens of thousands of both black and Native-American slave owners

• Lincoln started the Civil War, not the South

the North fought to “preserve the Union,” not to abolish slavery

• the South fought to uphold the original Constitution, not to maintain slavery

• it would have cost ten times less to free the slaves and reimburse their owners than fight the War


• the Northern armies were racially segregated, the Southern armies were racially integrated

• after emancipation 95 percent of all blacks voluntarily remained in the South

• between 300,000 and 1 million African-Americans fought for the Confederacy

• Europe would have supported the South but she was scared off by Lincoln’s war threats

• Northern prisons had higher death rates than Southern ones

• the original Ku Klux Klan was an anti-Yankee organization with thousands of black members

• “Reconstruction” was a dismal failure, which is why the South is still recovering from the War
TheSkunk
hunter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:33 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby TheSkunk » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:04 am

Slavery was a northern institution
The North held slaves for over two centuries
The North abolished slavery only just before the Civil War
The North dominated the slave trade
The North built its economy around slavery
The North industrialized with slave-picked cotton and the profits from slavery
Slavery was a national institution
Slavery was practiced by all thirteen colonies
Slavery was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and practiced by all thirteen original states
The slave trade was permitted by the federal government until 1808
Federal laws protected slavery and assisted slave owners in retrieving runaway slaves
The Union was deeply divided over slavery until the end of the Civil War
TheSkunk
hunter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:33 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:14 am

I have a belly button.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby TheSkunk » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:17 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
assateague wrote:This is only true if you believe that a state has no right to secede. As soon as you show me where any of our founding documents state that, I'll agree with your statement.
You presume that the burden of proof resides with the others to prove it. Why don't you prove that they have a right to secede? You show me where any of our founding documents state that, and I'll agree. :yes:

I just don't think there is a right to secede. The process should have been spelled out clearly and I actually think it is.


You are not educated on history or historical truths and documents.
There is an absolute Right for States To secede. per our Founders.


Before the War Between the States so called 'Civil' War, a constitutional amendment was proposed by Northern congressmen to prohibit secession, and then points out there would been have no point in offering this amendment if secession were already unconstitutional.


At a 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction.
The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”


The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution would have never been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.


Additionally, As the Declaration lays out, our nation is founded – and grounded – on the notion that individuals are the real sovereigns. They are sovereigns in themselves, which is a “self-evident truth” (meaning that no government has to explain this; nature has made it so). As such, individuals have the “unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
And thus we see the great explanation given by Thomas Jefferson in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence of our fundamental rights and our foundation of government:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.”

The Declaration gave the colonies a reason to fight the Revolutionary War for their independence. The Declaration gave the States a reason to form a limited and federal government. It is the reason why our Founders and the States placed such an emphasis on the Compact Theory.'
TheSkunk
hunter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:33 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby clampdaddy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:55 am

TheSkunk wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
assateague wrote:This is only true if you believe that a state has no right to secede. As soon as you show me where any of our founding documents state that, I'll agree with your statement.
You presume that the burden of proof resides with the others to prove it. Why don't you prove that they have a right to secede? You show me where any of our founding documents state that, and I'll agree. :yes:

I just don't think there is a right to secede. The process should have been spelled out clearly and I actually think it is.


You are not educated on history or historical truths and documents.
There is an absolute Right for States To secede. per our Founders.


Before the War Between the States so called 'Civil' War, a constitutional amendment was proposed by Northern congressmen to prohibit secession, and then points out there would been have no point in offering this amendment if secession were already unconstitutional.


At a 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction.
The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”


The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution would have never been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.


Additionally, As the Declaration lays out, our nation is founded – and grounded – on the notion that individuals are the real sovereigns. They are sovereigns in themselves, which is a “self-evident truth” (meaning that no government has to explain this; nature has made it so). As such, individuals have the “unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
And thus we see the great explanation given by Thomas Jefferson in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence of our fundamental rights and our foundation of government:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.”

The Declaration gave the colonies a reason to fight the Revolutionary War for their independence. The Declaration gave the States a reason to form a limited and federal government. It is the reason why our Founders and the States placed such an emphasis on the Compact Theory.'

But at least Spinner can say that he is not a plagiarist.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby TheSkunk » Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:01 pm

clampdaddy wrote:But at least Spinner can say that he is not a plagiarist.


There are quotations at the end of my post. Additionally, Thomas Jefferson & James Madison are/ is quoted and named.
But thanks for your remark all the same, Mr Obvious.
Ill be sure to get up real early in the am if I hope to fool you.
TheSkunk
hunter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:33 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:47 pm

TheSkunk wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
assateague wrote:This is only true if you believe that a state has no right to secede. As soon as you show me where any of our founding documents state that, I'll agree with your statement.
You presume that the burden of proof resides with the others to prove it. Why don't you prove that they have a right to secede? You show me where any of our founding documents state that, and I'll agree. :yes:

I just don't think there is a right to secede. The process should have been spelled out clearly and I actually think it is.


You are not educated on history or historical truths and documents.
There is an absolute Right for States To secede. per our Founders.
I said I do not know. But if what you said is true, it is easy to provide the links :fingerhead:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16199
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby clampdaddy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:49 pm

TheSkunk wrote: .....Additionally, Thomas Jefferson & James Madison are/ is quoted and named....


It was mighty white of Norm Fowler to do that. You really jewed him.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby Indaswamp » Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:55 pm

guys, TheSkunk was previously banned AdienK....he's gone.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57501
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby wanapasaki » Wed Oct 30, 2013 4:56 pm

Indaswamp wrote:guys, TheSkunk was previously banned AdienK....he's gone.


:clapping: What do you think will be his new Alias? Bets anyone?
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2472
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby MODuckkiller » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:35 pm

As I said earlier, and if your opinion differs from mine, then that's fine, but my understanding of the Civil War was that State's Rights had just as much a part of that war as slavery did, maybe even more so.



That or rats, not sure. :lol3:

Not saying a movie is a credible source either, that particular clip just came to mind.

GREAT movie by the way.
MIZ
-MODuckkiller
User avatar
MODuckkiller
hunter
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Missouri, Louisiana

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby clampdaddy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:39 pm

wanapasaki wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:guys, TheSkunk was previously banned AdienK....he's gone.


:clapping: What do you think will be his new Alias? Bets anyone?

Jewy Judenberg. :thumbsup:
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:15 pm

Judge Jewdy Justice is my guess.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6654
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby wanapasaki » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:27 pm

The South will rise again!
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2472
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:31 pm

wanapasaki wrote:The South will rise again!

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57501
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:24 pm

wanapasaki wrote:The South will rise again!

fast forward to the 0:44 mark...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57501
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby MODuckkiller » Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:26 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:The South will rise again!


Great song.
MIZ
-MODuckkiller
User avatar
MODuckkiller
hunter
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Missouri, Louisiana

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:27 pm

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57501
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby wanapasaki » Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:58 pm

Indaswamp wrote:


I got to meet Charlie at Ft. Leonard-wood Missouri. Nice guy!
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2472
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests