Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thanks to 'Lincoln,' Mississippi Has Finally Definitely Ratified the Thirteenth Amendment

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thanks to 'Lincoln,' Mississippi Has Finally Definitely Ratified the Thirteenth Amendment

    The state did vote to ratify the amendment back in 1995, nearly 20 years after Kentucky, the second-to-last state to ratify the amendment, held its vote. However, through an apparent clerical error, Mississippi never officially notified the United States Archivist of the ratification

     


    Congrats Mississippi, you've finally entered the 19th century!

     

    http://news.yahoo.com/thanks-lincoln-mississippi-finally-definitely-ratified-thirteenth-amendment-024920825.html

    __________________________________________________ _________
    Politics are like sports, where both teams suck

  • #2

    kicking and screaming all the way. 

    Comment


    • guido61
      guido61 commented
      Editing a comment

      Should have just let 'em seceed back in 1861.


  • #3

    A step backward for white civilization and 'culture'. 

    Comment


    • Alndln3
      Alndln3 commented
      Editing a comment

      I guess the last remaining slaves will have to get regular paid employment now.


    • nedezero1
      nedezero1 commented
      Editing a comment

      Zig al-din wrote:

      A step backward for white civilization and 'culture'. 


      There's way too many white people anyway.....


  • #4
    Emoney: That's pretty much what I'm saying. LOL

    Comment


    • #5
      Yank: It was no longer part of the US when it seceded.

      Regardless of who fired first, it was Lincoln who made the use of force necessary. He was clearly the aggressor.

      Comment


      • coyote-1
        coyote-1 commented
        Editing a comment
        Mauser, your reinterpretation of history is ridiculous.

        Fort Sumter was staffed by American troops. Not 'Union' troops, as the Union did not yet exist. American troops.

        The Union came into existence after southern rebels fired on that fort.

        Did you really expect Lincoln not to respond??
        Interesting to see so many spoiling for war over the attack on Benghazi also trying to claim the North invaded the South unprovoked in 1861. Lol

      • yanktar
        yanktar commented
        Editing a comment

        mauser wrote:
        Yank: It was no longer part of the US when it seceded.

        Regardless of who fired first, it was Lincoln who made the use of force necessary. He was clearly the aggressor.

        Uh, you've got that wrong. Under law, they had no right to secede, and that was enforced by the President and the Supreme Court held it to be true.  Remember the old rule: There is NEVER any legitimate reason to rebel against your government, except winning. The CSA lost, lost and surrendered. Lost.  Do you think the British wouldn't have hanged Washington, Jefferson, Adams etc if they had crushed the rebellion?


      • RogueGnome
        RogueGnome commented
        Editing a comment

        What is this 13th amendment stuff?

        I'm calling BS.

        There is only one Amendment.

        And that would be of course The Second Amendment.

         


    • #6
      Yank: So I guess you could say no....I don't got that.

      Got that?

      Comment


      • #7
        Prime: And being against the Iraq War must mean I really liked Hussein and thought he was a great guy.

        I mean.....what other conclusion could be made?

        Comment


        • #8
          Coyote: Regardless of who it was staffed by, it was located in the Confederacy and became property of South Carolina and the Confederacy when South Carolina seceded.

          Had Lincoln not sent a fleet to Charleston in an attempt to provoke the South, there would have been no war. Unfortunately, a war is precisely what Lincoln wanted and needed, and that's what he got.

          Comment


          • #9
            And as I said.....the provocation was on the part of the North.....not the South.

            Comment


            • Jack Walker
              Jack Walker commented
              Editing a comment

               


              mauser wrote:
              And as I said.....the provocation was on the part of the North.....not the South.


                You don't think wanting to own and humiliate other human beings is not provocation for war?


          • #10
            Jack: Lincoln certainly didn't.

            He stated on numerous occasions that he had no interest in ending slavery where it existed. He used the issue of slavery to gain support for his war against the South.

            Comment


            • #11
              Yank: According to the 10th Amendment, the power to secede is reserved to the states.

              Comment


              • yanktar
                yanktar commented
                Editing a comment

                mauser wrote:
                Yank: According to the 10th Amendment, the power to secede is reserved to the states.

                Where does it say that a state can secede? It's not in MY copy of the Constitution.


            • #12
              Coyote: I suspect asking the South to please reconsider and rejoin the Union wasn't going to work.

              Comment


              • savoldi
                savoldi commented
                Editing a comment

                mauser wrote:
                Coyote: I suspect asking the South to please reconsider and rejoin the Union wasn't going to work.

                So, they got their treasonous asses kicked and never tried that **************** again. Case closed.


            • #13
              Savold: You need to reread what I said, because its obviously not what you heard.

              Comment


              • #14
                Yank: The Constitution doesn't delegate to the federal government the power to prevent secession, nor does it prohibit the states from doing so.

                The 10th Amendment applies.

                Comment


                • yanktar
                  yanktar commented
                  Editing a comment

                  mauser wrote:
                  Yank: The Constitution doesn't delegate to the federal government the power to prevent secession, nor does it prohibit the states from doing so.

                  The 10th Amendment applies.

                  The Supreme Court and the majority of Americans disagreed then and still do.

                  If any state chooses to defy the Supreme Court, it holds itself liable to Federal military intervention.

                  But, the BOTTOM LINE is that the Union's interpretation of the Constititution was enforced and the South's needed to be suppresed by force.

                  If you READ the 10th Amendment, you can, by YOUR interpretation, decide that your little slice of heaven isn't part of the USA and you're not going to pay your taxes.....watch what happens.  See, the 10th doesn't just apply to states' rights--", or to the people.

                  This last is ignored by states' righters all the time.  If a State has the right to secede, so does the individual, as part of "or to the people."   Just go ahead and test that!  In fact, even then, individuals in the CSA couldn't exercise the "right" the states exercised, though there's no way the 10th can be mis-interpreted  on that.

                  Art II, Section 10:

                  "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.


                  No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.


                  No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

                  None of this makes any sense if a state can violate all of these provisions by simply saying "We secede!"

                  LOSING was the final legal imperative.


              • #15
                Savoldi: And it only cost a million dead and wounded Americans.

                A glorious victory.

                Comment


                • savoldi
                  savoldi commented
                  Editing a comment

                  mauser wrote:
                  Savoldi: And it only cost a million dead and wounded Americans.

                  A glorious victory.

                  I doubt anybody considers it a glorious victory. And I sure hope you're not counting civilian casualties. Rightwhacks never think of that as more than collateral damage these days, especially if they're brown-skinned, so don't bring it here to try and make your failed point, whatever it may be.



              Working...
              X