The Housing Bubble

iSteal!

You might say that he… (wait for it)… “snapped it up”!

Gawd what corrupt players there are in the housing sales biz.

You might say that he… (wait for it)… “snapped it up”!

Yes captain obvious. I should tattoo you stupid comment on you effin forehead so that you can explain it to people how stupid you sound. Now shuddup moron

Whats the matter, Nancy- did I strike a nerve? Don’t you have any new-age, feel-good, pseudo-intellectual, cut and paste psycho-babble for me now? It looks like you are both an idiot AND a hypocrite. Bad combo. Life has obviously not been kind to shmucks like you.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. A Lincoln

This does not “prove” the Civil War was not about slavery. It was. This shows Lincoln would have restored the Union by any means. It was also politics and a bit of spin for the period of time.

However the South left the Union because of slavery therefore the Civil War’s was caused and ALWAYS about slavery. See the Great Compromise, The Kansas/Nebraska act, the Lecompton Constitution and Bleeding Kansas.

“It’s not what you don’t know that hurts, it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

I really admire you for holding on so hard to a thesis that has been thoroughly debunked.

As I said before, it wasn’t Wincoln who fweed the swaves.

The slaves freed themselves, with the assistance of the Abolitionists, as demonstrated in the PBS documentary. Yes, they had to get Winkin to sign a piece of paper to make it official. But Lincoln didn’t free squat.

You can’t ask another to “grant” you freedom. You have to TAKE your freedom.

Even if they ‘freed’ themselves, the fact that you ‘free’ yourself doesn’t give you the rest of the rights conveyed with the US Constitution, such as voting, property ownership and some level of free speech. A piece of paper then enforced by law (other people not you) is needed for that.

To handwave that away is mind boggling on the surface - but screams in the subtext.

Joe,

I do believe that Lincoln explained this to the Texans in rather simple terms before they took their freedom from Mexico.

The South leaving the Union was unconstitutional period. It’s odd that those on the right always talking about what’s “Constitutional” or not, always neglect this point.

The word’s “Union” and “United” mean just those things.

There is nowhere in the Constitution discussing a method or option of succession. Nowhere. There is none because it was not to be an option under the Constitution as it existed. However there was built into the Constitution the method in which succession COULD BE Constitutional and that method is the amendment process.

The South knew that it had no chance at such an amendment so they thought they could just take their toys and go home. Thus the treason and lives lost.

That Jefferson or any other founder later spoke of his OPINION on the possibility of succession has no bearing on its Constitutionally. Many of our founding fathers disagreed on many issues during and after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia from May-Sept 1787.

But in fact, there is nowhere in the Constitution discussing a method or option of succession. Therefore by definition, the South leaving the Union was unconstitutional.

the South left the Union because of slavery therefore the Civil War’s was caused and ALWAYS about slavery.

LOL, Correction: (in a hurry, my eggs were burning)

The South left the Union because of slavery, therefore the Civil War was caused by, and always was about slavery.

(And States Rights) Like a state’s right to get their clock cleaned by Lincoln, US Grant and Tecumseh Sherman when engaging in the barbarism of slavery and treason.

‘This does not “prove” the Civil War was not about slavery.’

Well, if it’s not enough there are many other documents, etc, that do. I don’t expect you to do anything but repeat the myths.

And there’s this; Lincoln was going to “free” the slaves alright; free to get on the boat and leave. All of them, and freed slaves as well. He even called freed slaves that might want to stay “selfish”. Today we’d call that ethnic cleansing.

What’s important, IMO, is why these myths are perpetuated. Look no further than yesterdays discussion where we are told the citizens belong to the state. That a president can violate the constitution (invade, kill you name it), and history will be fabricated to justify it.

I really admire you for holding on so hard to a thesis that has been thoroughly debunked.

What has been “debunked”? The South left the Union over the issue of slavery. Period.

This has never been, or never can be debunked.

At the end of the “Freedom Road” was a ship to carry them away.

http://www.slavevoyages.org/tast/assessment/estimates.faces

Estimates:

Total # in slave trade - 12,521,336

Total African slaves taken to USA - 305,326

Total African slaves taken to Portugal/Brazil - 5,848,265

But in fact, there is nowhere in the Constitution discussing a method or option of succession.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

‘This has never been, or never can be debunked’

Ha! I can see you sitting on the floor slapping your head, saying “I can’t hear you, lalalalallalalla”

Well, if it’s not enough there are many other documents, etc, that do. I don’t expect you to do anything but repeat the myths.

What documents could ever show that the South left the Union for an issue more important to them than their “right” to enslave fellow human beings? There was no issue more central to the South’s succession than slavery.

And there’s this; Lincoln was going to “free” the slaves alright; free to get on the boat and leave.

Lincoln weighed many options and that option did not stand a chance to become reality. Lincoln might have even known that when he proposed it. Lincoln was playing politics with many sides that he needed to manipulate and please. But that was not Lincoln’s finest hour.

However, that potential option’s discussion in no way negates the fact that slavery would have been eliminated in the USA, and those freed slaves would no longer be slaves.

slapping your head, saying “I can’t hear you, lalalalallalalla”

Please debunk this then:

The South left the Union to protect their “right” to enslave other people.

(I’ve never seen that debunked, ever)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And the States did not “prohibit” the power of union to the Union. That’s the whole point of the Constitution and “The United States of America.

The amendment process gave the States the method of succession, if that’s what the majority required for such an amendment desired. The majority didn’t.

Total African slaves taken to USA - 305,326

Total African slaves taken to Portugal/Brazil - 5,848,265

Brazilian slavery was more brutal than America’s. But this has no bearing on this discussion of The American Civil War.

And I am not Brazilian. If we want to get into a contest criticizing Brazil, I’d win.

‘Please debunk this then’

I already did.

‘As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing,” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.’

‘I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be, “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.’

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2658/2658-h/2658-h.htm#link2H_4_0150

‘I have not meant to leave any one in doubt’

It’s fun to watch screaming me-mee libtard bedwetters squirm and turn into hard-core Constitutionalists when it suits them, lol.

The Lincoln myth is one of America’s most sacred of sacred cows, you knock out that myth and it deprives the effetes of their God-given right to suppress others with the income tax and indulge in social engineering and playing the races off against each other. You might say Lincoln was the father of all of this.

Now, excuse me, but I have to go take a Lincoln Log.

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it”

I had no idea that Lincoln was a bought and paid for statist pig like no other. Wow…. just wow.

‘Please debunk this then’……I already did.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.” A. Lincoln

That is not debunking this:

“The South left the Union over the issue of slavery.”

And Lincoln knew “Saving the Union” (his stated goal) would also end slavery. It was the math of the new states coming on line. The whole “Bleeding Kansas” was a wake up call to the slavers.

And Lincoln was a politician and was playing to many audiences - pro-slavers, abolitionists, Democrats etc. There is no doubt that Lincoln’s first goal was to save the Union. And there is no doubt that saving the Union would have resulted in slavery’s ending. Why? Because slavery was the central point of why the South succeeded.

It’s fun to watch screaming me-mee libtard bedwetters squirm and turn into hard-core Constitutionalists when it suits them, lol.

Almost as fun as when “hard-core Constitutionalists” can only resort to funny name calling when proved wrong?

You just can’t debunk these: (name calling doesn’t count)

1. The South left the Union to protect their “right” to enslave other people.

And the States did not “prohibit” the power of union to the Union. That’s the whole point of the Constitution and “The United States of America.

What? That doesn’t mean they gave up the right to leave simply by joining.

What gave the slave states the right to secede?

Some answer: the voters of those states.

Were slaves allowed to vote? No?

Then it wasn’t really a fair vote, was it?

1. The South left the Union to protect their “right” to enslave other people.

2. “There is nowhere in the Constitution discussing a method or option of succession. Therefore by definition, the South leaving the Union was Unconstitutional.”

[1] may be correct, but I don’t see how [2] isn’t covered by the 10th amendment.

What? That doesn’t mean they gave up the right to leave simply by joining.

Of course didn’t. They retained that right through the future possibility of amendment. There was not other way. There is no “escape clause” in the Constitution.

Show me in the Constitution anything otherwise.

The Constitution was ratified. The Constitution was the deal. “United” and “Union” have meanings.

“What? That doesn’t mean they gave up the right to leave simply by joining.”

You know, it strikes me how similar this is to the old Soviet Union, which went ballistic when an individual tried to leave that country, back in the day.

You know, it strikes me how similar this is to the old Soviet Union,

Why? Because you think the USA Constitution had a lot in Common with USSR’s “constitution”?

Or you think Chechnya is to Russia
what Ohio is to Tennessee?

Seems there are many opinions:

‘It required but a single generation after the Constitution’s ratification for the pressures of population and growth to lead to the inevitable challenge to the balance of power. So long as the slave states of the South stood evenly numbered with the nonslave states of the North, political representation—and therefore power—in Washington remained unthreatened. Each state was entitled to two members in the Senate, and an even North-South split of the states ensured that in the Senate, the interests of one section would not overpower those of the other. By 1820 this became vitally important to Southerners, because the growth of population, and its location, dictated that the House of Representatives moved steadily toward a Northern majority thanks to the influx of immigrants to the North. At least the Senate provided a check on the House, and since by 1820 all but one of the presidents had come from Virginia, the South stood in no fear of becoming a minority in Washington.’

‘Through all of the controversy over the decades, a number of issues arose to divide North and South. A protective tariff that favored Northern interests rankled Southerners, and with justification: For their part, Southerners came increasingly to suspect and then resent a growing centralization of power in the Federal government, an aggregation of power that seemed to them to reject the original notion of their fathers in forming the Union as a “compact” of independent states, banding together for mutual defense and benefit but yielding none of their individual sovereignty.’

‘These and other arguments flew back and forth, but in the end the one overriding irreconcilable difference was slavery. Inevitably, when any cry of “state’s rights” was reduced to its bedrock, slavery lay there. After decades of debate and argument, North and South each evolved extreme positions that had as much to do with serving their political interests as with any genuine feeling about the morality of slavery itself. Virtually all people of the time regarded Negroes as inferior, mentally unable to care for themselves or to function in a white society. Even among the most prominent Northern abolitionists, dedicated to abolishing slavery by law, there were few who believed in racial equality. They simply did not like the idea of one man owning another. Most anti-slavery people in the North would have shipped all the freed slaves back to Africa, where the nation of Liberia had been formed many years earlier expressly for that purpose.’

‘Southerners were no more racist than Northerners. Believing in black inferiority, they looked on slavery as a benevolent institution that provided food, clothing, and shelter for their slaves, in return for their labor. It was, they argued, the only way the two races could live in the same country together. Southerners, in fact, felt a mortal fear of what would happen if the slaves in their midst should be freed.’

‘In the wake of South Carolina’s vote to secession in late December 1860, Americans both North and South anxiously wondered which state would be next to leave the Union. Little did they realize that the next call for secession would come not from a Southern state, but from a Northern city — New York City. On Jan. 7, 1861, two days before Mississippi became the second state to secede, Mayor Fernando Wood delivered a message to the Common Council, the city’s governing body, proposing that New York assert its independence as a “free city” by “disrupt[ing] the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master” — that is, the Union.’

‘At first, a fragile peace prevailed. Many Americans, including citizens in the Upper South states that had not left the Union, tried to convince the seceded states to return. President James Buchanan declared secession unconstitutional, but did little else. When Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, he gave a speech encouraging the South to return and promising that slavery would be protected where it already existed, but he refused to budge on his support of free soil ideas.’

‘In February, on the first day of his train journey to the capital, the president-elect gave a speech in which he accused secessionists of viewing the bond between states as “no regular marriage, but a sort of free love arrangement, to be maintained [merely] by passional attraction.” This public allusion to Southerners as sexual profligates was criticized, even among some Republicans, as being off-color – certainly beneath the dignity of the nation’s chief executive. (Lincoln’s closest associates, on the other hand, knew that he was capable of much bawdier humor than this.)’

‘Yet divorce was no mere metaphor on the eve of the Civil War. In fact, it was a volatile political issue, one that occasionally seemed to divide the nation as sharply as the slavery question did. In early 1861, the question of when – or even whether – a man and woman should be permitted to end their marriage was being hotly debated by many of the same legislators, journalists and activists who were also arguing over national disunion.’

‘The end of a marriage: it seemed an almost perfect metaphor to the worldly Mary Boykin Chesnut. As she surveyed the Union (uppercase) splitting apart, with North and South hurling bitter recriminations at each other, they reminded her of nothing so much as a long-married, long-quarreling husband and wife whose union (lowercase) had finally gone asunder.’

“We separated North and South because of incompatibility of temper,” the South Carolina diarist wrote in March 1861. “We are divorced because we have hated each other so.’

So we have this: ‘When Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, he gave a speech encouraging the South to return and promising that slavery would be protected where it already existed’

The states could have returned and kept their slaves. Slavery was not the issue. If you must have one word, it was hegemony.

Show me in the Constitution anything otherwise.

How is anything more than the 10th amendment required to answer that?

I don’t see how [2] isn’t covered by the 10th amendment.

10th Amendment doesn’t apply. It’s covered by Article II Section 10:

———————
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.

—————

When South Carolina “left” the Union, they entered into a Compact with other states to do exactly what was prohibited by Article II Section 10: coin money, keep tarriffs from their cotten exports, engage England and France, assemble troops, and otherwise act as if they were their own country.

Carl: Article I, Section 10. I have a longer post that will show up shortly.

Ben’s last post is a good one.

There also was the original 13th amendment Lincoln passed on to the states which guaranteed slavery forever. South rejected it as a reason to rejoin.

http://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/lincoln-and-the-13th-amendment-1861-version/

Slavery was certainly an issue, but not the #1 issue.

It was money / taxation / govt power as usual. Lincoln wanted to implement the Henry Clay system of strong central govt and was funding northern industrialization with revenue from duties on southern exports and tariffs on industrial imports. This favored the north over the south. Raised the prices of industrial products while taking taxes from their (slaves) work and funding the industrial revolution.

The north benefited from slavery more than most of the south actually (most of whom were actually hurt by slavery). The north also funded its industrialization via the slave trade before it was outlawed.

The north east was not a good agricultural region (too hilly/rocky) but was ideal for industrialization with immigration from Europe. So the NE freed its slaves and sold them south. (even today, the NE is much more segregated than most of the South). Immigrants were actually cheaper labor than slaves by some accounts.

The NW territories (Midwest) outlawed Africans from living there… they did not want them slave or free… just did not want them in their neighborhoods and towns. So slavery was never present there.

The South was most conducive to slavery as it was a good agricultural region, was hot with tropical disease which Africans had immunity and Europeans were very susceptible, and they exploited it in a pre-fossil fuel era as most all agricultural societies did pre 1800s (in some form or another). Does not make it right, but this is a fact.

The Civil War was a complex thing that had its roots in different styles of government and finance/money flows as well as for some, slavery.

Fossil fuel industrialization rendered slavery obsolete for most tasks (today’s trafficking is illustrative of what continues) anyway limiting in likely future into the 20th century under any scenario.

Given this, one ponders what the post-fossil fuel societies will look like… For one, Kunstler all but believes servitude in some kind of form or multiple forms will return with a vengeance.

Show me in the Constitution anything otherwise.

How is anything more than the 10th amendment required to answer that?

This:
The States did not “prohibit” the power of union to the Union when they ratified the Constitution. Union is the whole point of the Constitution and “The United States of America.”

There is no Union without a union. The Constitution was to provide for a union, a union that the States agreed to in exchange for great advantages.

If The Constitution would have provided an easy escape clause, (which it did not) there would have been no advantages to becoming a union, because the advantages of union would have been totally undermined by its easy potential destruction by succession.

The name of our country is not “The (sort of) United States of America”.

‘No State shall’

They were no longer a state, so it doesn’t apply.

When South Carolina “left” the Union, they entered into a Compact with other states to do exactly what was prohibited by Article II Section 10: coin money, keep tarriffs from their cotten exports, engage England and France, assemble troops, and otherwise act as if they were their own country.

obviously that only applies when a state is actually part of the united states. if a state secedes, it’s no longer affected by those laws.. it’s no longer under the jurisdiction of the united states.

Ben, if Lincoln was pro-slavery, or at least not anti-slavery as that letter to Greeley implies, then why did the South secede as a DIRECT result of Lincoln’s election? By the reasoning in the Greeley letter, they could all have preserved the Union together, with slavery, with Lincoln as President, no problem. So why did the South bother to secede? Which OTHER states’ right was Lincoln threatening during the 1860 election, enough that the South seceded over it?

“It’s fun to watch screaming me-mee libtard bedwetters squirm and turn into hard-core Constitutionalists when it suits them, lol.”

You just lost all credibility with this.

They were no longer a state, so it doesn’t apply.

But they were still states because there was no Constitutional method for them to succeed other than the amendment process which did not happen. That’s what “The Union” was all about.

Slavery was certainly an issue, but not the #1 issue.

Of course slavery was the number one issue. By far. There was nothing else even close no matter the attempt to whitewash history. Tariffs? Taxes? Disease? Bunk.

See the The 3/5ths Compromise, The Great Compromise, The Kansas/Nebraska act, The Lincoln Douglas debates, Bleeding Kansas and the history of America. NONE of those most contentious, long-lasting issues above were about anything else more central and divisive than slavery.

The South OWNED and owns the reason for the Civil War: Slavery.

From Ben’s post:
These and other arguments flew back and forth, but in the end the one overriding irreconcilable difference was slavery. Inevitably, when any cry of “state’s rights” was reduced to its bedrock, slavery lay there.

And from US Grant:
“THE CAUSE of the great War of the Rebellion against the United Status will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that “A state half slave and half free cannot exist.” All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true.”
― Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs, Vol. 2

if a state secedes, it’s no longer affected by those laws.. it’s no longer under the jurisdiction of the united states.

I forgot what part of The Constitution says that. Can you provide a link?

obviously that only applies when a state is actually part of the united states. if a state secedes, it’s no longer affected by those laws.. it’s no longer under the jurisdiction of the united states.

That’s what I was thinking. The things oxide quoted make sense as limitations on a member state. But I don’t see how they prohibit choosing to no longer be a member state.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen.

Since secession is not specifically addressed by the constitution, and definitely not specifically _delegated_ to the federal government, it is a right reserved to the States, or to the people.

The things oxide quoted make sense as limitations on a member state. But I don’t see how they prohibit choosing to no longer be a member state.

you are correct. they don’t.

I forgot what part of The Constitution says that. Can you provide a link?

it doesn’t have to be in the constitution. it’s common sense. show me the part of the constitution that says that water must run downhill.

you don’t have brains enough to be part of the electoral process. people like you should be tested before they are allowed to vote.

That’s what “The Union” was all about.

the union was all about not getting out of the union?? words can’t describe how dumb you are.

Of course slavery was the number one issue. By far.

of course 2+2=5! by far!

See the The 3/5ths Compromise

it was in there to limit the power of the pro-slavery people.

The South OWNED and owns the reason for the Civil War: Slavery.

you don’t know you’re history. and you seem to believe that repeating your same tripe over and over makes it true. the only thing it really makes you is nauseating.

I forgot what part of The Constitution says that. Can you provide a link?

it doesn’t have to be in the constitution. it’s common sense.

Of course states being able to succeed on a whim is not “common sense”. Common sense is that a union is not a union unless it is a union.

Show me in the Constitution the right and method of succession. Or show me the federal law describing the allowance and method of succession.

Or how about this?
Show me any state that joined the Union with a succession clause. Show me. If this “right” were so important or even possible why didn’t any state retain this “right”? Why? Because it is not there.

Not even Texas which was a “Republic” before a state retained this mythical “right” to succeed. (Texas might be able to divide into smaller states but cannot succeed)

Here’s some common sense. Much of the Constitution is to protect states rights. If the founders wanted succession possible and an option in The UNION do you not think there would have been a succession article? No? Why? Because “They Forgot”?????? Because they were dumb? It slipped their mind? LOL. Right……….They “forgot”. Or left it out because it was “common sense”. Dang.

No. Before you tout “common sense” you need to learn some American History of why the US Constitution even came about.

‘THE CAUSE…Ulysses S. Grant’

Of course a war criminal of the highest order like Grant would fall back on some moral BS. This is the fabrication of history that continues to this day. Note that after the war, these same holy warriors promptly headed west for a campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing of Native Americans.

And the legacy of Lincoln, the Imperial Presidency, has now lead to ongoing policies that result in the deaths of thousands of innocent brown people all over the world. A racist policy you voted for and embrace.

‘Which OTHER states’ right was Lincoln threatening during the 1860 election, enough that the South seceded over it?’

From the info I posted earlier, it would be the new states that were forming out west. It was a strategy of hegemony.

it doesn’t have to be in the constitution.

Here’s why they didn’t put a Succession Article in Constitution:

“They forgot”.

The same reason we can use for not paying our taxes huh?

Steve Martin: “I forgot”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l00GGEy_72c

‘Show me…’

I did yesterday. You however, have nothing but “I can’t hear you, lalalalalal’

The Supreme Court decided in Texas v. White (1869) that secession was unconstitutional:

In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”.[2]
wikipedia

From the majority opinion:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.[7]
wikipedia

If Grant was a war hero, what were the slave owners who wanted to form their own slave country, and who initiated hostilities with the North in order to do so?

‘The Supreme Court decided…’

So the racist who thinks people belong to the state shows up again. You’d be a perfect drone pilot. Here’s a little note for ya’. Texas can leave the “Union” any time they want, and there isn’t a thing you and the war criminal in chief can do about it.

This is the fabrication of history that continues to this day.

Really?
These are “fabrications of history”?

The Great Compromise, The Kansas/Nebraska act, The Lincoln Douglas debates, Bleeding Kansas, The South enslaving fellow human beings, The South succeeding because of slavery?

“Fabrication of history”? I know that they are not.

Texas can leave the “Union” any time they want,

Can Austin then secede from Texas?

‘Show me…’

I did yesterday.

You didn’t. You showed me a quote in a snapshot in time that Lincoln’s main goal was to save the Union.

This does not negate the fact that the South left the Union because of slavery.

And it does not negate the fact that the Civil War (begun by the South) in fact, ended slavery.

This is not lalalalalalalalala..as you describe.

These are facts.

If Grant was a war hero criminal

Of Course the Civil War Was About Slavery

http://www.psmag.com/culture-society/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265/

Concrete concerns about saving and expanding slavery, and not the nebulous theology of states’ rights, ignited the U.S. Civil War. Why does that message keep getting lost?

….“Probably 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on the broad questions of what the war was about and what brought it about and what caused it,” McPherson said, “which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery.”...James McPherson, Pulitzer Prize-winning history Battle Cry of Freedom.

……Four days after South Carolina seceded on Dec. 20, 1860, the state adopted a second document titled “Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” Loewen considers the record, central to his new collection, one of the five most important documents in the history of the country, launching as it did a seminal chapter in America’s ongoing struggle to define itself.

“So why does nobody ever read it?” he asked. “Everybody knew [secession was] about slavery. This document is all about slavery.”….

…..“The whole question of ‘states’ rights’ is sometimes misunderstood; that is, states’ rights are more a means than an end itself. ‘States’ rights’ for what purpose?” McPherson said. “Slavery was the substantive issue of the 1850s leading up to the Civil War, just like health care reform is today.”

…..”This document is all about slavery.”

“Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

“……Four days after South Carolina seceded on Dec. 20, 1860, the state adopted a second document titled “Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.”………

……This document is all about slavery……“Everybody knew [secession was] about slavery. ”

Of course states being able to succeed on a whim is not “common sense”.

it’s always nice to be able to succeed on a whim. and it’s lawful to secede too.

Common sense is that a union is not a union unless it is a union.

tautological pschobabble that is useless, nonsensical and worthy only of you.

Show me in the Constitution the right and method of succession.

there is a method proscribed for secession in the constitution. i don’t think there’s a method for succession though.

Or show me the federal law describing the allowance and method of succession.

i’m sure it’s there (for secession). i’m just not going to do your homework for you.

Or how about this? Show me any state that joined the Union with a succession clause. Show me. If this “right” were so important or even possible why didn’t any state retain this “right”? Why? Because it is not there.

there was a right to secede or some states would have refused to ‘enlist’. but again, i don’t know of any ’succession’ clause.

Not even Texas which was a “Republic” before a state retained this mythical “right” to succeed. (Texas might be able to divide into smaller states but cannot succeed)

i’m sure all states have a right to ’succeed’.

Here’s some common sense.

Much of the Constitution is to protect states rights.

hurray! you finally said something that’s true.

If the founders wanted succession possible and an option in The UNION do you not think there would have been a succession article? No? Why? Because “They Forgot”?????? Because they were dumb? It slipped their mind? LOL. Right……….They “forgot”. Or left it out because it was “common sense”. Dang.

your blustering is comical because it shows how utterly clueless you are. again i don’t know about ’succession’, but there is method for secession. (might not be there anymore).

Before you tout “common sense” you need to learn some American History of why the US Constitution even came about.

you have proven yourself to be clueless about american history. you have proven it with your clueless arguments with Ben and myself.

“It’s fun to watch screaming me-mee libtard bedwetters squirm and turn into hard-core Constitutionalists when it suits them, lol.”

You just lost all credibility with this.”

Yeah? Says you. Like I give a Lincoln Log. I’m not particularly looking for street cred from statists or effetes or their lackeys. They do nothing but waste efforts to convince them.

I was merely pointing out how the statist crowd likes to pervert the Constitution as a “living document” subject to constant change and interpretation, but then screams about it being the last, ironclad word when it suits them.

As to the Supreme Court “deciding” anything, after Citizens United and Obamacare, what a complete joke, a real gallery of buffoons.

‘Can Austin then secede from Texas?’

I used to live there. One on hand, there are people who call it the peoples republic of Austin. On the other, it’s the most libertarian city I’ve lived in. I can’t say which way it would go.

Here’s something to think about, not from 1800’s white-men-in-black-robes stuff. What is so sacred about lines on a map? Wasn’t Sudan recently divided? Did it matter what their constitution said?

Look at the Arab spring. Much of the upheaval is the breaking up of colonial rule set up by the British and France early last century. Do they not have the right to ignore colonial divisions and form nations as best suits the people? Take Iraq; the Kurds are already semi-autonomous. If they take actions that lead to a Kurdish state, a Sunni and a Shiite state, are they not free to do so?

What of the Palestinians? Are they doomed to linger in the areas they now occupy? Or can those lands too be seized? Or do the Israeli’s have to leave? One way or another, something will likely change.

Or Taiwan; should they be forced to rejoin the mainland? If China faces great upheaval, isn’t it likely that vast country will change it’s form? Or should they all be forced to stay in one block, regardless of ethnicity, religion, politics, etc?

Or Europe; aren’t they in the middle of an experiment involving the very definition of nation states? Do we say, ‘no Germany is Germany and Greece is Greece.” And now there are questions; can Greece leave the Union? It’s be pointed out, there is no framework in the constitution for a member state to leave the Union. Do the people of Greece not have the right to make those choices for themselves?

Generally, do any group of people owe allegiance to agreements made decades or hundreds of years ago? Or lines on a map that may not represent the best interests of those involved? What if there are dictators, or some area is liberated; do we say, no, go back to the way it was. It is obvious that people are making these choices all the time. So how this is decided is the root issue. That’s where I think the Declaration of Independence is an important document. Because it set out a framework for making these decisions. Decisions that not everyone is going to agree with, but come up all the time.

you have proven yourself to be clueless about american history.

You’ve come up with nothing. I’ve come up facts, reality, documents and the consensus view of experts.

….“Probably 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on the broad questions of what the war was about and what brought it about and what caused it,” McPherson said, “which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery.”…James McPherson, Pulitzer Prize-winning history Battle Cry of Freedom.

and it’s lawful to secede

Show me the law. Show me the precedent of it’s success.

i’m sure all states have a right to ’succeed’.

lol, good one! (finally)

tautological pschobabble

As is the definition of Union?

Union:
Noun… The action or fact of joining together or being joined together, esp. in a political context.

2. “There is nowhere in the Constitution discussing a method or option of succession. Therefore by definition, the South leaving the Union was Unconstitutional.”

There is nowhere in the Constitution discussing a right to jump out of airplanes. Therefore, jumping out of airplanes is Unconstitutional.

Do you see now how ridiculous that kind of tortured logic is?

“When South Carolina “left” the Union, they entered into a Compact with other states”

As a resident of South Carolina (born in NC), I would just like to point out that South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860, and the Confederacy was formed on February 8, 1861. Therefore, when South Carolina left the union, for six weeks it did not enter into anything with anyone, but was an independent state/nation.

“…Why does that message keep getting lost?”

Because it’s easier to argue presumption than nuance? Appreciate those of you who took the intellectual high road in this convo.

Frankly, yesterday’s chest thumping and name-calling was such an embarrassment that I seriously considered handing in my resignation. There is much to be learned from this board, but not at the expense of civility.

I’ve come up facts, reality, documents and the consensus view of experts.

in your delusional world.

Show me the law. Show me the precedent of it’s success.

i told you i’m not going to do your homework for you. it’s there. there was a way to secede or some states wouldn’t have joined the union.

Union:
Noun… The action or fact of joining together or being joined together, esp. in a political context.

where does it say that if you join a union, you then can’t leave?

What is so sacred about lines on a map?

So anyone can secede, anywhere? Wouldn’t that be the logical conclusion? And then eventually we’d be a bizarre patchwork of states, counties, municipalities, villages, townships, neighborhoods, streets, individual houses- all with their own systems of law, their own opinion on things like keeping slaves or letting women vote, for instance, and their own foreign policies and governing systems, some democratic, others authoritarian. Or some might wish to unite with Mexico, or wherever. Could you drive from point A to point B without going through several different countries, in some of which you may have little or no rights? You could be seized and enslaved in some, surely.

There was and is a sound reason that states can’t secede easily. There is no logical endpoint to it. We tried a loose confederation under the Articles of Confederation, and it was a miserable failure. The Constitution formed a ‘more perfect union’ and made it very hard to get out (amendment or revolt), for good reason: They wanted it to work, they wanted a republic founded on the principles of democracy to succeed. Atomizing into a million little sovereign areas would have destroyed the grand experiment, and led to undemocratic chaos. Just as it would today.

Show me any state that joined the Union with a succession clause. Show me. If this “right” were so important or even possible why didn’t any state retain this “right”? Why? Because it is not there.

It was probably assumed just like most of the bill of rights was assumed until somebody insisted that they write it down just in case someday people were dumb enough to decide to start taking away printing presses and guns and such.

The Supreme Court decided in Texas v. White (1869) that secession was unconstitutional:

So years after the civil war the victors said “you never should have tried that”. How is that helpful to this discussion?

——————-
“Oxide: Which OTHER states’ right was Lincoln threatening?

Ben: From the info I posted earlier, it would be the new states that were forming out west. It was a strategy of hegemony…. “Lincoln would not budge from his free-soil ideas.”
——————-

The Confederate States didn’t secede because Lincoln threatened to take their slaves away; Lincoln said he would let the South keep slavery. But the Confederate States seceded because they thought other states should be allowed to have slaves too? So, the Civil War was STILL about slavery.

‘the Civil War was STILL about slavery’

Not at all. What would it matter to the south if California had slaves or not? What did matter, if you’ll read all of what I posted, was that these states would join ranks with the north and marginalize the south politically and economically. The north was already doing this, so the southern states saw the handwriting on the wall and said we’re outta here.

Plus, look up the free soil concept in all this. Not cut and dried; there were some whites that didn’t want blacks, slaves or not, in the new states, which is why they didn’t want slavery in the new states.

‘we’d be a bizarre patchwork of states, counties, municipalities, villages, townships, neighborhoods, streets, individual houses- all with their own systems of law, their own opinion on things like keeping slaves or letting women vote, for instance, and their own foreign policies and governing systems, some democratic, others authoritarian.’

Sounds like what we have now.

‘Or some might wish to unite with Mexico’

This could come to pass. However, if you asked the predominately Mexican south Texans if they wanted to join Mexico, I’m pretty sure it would be 90% against, as there are thousands trying to get out of Mexico and into Texas every day. (As an aside, do you know why there is a Laredo in Texas, and a Nuevo Laredo just across the border? It’s pretty interesting).

‘There is no logical endpoint to it.’

Sure there is. There are plenty of instances where it could go either way, and the majority have decided to remain. How about Puerto Rico? If they rose up and said, we don’t want to be a associated with the US, do you think we’d send in an army and stop them? I doubt it. As it is, a majority approve of the arrangement. That’s the endpoint; the will of the people.

‘made it very hard to get out (amendment or revolt)’

That’s just not true. Show me where it says that prior to the war. And as I posted much evidence of, the “they” you keep referring to (framers of the constitution like Madison and Jefferson) made it clear that any state could leave at any time. And no hard feelings too.

How about what I said on Greece; no framework to leave the European Union, but nothing saying they can’t either. It’s not working out. They are rioting in the streets, have 50% youth unemployment, are enduring round after round of austerity forced on them by the north. Do they stick around to “make it work”.

So anyone can secede, anywhere?

yes, it’s called renouncing citizenship, and the fact that it seems to have never entered your mind is troubling. it’s getting more difficult, but it can still be done. it’s much different now though. it costs money and you have to jump through hoops. government doesn’t want you leaving the plantation. many years ago it only cost you the right to live in this country. now it costs you much more..

Wouldn’t that be the logical conclusion?

nothing wrong with that conclusion.

And then eventually we’d be a bizarre patchwork of states, counties, municipalities, villages, townships, neighborhoods, streets, individual houses- all with their own systems of law,

using the word ‘bizarre’ shows your prejudice against freedom. we would be better off in a ‘patchwork’ than a monolithic monstrosity.

their own opinion on things like keeping slaves or letting women vote, for instance, and their own foreign policies and governing systems, some democratic, others authoritarian.

a red-herring that shows your distrust of freedom.

Or some might wish to unite with Mexico, or wherever. Could you drive from point A to point B without going through several different countries, in some of which you may have little or no rights? You could be seized and enslaved in some, surely.

surely?? no, rather unlikely. it is far more likely that a beneficial cooperation would emerge. tariffs would have come down on their own when people began to see how destructive they were.

There was and is a sound reason that states can’t secede easily. There is no logical endpoint to it.

yes, no logical end to freedom bothers statists like you.

We tried a loose confederation under the Articles of Confederation, and it was a miserable failure.

it didn’t fail, the statists just wanted more power. they wanted a ‘union’.

The Constitution formed a ‘more perfect union’ and made it very hard to get out (amendment or revolt), for good reason:

sorry, but there’s no good reason to hold people in something they don’t want to be in.

They wanted it to work,

everyone wants everything to work.

they wanted a republic founded on the principles of democracy to succeed.

big government power is antithetical to a free republic.

Atomizing into a million little sovereign areas would have destroyed the grand experiment, and led to undemocratic chaos. Just as it would today.

no, it would have completed it, just as it would today.

Who cares about some boring old war 150 years ago anyway. Besides, everybody has civil rights now and gets judged by the character of their content. You can even be born a Negro in Kenya and grow up to be President of USA someday.

the majority have decided to remain.

The majority of what? If you didn’t like the decision your state had made, couldn’t you just secede from your state? Or are states a sacrosanct union, while the country is not?

‘If you didn’t like the decision your state had made, couldn’t you just secede from your state?’

See, trying to engage you in a discussion turns into hair-splitting. You know exactly what is being said. By your logic, the colonies should have just stuck it out with King George. Think about how messy all those little states are when we could have an Imperial monolithic colony, with statues of the royal family on every corner.

Why don’t you come clean with your real problem with self-determination? You like big powerful centralized government. One that stomps on anyone who disagrees or wants something different. That requires a really powerful “leader”, who can use executive orders to expand the state and doesn’t have to stoop to discussing the mandates with silly people elected by the peasants. Like I said, you’d make a great drone pilot.

“yes, it’s called renouncing citizenship… it costs money and you have to jump through hoops. ”

Why should I jump through a hoop? It is, by your own argument, impossible for me to violate any hoops or fee rules that the US has, because “I’m no longer a citizen” of the US. Just because I say so. Just like South Carolina couldn’t do anything Unconstitutional because they “were no longer a state.”

Why should I jump through a hoop? It is, by your own argument, impossible for me to violate any hoops or fee rules that the US has, because “I’m no longer a citizen” of the US. Just because I say so. Just like South Carolina couldn’t do anything Unconstitutional because they “were no longer a state.”

The problem with not jumping through the hoops is that the US won’t let you have any of your assets. The problem with jumping through the hoops is that the US wants half (or some such) of your assets. As long as one is willing to leave without their assets it’s real easy. All your bases are belong to them.

Why should I jump through a hoop?

because by law you have to now. wanna bring all your money with you? sorry, you’re only allowed to bring $600,000 in assets with you. the rest you have to pay high taxes on to get out. you don’t own that you know, the government does.

It is, by your own argument, impossible for me to violate any hoops or fee rules that the US has, because “I’m no longer a citizen” of the US. Just because I say so.

Just like South Carolina couldn’t do anything Unconstitutional because they “were no longer a state.”

but you as an individual aren’t free until the government says so. too bad, so sad.

btw, Army No Va, you also gave us a great post. too bad nearly everyone ignored it.

There also was the original 13th amendment Lincoln passed on to the states which guaranteed slavery forever. South rejected it as a reason to rejoin.

trying to engage you in a discussion turns into hair-splitting.

Why is asking if a city or township can secede if a state can secede ’splitting hairs’? Seems like a logical question. Why shouldn’t they be able to? Unless somehow states are legitimate boundaries but nothing else is.

You like big powerful centralized government

I like the fact that the federal government has a history of protecting individual civil liberties that the states have a history of violating.

I also think that secession has no logical limits. Any group or person could decide to secede.

I also think that secession has no logical limits. Any group or person could decide to secede.

just out of curiosity, what’s the problem with anyone having the right to ’secede’? does the state own them?

“I like the fact that the federal government has a history of protecting individual civil liberties that the states have a history of violating.”

More Obama aides knew of IRS audit;

Obama not told (my @ss he wasn’t told)

CHARLES BABINGTON, AP
45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and other senior advisers knew in late April that an impending report was likely to say the IRS had inappropriately targeted conservative groups, President Barack Obama’s spokesman disclosed Monday, expanding the circle of top officials who knew of the audit beyond those named earlier.

just out of curiosity, what’s the problem with anyone having the right to ’secede’? does the state own them?

Anyone can leave the country if they like, and/or renounce their citizenship. So, no, the state doesn’t own them.

But they can’t take control of any area within the United States, for we are a republic, and we as a republic would have to agree to something like that- democratically- by amending the Constitution.

Show me any state that joined the Union with a succession clause.

It was probably assumed just like most of the bill of rights was assumed

This weaker than weak argument defies history, logic, precedent and the reason for the Union and The Constitution. It was Shelby Foote at his most unbelievable and incredible. I laughed in 1992 when I heard him say it with a straight face on PBS.

Let’s look at motive:
A main reason for the US Constitution was to “Form a more perfect Union” and to codify the (mostly) politically unprecedented at the time - self-determination, life, liberty, rights etc.

Now which countries in 1787 made it easy for their “states” or provinces to secede on a whim? Anyone? If America’s founders wanted states to easily have the unheard of precedent of easy secession, they would have certainly put that in the Constitution because a Constitution’s goal was to codify the unprecedented.

So why didn’t our brilliant founders codify unprecedented easy secession? Because it was just assumed or forgot? No. Because it goes against the main reasons to form a political union in the first place - stability, strength and unity.

What did the world learn from the USA Civil War and our secessions? Lets look at our neighbor Canada. Their modern Constitution’s development spans from 1867-1982, well AFTER the US Civil War.

They had seen USA’s illegal secessions and resulting war but they STILL did not add the unprecedented ability for easy secession to their Constitution.

Why? Because to do so would be to go against the main reasons to form a political union in the first place - stability, strength and unity.

Supreme Court says Quebec can’t separate unilaterally November 13, 1998 cbc dot ca

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Quebec cannot separate from Canada unilaterally.

Anyone can leave the country if they like, and/or renounce their citizenship.

actually they can’t, without leaving much of their assets behind. in addition, we are taxed now for i believe 5 years after renouncing. we are now being treated very much like property that the government owns.

But they can’t take control of any area within the United States, for we are a republic, and we as a republic would have to agree to something like that- democratically- by amending the Constitution.

jefferson believed that the states did have the right to secede. many in the original states would have refused if they thought there was no way out. but i finally took the time to look, and i agree with you and rio that there was nothing in writing to guarantee the right of secession. never the less, a state as a single entity should have the right to leave any group it joins, even if it means the dissolution of the entire union.

further, your distinction of renouncing from seceding is valid. i hate admitting when i’m wrong, but it’s not the first time i’ve had to do it here.

‘there was nothing in writing to guarantee the right of secession’

There doesn’t need to be. After all, hadn’t the colonies just established that?

‘Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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 effect their Safety and Happiness.’

It’s not that difficult to understand. “Any form of government.” Not the last one or the one after that, or the next one.

“Instituted among men”. Not old papers or lines on maps or speeches. Government is the people, and decided by the people.

‘whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it’

Pretty clear there.

There doesn’t need to be. After all, hadn’t the colonies just established that?

yes they did. but i had said that there must have been something written in the beginning or some of the states wouldn’t have joined. i was wrong, and i was just admitting it.

but to emphasize your point. you are correct that there doesn’t need to be. i do believe that states have the right to secede. they weren’t knowingly entering a death contract.

they weren’t knowingly entering a death contract.

Think of it as a Catholic marriage.

Or Hotel California?

Or Hotel California?

haha! perfect!

‘Think of it as a Catholic marriage’

‘In 1860 international law — and the US government’s own military code — prohibited the intentional targeting of civilians in war, although it was recognized that civilian casualties are always inevitable. “Foraging” to feed an army was acceptable, but compensation was also called for. The kind of wanton looting and destruction of private property that was practiced by the Union army for the entire duration of the war was forbidden, and perpetrators were to be imprisoned or hanged. This was all described in great detail in the book, International Law, authored by San Francisco attorney Henry Halleck, who was appointed by Lincoln as general in chief of the Union armies in July 1862.’

‘In Marching through Georgia Sherman biographer Lee Kennett noted that Sherman’s New York regiments “were filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World.”

‘Unable to subdue their enemy combatants, many Union officers waged war on civilians instead, with Lincoln’s full knowledge and approval. Grimsley describes how Union Colonel John Beatty warned the residents of Paint Rock, Alabama, that “Every time the telegraph wire was cut we would burn a house; every time a train was fired upon we would hang a man; and we would continue to do this until every house was burned and every man hanged between Decatur and Bridgeport.” Beatty ended up burning the entire town of Paint Rock to the ground.’

The Union army did not merely gather food for itself; it pillaged, plundered, burned, and raped its way through the South for four years. Grimsley recounts a first hand account of the sacking of Fredericksburg, Virginia, in December of 1862: Great three-story houses furnished magnificently were broken into and their contents scattered over the floors and trampled on by the muddy feet of the soldiers. Splendid alabaster vases and pieces of statuary were thrown at 6 and 700 dollar mirrors. Closets of the very finest china were broken into and their contents smashed . . . rosewood pianos piled in the street and burned . . . Identical events occurred in dozens of other Southern cities and towns for four years.’

‘Sherman was the plunder-in-chief, and he had three solid years of practice for his March to the Sea. In the autumn of 1862 Confederate snipers were firing at Union gunboats on the Mississippi River. Unable to apprehend the combatants, Sherman took revenge on the civilian population by burning the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee, to the ground. In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife Sherman explained that his purpose in the war was “extermination, not of the soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people.”

‘In the spring of 1863, after the Confederate Army had evacuated, Sherman ordered his army to destroy the town of Jackson, Mississippi. They did, and in a letter to General Ulysses S. Grant Sherman boasted that “The inhabitants [of Jackson] are subjugated. They cry aloud for mercy. The land is devastated for 30 miles around.”

‘Meridian, Mississippi was also destroyed after the Confederate Army had evacuated, after which Sherman wrote to Grant: “For five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire, and I have no hesitation in pronouncing the work well done. Meridian . . . no longer exists.”

‘In Citizen Sherman Michael Fellman describes how Sherman’s chief engineer, Captain O.M. Poe, advised that the bombing of Atlanta was of no military significance (the Confederates had already abandoned the city) and implored Sherman to stop the bombardment after viewing the carcasses of dead women and children in the streets. Sherman coldly told him the dead bodies were “a beautiful sight” and commenced the destruction of 90 percent of all the buildings in Atlanta. After that, the remaining 2,000 residents were evicted from their homes just as winter was approaching.’

‘In October of 1864 Sherman even ordered the murder of randomly chosen citizens in retaliation for Confederate Army attacks. He wrote to General Louis D. Watkins: “Cannot you send over about Fairmount and Adairsville, burn ten or twelve houses . . ., kill a few at random, and let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon . . .” (See John Bennett Walters, Merchant of Terror: General Sherman and Total War, p. 137).’

‘The indiscriminate bombing of Southern cities, which was outlawed by international law at the time, killed hundreds, if not thousands of slaves. The slaves were targeted by Union Army plunderers as much as anyone. As Grimsley writes, “With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked.” A typical practice was to put a hangman’s noose around a slave’s neck and threaten to hang him unless he revealed where the household’s jewelry and silverware were hidden. Some slaves were beaten to death by Union soldiers.’

‘General Phillip Sheridan engaged in the same kind of cowardly, criminal behavior in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia in the autumn of 1864, after the Confederates had finally evacuated the valley. General Grant ordered him to turn the valley into a “desert,” and he and his army did. A sergeant in Sheridan’s army, William T. Patterson, described the pillaging, plundering, and burning of Harrisonburg, Bridgewater, and Dayton Virginia:

‘The work of destruction is commencing in the suburbs of the town . . . The whole country around is wrapped in flames, the heavens are aglow with the light thereof . . . such mourning, such lamentations, such crying and pleading for mercy I never saw nor never want to see again, some were wild, crazy, mad, some cry for help while others throw their arms around yankee soldiers necks and implore mercy. (See Roy Morris, Jr., Sheridan, p. 184.)’

‘It is important to recognize that at the time the Valley was populated only by women, children, and old men who were too feeble to be in the army. In letters home some of Sheridan’s soldiers described themselves as “barn burners” and “destroyers of homes.” One soldier wrote that he had personally burned more than 60 private homes to the ground, as Grimsley recounts. After Sheridan’s work of destruction and theft was finished Lincoln grandly conveyed to him his personal thanks and “the thanks of a nation.”

‘Historian Lee Kennett, author of Marching through Georgia: The Story of Soldiers and Civilians during Sherman’s Campaign, wrote an article in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution last year in which he argued that Southerners had been too critical of Sherman. His book is very favorable to Sherman and Lincoln, but he nevertheless wrote on page 286 that: ‘Had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified (as victors generally do) in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants.’

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo27.html

‘Had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified (as victors generally do) in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants.’

and this is what we’re born of. this what the ‘union’ brings. what unions always bring. thuggery. tell me again that the right side won the war..

You’re just repeating the same old stuff. I posted yesterday that both Madison and Jefferson clearly stated any state could leave at any time for any reason.

With all due respect it’s not all the same old stuff as below is not.

On Madison and secession:
In the public debate over the Nullification Crisis the separate issue of secession was also discussed. James Madison, often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution”, strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution.[32] In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster (congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification), Madison discussed “revolution” versus “secession”:

But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union.
wiki

‘The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy’

Thanks karl, for further proving my point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1lJ3tfQFpc

things=thinks

Obama may not have written an email saying “dear IRS, investigate the tea party, thanks Barrack”. But he spent 3 years demonizing the groups, calling them terrorists, etc. He gave the IRS marching orders in a more subtle manner. When your boss says group X is evil, what do you do? You go after group X.

+1

There was a great Op Ed in the WSJ on exactly this topic the other day.

But (Obama) spent 3 years demonizing the groups…..etc.

Obama’s paranoid.

Virginia Republicans Call for Armed Revolution if Obama Wins in November

http://www.politicususa.com/virginia-republicans-call-armed-revolution-obama-wins-november.html

…..a Virginia Republican Committee newsletter has called for armed revolution if President Obama is re-elected in November.

…According to the newsletter, President Obama, is a “political socialist ideologue unlike anything world history has ever witnessed or recognized,” and that the only option is “armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in November:”….

….Republicans calling for armed insurrection against the government is nothing new, and few are apt to forget congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) saying “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back,” and went on to specifically cite Jefferson’s quote from 1787. Bachmann continued that, “we the people are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country,” and encouraged Americans “to do everything we can to thwart the Democrats at every turn,” and apparently that included armed rebellion.

Another Republican, Sharon Angle, said in a radio interview that it may come to the point that the public would bring down an out-of-control Congress with “Second Amendment remedies.” Angle repeated her warning when she called for “Second Amendment remedies” to deal with the “ever-growing tyrannical U.S. government,” and to replace her election opponent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Conservative entertainers have spent no small amount of energy demonizing President Obama over the past three years and although their rants may be just publicity stunts, all it takes are a few crazy people with guns to take their tirades to heart and begin shooting.

It’s the Chicago way. The democratic machine opereates exactly this way in Chicago and it’s natural that some of it came to DC. Not that DC was not corrupt to begin with, it’s just a different form of corruption with every administration that moves in.

And understanding the price, ie, the value of a dollar requires more effort than walking suckers through houses and fleecing them while yammering ‘its a great time to buy.’

Perkon,

Buying houses is like unprotected sex. You are going to have some bad consequences. The timing is unpredictable. Mocking HA doesn’t change this.

The timing is unpredictable
—————–
Babies come within one month of the bad act Pastor Jesus. Are you saying he should straw buy a small cheap home and then a month later, the one he wants for 65% off will be available?

One month Rocky? You don’t have to call me Jesus to prove you’re a smart guy.

Ya know HBBrocks,

Your Realtor tripe doesn’t jive with your wandering username…..

Punk.

Rocks is talking about the conception and pregnancy, not the fully developed baby. But one month or nine, the timing is known.

Sure I do, it’s recent sales price minus 65%-75%, but I still need your help on the timing. When will I be able to take advantage of that exact price reduction? Next year? Five years from now? 10? After I die? Again, nothing too specific, a 2 or 3-year range will suffice.

And there lies the rub.

If you have been waiting for the craaaater since 2003 and not personally reaping any of the benefits of renting, the unpredictability of WHEN is vexing.

If you are under 35, your career is in flux, you’re not sure where you want to live, have rent control, or have no family — yeah, then fer sure you oughtta be renting.

But dang, this housing bubble 2.0 is nutso, and as far as I can remember, not predicted by anyone here on HBB.

And whatever you do, don’t “wait around” to be fleeced like a sucker like our SF Debt Junkie.

HBB told me that the correct price was what someone is willing to pay…

FALSE!

That would imply that the HBBers believed that bubble prices were “correct”—after all, a willing buyer was agreeing to buy the price.

Bubble prices were never “correct”; they were always insane.

I hate to tell you Junkie but the few sales that are occurring are no money down sales.

You bought a house in 2012, hence you paid an inflated price.

Just how inflated was it?

Simple question.

Sure Oxy, the right price for the seller is what the prospect is willing to pay, not a penny less. That has nothing to do with what something is worth.

“Bubble prices were never “correct”; they were always insane.”

The price is what a buyer and seller agree to. It is always correct at that given point in time.

You’re right Slithers…… but only in the absence of fraud.

You seem to apologize for housing fraud when it distorts prices.

Why is that Slithers?

Where is the fraud in a cash buy?

Junkie….

Where is there day light in anything you say when you can’t be honest in your own personal affairs?

What did you pay for the shack you bought last year?

I thought the MO was that they purchase the property with cash and then “refinance” after a couple of months to suck out the cash to purchase additional properties.

Just how inflated was it?

I know the answer!

65%!!!!

Do I get a prize?

You get the Junkie Award for going $100k underwater in less than a year.

Congratulations.

One year makes no difference to anyone who bought a house they plan to stay in. Talk to me in 15-20 years ( this from the person who stayed in the last rental for 13 years).

The fact that there is a bubble in SF and I could sell my house today for 50K+ MORE than I bought it last fall also makes no difference to me.

In addition, the fact that I received 100K in down payment assistance at 0% interest really makes me care less about those fluctuations.

Find me a place to rent in SF for under $2500: 3/2 SFH with a yard that allows dogs. My PITI+M is less than rent.

Unless you live in your parent’s basement or are a trust fundy with a paid-off house, you gotta pay to live somewhere.

You got nothing but debt and a depreciating asset. Why? You got fleeced….. By a realtor presumably. By next year your losses will be up to $150k.

Sucker.

Chilidoggg: What I’ve seen is that when cash buyers do obtain a loan after the closing, it’s for perhaps up to about 70% of the purchase price…in other words, the buyers are still putting about 30% down for their purchases.

“To the boardroom geniuses it is all math, there are no feelings. Do you think any MBAer gives a f about Joe 12 Pack? No, they just pack up and take a flight on BlueStar Airlines down to Mexico.”

Running a business should never be about feelings.

Thanks for proving my point.

My next lesson will be about Neanderthals, The East India Company and Marie Antoinette.

See if you can connect the dots.

As I said.

You know what to sing when you lose? Here, it’ll cheer you up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuhBou-kjPQ

“I am always floored when I see young, morbidly obese Hispanics with their morbidly obese children. It almost seems to have become the norm in that demographic.”

Obesity Rates Nationwide:

White: 23.7%
Hispanic: 28.7%
Black: 35.7%

CDC Data

“Among blacks in 45 states and DC with sufficient respondents, the prevalence of obesity ranged from 23.0% to 45.1%, with a total of 40 states having an obesity prevalence of ≥30%, including 5 states (Alabama, Maine, Mississippi, Ohio, and Oregon) with a prevalence of ≥ 40%.”

But let’s keep pretending the obesity problem in America is due to rednecks in Texas.

But let’s keep pretending the obesity problem in America is due to rednecks in Texas.

FWIW, obesity is a bigger problem in the South. When my North Carolina resident brother visited us last year, he said the lower level of obesity here in the Centennial State was visibly noticeable. Note: While Colorado is currently the state with the lowest level of obesity, our level is as bad as the worst states were 30+ years ago:

1. Mississippi (34.9%); 2. Louisiana (33.4%); 3. West Virginia (32.4%); 4. Alabama (32.0%); 5. Michigan (31.3%); 6. Oklahoma (31.1%); 7. Arkansas (30.9%); 8. (tie) Indiana (30.8%); and South Carolina (30.8%); 10. (tie) Kentucky (30.4%); and Texas (30.4%); 12. Missouri (30.3%); 13. (tie) Kansas (29.6%); and Ohio (29.6%); 15. (tie) Tennessee (29.2%); and Virginia (29.2%); 17. North Carolina (29.1%); 18. Iowa (29.0%); 19. Delaware (28.8%); 20. Pennsylvania (28.6%); 21. Nebraska (28.4%); 22. Maryland (28.3%); 23. South Dakota (28.1%); 24. Georgia (28.0%); 25. (tie) Maine (27.8%); and North Dakota (27.8%); 27. Wisconsin (27.7%); 28. Alaska (27.4%): 29. Illinois (27.1%); 30. Idaho (27.0%); 31. Oregon (26.7%); 32. Florida (26.6%); 33. Washington (26.5%); 34. New Mexico (26.3%); 35. New Hampshire (26.2%); 36. Minnesota (25.7%); 37. (tie) Rhode Island (25.4%); and Vermont (25.4%); 39. Wyoming (25.0%); 40. Arizona (24.7%); 41. Montana (24.6%); 42. (tie) Connecticut (24.5%); Nevada (24.5%); and New York (24.5%); 45. Utah (24.4%); 46. California (23.8%); 47. (tie) District of Columbia (23.7%); and New Jersey (23.7%); 49. Massachusetts (22.7%); 50. Hawaii (21.8%); 51. Colorado (20.7%).

17 percent of registered voters think Obama is a muslim:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/07/26/obama-muslim_n_1706522.html

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/03/Obama-administration-paves-the-way-for-sharia-law

html

23% of Democrats think Bush was the mastermind behind 9/11

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0411/More_than_half_of_Democrats_believed_Bush_knew.html

Speaking of delicious, terrorist yellow cake, it looks like the Twinkie is back.

How cute…. a liar and liar lying to each other.

Why don’t you post a copy of your mortgage payment showing how you’re paying less than what it would cost to rent?

See how that works Slithers?

You’re not much of a lawyer….. but you’re a pretty good liar.

I’ll ask again…why don’t you show us your lease and prove you’re paying 50% of what it costs to buy.

I’ll ask again…. why don’t you show us your mortgage payment to prove that buying is less than renting?

Go ahead Slithers……. post it.

FAR higher and you know it.

Not only do you lack the mental fortitude to ignore me and proceed to lie about it, you can’t even be truthful about your inflated costs to readers on a housing blog.

You really are a mess.

Answer the question (c’mon, do the CL search yourself and then report back):

Find me a 3/2 SFH with a yard that allows dogs for under $2500 month.

We paid under $450K for a 3/2 with big yard and a view in a decent nabe. 100K 0% interest down payment assistance, 3.5%, and 1.1% property taxes. Less than 35K cash, including moving costs.

DO THE MATH.

You are sounding foolish now.

It’s already been found and posted here Junkie. Over and over again. You just don’t like the reality that you over paid.

And your carrying costs are far higher yet you seem to run and hide from that.

woman… you’re a financial and mental trainwreck…

“(Reuters) - The Nikkei share average surged to a fresh 5-1/2 year high on Monday, buoyed by further weakness in the yen and optimism over the growth outlook after the Japanese government raised its assessment of the economy for the first time in two months. Signs of an improving U.S. economy and Wall Street’s record closing high on Friday cemented the positive mood in markets. The Nikkei .N225 climbed 1.5 percent to 15,360.81, the highest closing mark since December 2007.”

woman… you’re a financial and mental trainwreck…

Not really. sfhomowner’s numbers jibe. I lived up that way from 94-08. I’ve never seen her post a number that wasn’t the reality that I knew or can find today. I don’t know why you foam at the mouth so.

You used to be cool.

Of course they don’t. They never did because this unstable woman was never honest about the carrying costs. If you’re willing to be honest, you’ll know that renting is a half the cost of buying at current massively inflated asking prices.