Survivalist Forum banner
101 - 120 of 165 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
What Would It Take To Have Another Civil War???
BALLS, GUTS, LOVE FOR AMERICA!
LOL.
How 'bout - READ LAW - WITHDRAW CONSENT - RESTORE ENDOWED RIGHTS?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
Big Andy1966, Very well stated! memtb
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Andy1966

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
494 Posts
The front men for the opposition are not the opposition. They are just the useful idiots for the opposition. Do not confuse the two.
I believe a lot of folks are underestimating the opposition. You should not do this, they are currently winning. But we see their weaknesses. Study them and learn their tactics. Follow the money, you need to know who pulls the strings. Then use peaceful resistance and spread the word. The roaches cannot stand to be in the light.
Free your mind and your butt will follow. Turn off the television, it does not matter who wins the Super Bowl. It is a bowl, like what you have on your toilet. It is full of the same substance.
Read the founding documents, get in better shape, get your house in order. Stop filling your mind with the detritus spewed by main stream media.
Pray.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Hard times produce hard men.
Hard men produce soft times.
Soft times produce weak men.
Weak men produce hard times.
Add "Ignorant men create hard times"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
I doubt they know what Fort Sumter was!
If they did their research they would find that President Lincoln masterfully enticed the Confederate States of America to fire the first shot of the Civil War with Fort Sumter. Like our current pho president Lincoln wanted civil war for a few reasons but the primary was economic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
If they did their research they would find that President Lincoln masterfully enticed the Confederate States of America to fire the first shot of the Civil War with Fort Sumter. Like our current pho president Lincoln wanted civil war for a few reasons but the primary was economic.
I doubt Lincoln wanted a war by any imagination. And the putz in the White House has no idea what day it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
I doubt Lincoln wanted a war by any imagination. And the putz in the White House has no idea what day it is.
Lincoln wanted war just like Biden does, for the opportunity of the power grab and over reach of the federal government in controlling our lives, and for economic reasons... and that is exactly what he did. Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Justice of the Supreme court because he did not like a ruling that was made against him, this is just one example. Lincoln made no real effort to negotiate peace with the CSA, slavery was a nonissue for Lincoln before the war and into the second year.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Lincoln wanted war...
That conclusion is not based on any real history. Maybe revisionism, but not reality.

"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)​

The modern American, being ignorant of the republican form, may fall for the propaganda ministry, and its attempt to use "States Rights" as an excuse. But the fact remains, that the Confederacy was attempting to leave a perpetual Union, in violation of its specific obligation. (The only way for a state to leave, is by consent of the Congress)

"The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government..."
- - - Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227.

The Civil War was fought to preserve the UNION and the republican form of government. . . not for freedom nor independence for the slavers.

There are some historical revisionists floating the argument that STATES were sovereigns, and have rights, but let's be clear on what "state" is being referenced.

State can mean:
1. A geographical area (dirt)​
2. A government, instituted in harmony with the republican form​
3. A people.​

Governments have delegated powers, not rights. Since state government officers swear dual oaths (Art.6), with the USCON being supreme, one can readily see that only PEOPLE can have rights under the doctrine of "STATES RIGHTS." Citizens have no endowed rights, having surrendered them by consent to be governed.

No dirt nor government (and its subject citizens) has the RIGHT to secede from the UNION created to secure rights of all the people who retained them.

I stipulate that the subject citizens (consenting) may have had grievances, and various minority interests were abused by the democratic majority, but that's the problem of any democratic form.

It has ZERO bearing on the UNION and the republican form of government.

The sovereign people are the beneficiaries of the institution of government, instituted to secure their rights. Those who submitted, as citizens, surrendered rights. Ergo, no servant government or its subject citizens can dissolve the union that they are oath bound to serve. It is akin to servants walking off with the master's silver and leaving the front door open, an invitation to others to pillage.
Or an even more appropriate analogy - the Union is a train filled with passengers (sovereign people), and the secessionists wish to sever their cars from the train. How does that benefit the passengers?

The arrogant subjects, who were participants in the democratic form, unilaterally presumed they were the masters, when they were not. It is a sad chapter in the history of these united States of America.

One reason the southerners didn't wish to simply withdraw consent from the democratic form was that 'Sovereigns without subjects' cannot own another human under the republican form. Slavery was a government taxed privilege only under the democratic form. Ergo, there was no other choice but to secede.

However, the fact that no law infringed upon the endowed rights of the sovereign people under the republican form refutes any other explanation or excuse for secession.
= = = <> = = =

“Articles of Secession”​
Every state in the Confederacy issued an “Article of Secession” declaring their break from the Union.​
Four states went further. Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all issued additional documents, usually referred to as the “Declarations of Causes," which explain their decision to leave the Union.​
Two major themes emerge in these documents: slavery and states' rights. All four states strongly defend slavery while making varying claims related to states' rights. Other grievances, such as economic exploitation and the role of the military, receive limited attention in some of the documents.​

But as explained before, "State's Rights" is an absurd claim, since ONLY the sovereign people retained their rights under the republican form, there are no grounds for the citizenry or servant government to claim any rights.

IN short, the South seceded to maintain and preserve slavery - a vile practice - and no amount of revisionism and bizarre claims ("War of Northern Aggression") can change that fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
War of Northern Aggression was too eliminate States Rights! No debt that slavery was an abomination.....but, still a right of the state’s! memtb
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gadsden Rebel

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Democrats: end the fillibuster, pass the BS fair voting act stack the SCOTUS and bring in PR and DC as states 51+52
Republicans: get off your asses and DO SOMETHING!
STOP helping the communists with your BS Bipartisanship pattycake
I wholeheartedly agree! This "we'll meet you halfway on this" to the demoRATS is total BS. They don't play that way so why would the RINOS let them? Idiocy. I think it's time for fire versus fire in these idiot congressional hearings. Time to play hardball with these @$$holes.
 

·
Retired curmudgeon
Joined
·
21,921 Posts
The important thing is not fighting the fights THEY want us to. Don't focus on the media and political power driven lines of division; they are unreal and distractions.
The other side, the left, is not bashful in telling me EXACTLY what it wants to do to my country, myself and my family. It's not some vaporous "they" who are pitting the sides against each other. The left has been staging a war of incrementalism against me and mine for most of my adult life. Removing actual rights and inventing new fake ones.

There are two clear sides to this. It's always been a fight between right and left.

McCarthy was right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,048 Posts
the the OP.

First what it will not be is a bunch of internet warriors quitting their day job, leaving the house, wife, and kids to go to another area of the country and pick a battle with some monument or building.

What it will probably be is what the civil war was about in the first place, state's rights. In this case, you will probably see some over reach by the federal government, and the state will defend itself against that aggression. The federal government will go to the state to impose some action, and the state will not allow it.

examples of possibilities, a removal of a popular state sitting governor by force by the federal gov't, or , enforcement of a vaccine mandate on the entire population that the state government opposes. ,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
Lincoln wanted war just like Biden does, for the opportunity of the power grab and over reach of the federal government in controlling our lives, and for economic reasons... and that is exactly what he did. Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Justice of the Supreme court because he did not like a ruling that was made against him, this is just one example. Lincoln made no real effort to negotiate peace with the CSA, slavery was a nonissue for Lincoln before the war and into the second year.
I am old but I knew Lincoln and he never told me he wanted a war with the south. He want to arrest the judge do to he was Iracist and supported slavery. I see a few Justice of the Supreme court today who also need arresting.
 

·
Happy to be here!
Joined
·
5,301 Posts
War of Northern Aggression was too eliminate States Rights! No debt that slavery was an abomination.....but, still a right of the state’s! memtb
No human being should own another. I think the federal government did the right thing stopping the States from doing that. That's exactly the sort of thing the federal government should be taking action on.
 
101 - 120 of 165 Posts
Top