It's absurd to suggest that Lincoln was not a murdering tyrant.

yeah most all historian rank him in the top five of the greatest presidents, he freed the slaves and upheld the beliefs of the founders, so i think the balls in your court to enlighten me on why hes a murdering tyrant. in 1864, for the first time in u.s. history troops in the field could vote away from home and 70 percent voted for lincoln, i guess they were all just blood thirsty murdering tyrants.

Lincoln did not free the slaves for chrissakes. In fact, he favored keeping them slaves forever and openly said so. Upheld the beliefs of the founders? What rot. I have news for you bud, the founders were all secessionists, and many of them were slave owning secessionists. Get a clue fella.

have you ever heard of the 13th amendment for chrisakes? lincoln becomes anti slavery over time, its revisionist that love to point out his earlier statements and beliefs which he did have. Also, if the the founders were all secessionist why did they support the northwest ordinance of 1787? so theres your clue fella.

For chrissakes, do you really not know what the original 13th amendment said there fella? Well, it would have made slavery legal in PERPETUITY, and Lincoln fully supported it and openly said so in his first inaugural address, you ignorant chump. And if the founders were not secessionists, why did they conduct a violent and illegal revolution in order to secede from the British Empire, you stupid know-nothing blowhard. Get a clue or just STFU.

wow can we please keep this civil? the thirteenth came years after lincolns first inaugural address and like i said he becomes anti slavery through time. so yeah...?

Yes, we can keep it civil. But Lincoln, in his first inaugural, did plainly state that he had no intention of interfering with slavery, and that he supported the original 13th amendment which would have made slavery legal forever. No kidding, google Lincoln's first inaugural address.

i dont have too, im not arguing with the fact lincoln would support slavery where it already existed he ran under the platform of limiting the expansion of slavery into the territories. his views changed over time. his first goal was to preserve the union and he didnt want to make and rash decisons that would give reason for border states to secede from the union.

The idea of saving the union contradicts our heritage and the principles of the declaration of independence. The Confederates only wanted to do what their forefathers did, that is achieve independence.

the confederacy itself contradicts the principles of the declaration of independence. what reason did they have to secede?

The Confederacy perfectly embodies the principles of the declaration. Indeed, the declaration of independence is arguably the most marvelous secessionist document in modern history. And why were they not entitled to seek independence as their forefathers did?

it's a document that states pretty early on that all men are created equal! and because the forefathers seceded from a foreign government that was oppressive, the confederacy seceded because they believed all men are not created equal. there werent any state rights violated it really boils down to slavery.

All men are created equal? The man who wrote that, Thomas J efferson, owned 200 slaves. The General who led the secessionionist Army, and the Father of our Country, George Washington, also owned 200 slaves. And of all the signets of the declaration of independence, over 1/3 owned, collectively, over 1,000 slaves. That phrase had nothing to do with slaves (obviously).

Oh, and they did not secede from a foreign government. The colonies were part of the British Empire.

Like most Yankees, I want to brush over the entire history of the war and turn it into a question of morals, and no one can win a moral argument while 'supporting slavery'. Ha!

'Robert' wrote :
---------------------------------
> "Like most Yankees, I want to brush over the entire history of
> the war and turn it into a question of morals,
> and no one can win a moral argument while 'supporting slavery'.
> Ha!

WHERE IS THE MORALITY IN KILLING YOUR WHITE BROTHERS AND FELLOW COUNTRYMEN
OVER SOME NIGGER'S FREEDOM WHO WAS FAIRLY BOUGHT FROM THE NIGGERS IN AFRICA ?

WHERE'S YOUR MORALITY ARGUMENT NOW ASSWIPE ?

You both need to get a dose of reality.

How can you say the ACW wasn't about slavery? The war would not have happened when it happened the way it happened except for the fact that slavery existed in the south but had largely been abolished in the north. OTOH you cannot say that the war was JUST about slavery. If you'd held an election in 1860 on whether to abolish slavery it probably would have lost even in the northern states, and several slave states, Virginia among them, were reluctant to leave the union.

...it was a time in history when the constitution was very unclear regarding the issues of slavery/secession....the men who wrote the constitution never put much emphasis on slavery because slaves were a way of life and had never been considered more than property..Therefore they never gave it much thought that less than a hundred years from the time they wrote the constitution, that the idea of giving slaves rights and freedom would ever come into question.

the Civil War was simply two sides clashing over their own different ways of life...

both northerners and southerners felt almost equally about the idea of slavery

there were some northerners who hated slavery and there were northerners who supported slavery.....it was the same way in the south...some southerners supported it and some despised it. ..for example Union General Ulysses Grant owned many slaves while Confederate General Robert Lee freed all his slaves and believed slavery was wrong.

Men chose to fight for their states and the rights of their states...not over slavery. most men in the south did not own slaves...and the ones who did own slaves had paid their way out of fighting....

slavery AND secession were both considered constitutional. the constitution only mentions slaves as "other persons" and only considers them as property. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or any other legal document which precludes any state or group of states from seceding from the United States.

slavery was found everywhere in the north, but a few years after the turn of the 19th century, most northern states found slavery to be non profitable and abolished it....however four northern states were still slave holding states at the time of the civil war..they chose to fight for the union because they believed keeping the seceding states part of the union was more beneficial to their state and the USA..... but of course slavery was very beneficial to the way of life to many southerners...therefore they didnt want their way of life threatened and didnt believe the federal goverment had the right to end slavery..


civil war = war over state's rights

Not so fast on the morality issue Robert. Remember, it was the Northerners, from states such as New York, Masachusetts, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvannia, that brought the negroes, bound in chains, to the United States to begin with. The North was equally responsible for the institution of slavery. And don't forget that while the war was being fought, slaver was perfectly legal in the Union States of Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri, and West Virginia.

what state rights of the south in particular were being violated?

and yeah northerners had their hands dirty in the institution of slavery but please dont forget washington freed his slaves and jefferson pushed for emancipation in the state of virginia, yes that would be the man who wrote all men are created equal the same declaration that you somehow believe the confederacy embodied.

oh, let the traitors have their day, Robert

Neither Washington nor Jeferson freed their slaves; during their lifetime they each owned literally hundreds of slaves. And how is it that you didn't read the part from the declaration about the right of the people to alter or ABOLISH their government. The Confederates did this exactly the founding fathers did.

Traitors like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams. And they indeed, had their day.

it says "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"

it doesnt say that when the south loses an election it has the right to be little babies and make their own wittle country. also im still waiting on what state rights were violated?

Bart, the Confederate states all SIGNED THE CONSTITUTION

you dont sign a contract, then break it just cause you dont like the rules you AGREED TO at the onset

sorry, you lose -1 internets, traitor

The right of a state to choose how it governs its people, faggot.

so can you provide an example of when the federal government stepped in and violated a states right?

Confederate point of view - "WAAHHH I dont like that the landlord doesnt want me raping children in the building. Guess I should be able to take over my apartment and make it my own cause I feel I have the right to rape children all the live long day"

States Rights my ass - YOU SIGNED THE CONSTITUTION SO YOU ABIDE BY IT, TRAITOR SCUM

if you dont like it, move to friggin Haiti

By declaring slavery illegal in future states without that state having a say in the matter.

Gordon-

They signed the constitution shoch does NOT say that it cannot secede. They were acting within their rights. You continuous analogies show that you fail to grasp simple concepts. I have never heard of the Civil War being compared to a lease agreement, probably because it is such a shit argument.

why would states have a say in territories? dderrrr rhode island has the state right on what goes on in utah derrrrr no white people are allowed to work there were gonna let big money planters come in and let the slaves do all the work and let the majority of whites be poor.. hurrah for dixie!!

'Robert' wrote :
--------------------------------
> "so can you provide an example of when the
> federal government stepped in and violated
> a states right?"

'monno' wrote :
----------------------------
> "By declaring slavery illegal in future states without
> that state having a say in the matter."

LOOKS LIKE HE DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM
FINDING AN EXAMPLE, HUH DIPSHIT ?

I stand corrected.

i guess the northern men having a say in the matter was really the right being violated then eh dip shit? i mean when they elected a man who ran on the platform of his own plan on what to do with the territories the south secedes. so im confused on your argument. dip shit.

hahah i clearly didnt write that

Colonies in 1776: Waaa Waaa the zing is a big Jeanie,,boo hoo boo hoo the King said I am part of the British Empire, Waaaa Waaaa I wanna have my own country so I can import negroes from Boston and new York...Waaa waaaa

Washington is traitor scum..Jefferson is trait scum

i wouldnt say that

Washington did lead a lawless, traitorous, and violent rebellion against the rightful and legal authority of his country. Washington, was, in fact, a traitor.

'Robert' wrote :
--------------------------------
> "so can you provide an example of when the
> federal government stepped in and violated
> a states right?"

'monno' wrote :
----------------------------
> "By declaring slavery illegal in future states without
> that state having a say in the matter."

Um, we were talking about States Rights, I thought

not FUTURE States - what sorta bullshit is that?

Lordy, y'all grasping at straws

and I love the comparison of the traitor-states to the Colonies.

The Colonies were being taxed without representation in English Parliment . ALL the traitorstates had representation in the US Congress, they just were just all butthurt things werent going their way, werent mature enough to work with the system they AGREED TO, and decided to become terrorists instead.

about FUTURE states - like the Federal Govt doesnt have the right to decide who gets to join and how - if a new state didnt like it, they could start their own Govt or stay a territory - had nothing to do with the ORIGINAL states who AGREED and SIGNED the Constituion already

Posted by: Boston Coll. ()
Date: March 21, 2011 09:12PM

Gordon-

They signed the constitution shoch does NOT say that it cannot secede. They were acting within their rights. You continuous analogies show that you fail to grasp simple concepts. I have never heard of the Civil War being compared to a lease agreement, probably because it is such a shit argument.

BULLSHIT! You sign a contract, you cant break it unless it says you can, or when you can, or when it is over

and that's what the US Constituion is, a CONTRACT

the traitor-states didnt like how the game was being played, so they opened fire with guns INSTEAD of playing politix like grow-ups do

It's not like they didnt have Congressmen in DC, or not know how to be Senators.

They couldnt play the game, so they tried to change the rules, plain and simple

Fucking traitors

'robert' wrote :
---------------------------
> "i guess the northern men having a say in the matter was really
> the right being violated then eh dip shit?

SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE THE ONE "GRASPING @ STRAWS"

still waiting for an example of state right that was violated here

Gordon-

You are thinking about this in 21st century terms. The Federal Government was not as strong and all-encompassing as it is today (mostly thanks to the outcome of the Civil War). The right that most commonly violated was that of nullification - I will let you research that on your own so I am not accused of having a slant one way or another.

I have given you an example of a state right being infringed, please point me to the section in the Constitution that says it is forbidden for a state to secede. You at least owe us that as you keep asking others to defend their position. Defend yours.

HOW ABOUT THE RIGHT OF THE SOUTHERNERS TO HAVE A VOTE AND NOT BE RULED
BY A DICTATORSHIP STYLE GOVERNMENT OF LIBERAL PUKES WHO FIND THEIR OWN
SPECIAL MEANING IN THE CONSTITUTION.

STILL WAITING FOR AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE IT SAYS IN THE CONSTITUION THAT
SLAVERY IS ILLEGAL AND ALSO WAITING FOR A REASON WHY THE OPINIONS OF
THE NORTHERN STATES TRUMPED THE OPINIONS OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

George Washington is a butt hurt terrorist traitor.

Washington was also a deadbeat. The traitors of the American revolution were just trying to avoid paying their fair share, thru lawful taxes, of the costs the Crown absorbed protecting their sorry deadbeat terrorist asses during the French and Indian war. "Taxation without representation". Pfft, what propagandistic rot.

yeah, Robert - it's kinda funny how they are still glossing over that simple little fact, eh?

There were only a few of them at the time - you'd think if the Feds had really done something, they'd have been able to point something out by now LoLz

My favorite argume by them so far is "Posted by: PHenry ()
Date: March 21, 2011 10:05PM
You are thinking about this in 21st century terms. The Federal Government was not as strong and all-encompassing as it is today

So because the Federal Govt wasnt as strong as it was, it was ok to turn guns on it instead of deal with the South's grevious thru the LEGAL means that were given to them since ALL the Southern states had legal representation in Congress, y'know?

Posted by: gaybert ()
Date: March 21, 2011 10:07PM

HOW ABOUT THE RIGHT OF THE SOUTHERNERS TO HAVE A VOTE AND NOT BE RULED
BY A DICTATORSHIP STYLE GOVERNMENT OF LIBERAL PUKES WHO FIND THEIR OWN
SPECIAL MEANING IN THE CONSTITUTION.

STILL WAITING FOR AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE IT SAYS IN THE CONSTITUION THAT
SLAVERY IS ILLEGAL AND ALSO WAITING FOR A REASON WHY THE OPINIONS OF
THE NORTHERN STATES TRUMPED THE OPINIONS OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

um, I thought this was about state's rights, not slavery?

oh, and the Northern States trumped the Southen States cause aparently, the Southern states lacked the ability to make an common sense argument - same as y'all seem to be doing


ROFLMAO@you

@Tully, Hubert - then why the fuck are y'all still here

get yr ass out of my country, traitorfucks - go back to Goonbia or Outer Buttfuckistan, or wherever it is you inbreds come from

Yeah, there is a reason not a single confederate was ever tried or convitrd for treason. Largely because the war criminal north count possibly ake out a case for it.

Roflmao@you!!

Gordon-

A couple of posts ago I asked you to show us where in the Constitution it says you cannot secede. You have failed to do this, and your arguments now sound childish. Thank you for showing your true colors.

Get the Phuket outta here and go back to the peoples republic of Boston or what ghetto dwelling urban cesspool you comrade from.


Roflmao@you

"get yr ass out of my country, traitorfucks"

Get the hell out of MY state if you hate its history so much.

nobody's given me an example of how any Southern state's right was infringed upon.

The Civil War happened because of Coulda-Shoulda-Wouldas

The South was so afraid they couldnt LEGALLY argue slavery as a way of life, they decided to become traitors instead. They had PLENTY of time, and all the LEGAL REPRESENTATION that all states had at the time

And they couldnt do it, so they resorted to guns

same as any common thug would these days in a drug deal gone bad

Slavery was the South's crack rock ROFLMAO!!!

they couldnt handle life without their fix so they had to "get their gat" and "start poppin' caps" HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Come on Gordon, you ignorant ape, show us all where the constitution prohibits secession. Filthy butt hurt moron.

Roflmao@you!!

Slavery was a positive good for the negroes who lined under it's benign and generous terms. The negroes were peaceful, productive, and disciplined. Abolutely no apologies.

Posted by: BillyZ ()
Date: March 21, 2011 10:34PM

Get the hell out of MY state if you hate its history so much.


I dont hate the United States - I hate the traitors who fought against it, though

Gordon, you have been given an example of states rights that were infringed upon (nullification). Now it's your turn to show us how secession was illegal. You cannot do it!

Gordon Blvd wrote :
----------------------------------------
> "um, I thought this was about state's rights, not slavery?

STATE'S RIGHTS TO HAVE A SAY ON WETHER OR NOT SLAVERY WAS LEGAL IN THEIR STATE.
SO YOU ARE CORRECT, IT WAS ABOUT STATES RIGHTS TO HAVE A VOTE.

> oh, and the Northern States trumped the Southen States cause aparently,
> the Southern states lacked the ability to make an common sense argument
> - same as y'all seem to be doing"

OH SO THE INABILTY TO MAKE WHAT A DUMBASS SUCH AS YOURSELF CONSIDERS
A "COMMON SENSE ARGUMENT", VOIDED THE SOUTHERN STATES RIGHTS ?
HOW LIBERAL OF YOU, JACKASS.

> "ROFLMAO@you"

YOU SHOULD LAY OFF THE GAY INTERNET ACRONYMS AND TRY FOCUSING NEXT TIME.
MAYBE THEN YOU WOULD NOT APPEAR SO RETARDED AND COULD MAKE A VALID ARGUMENT.

I didn't say you hate the U.S., you moron.

Posted by: BillyZ ()
Date: March 21, 2011 10:34PM

Get the hell out of MY state if you hate its history so much.


I dont hate the United States - I hate the traitors who fought against it, though

Agreed. The negroe crime rate was completely under control during slavery.

I gotta admit, pissing of traitors is VERY fun

Still waiting for dumb ass Gordon to show everyone where secession is outlawed undervthe constitution. Think I'm gonna read war and peace while I wait...lol

Gotta admit, pissing off union war criminals is loads and loads of fun

Must hurt the urethra.

Re: Happy 150th birthday, Confederate Flag Posted by: Gordon Blvd ()
Date: March 21, 2011 10:40PM


I gotta admit, pissing of traitors is VERY fun

> "Get the hell out of MY state if you hate its history so much."

IT IS NOT "YOUR STATE" YOU FAGGOT.
YOU DON'T EVEN OWN YOUR OWN OPINION.

> "I dont hate the United States

YEAH RIGHT.

> "I hate the traitors who fought against it, though"

YOU MEAN TRAITORS LIKE THE NORTHERN STATES THAT DENIED THE SOUTHERN STATES
THEIR FAIR SAY ?

I AGREE.

Still waiting there Gordon...lol

Hey Gordon, I'll give you a hint...the list of prohibitions against the states is in article 1' section 10. Start there, but you not find it...lol

Still waiting Gordon...where oh where is the restriction against secession in the constitution..find it yet...lol

about 'valid' arguments - y'all hillbillies still havent answered Robert's orignal question about what state's right was violated. And you act like it's legal to break a contract when there are no stipulations on when/where that legally binding contract can be broken.

I cant teach law to ppl too stupid to understand basic 11th grade logic, much less figure out why you are so upset for me calling you out for yr traitorism, when you are SO PROUD OF IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

I mean, that's what started this whole thread in the first place - pride over the Confederate Flag

So if yr proud of the Confederacy, be proud of it - just dont act like it's part of the United States - cause it HAD A FUCKING WAR WITH THE US - and did so in an act of traitorism, plain and simple

Damn, for a peoples so allegedly proud of themselves, you really do end up sounding like a bunch cry-babys - I'm really stunned by how easy this has been.

I wonder if any of y'all will scrap up enough gray matter and actually be able to answer Robert's question, and not resort to hypothetical "future states"

or just mimic my comments back to me - that's so 3rd grade o_0

Just read your incoherent post there Gordon, but did not see where you identified the constitutional prohibition against secession...I guess I'll just wait some more

A www come on Gordon, you are so damn cock sure secession is unlawful, surely you can show everyone where that is in the constitution....

The premable to the Constitution sums it up:

We the People of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, which a closeted homosexual named Gordon Blvd in Northern Virginia will talk about but not quote, as the references he is making do not actually exist within this document. We the convention have also left out any references to fisting, as Mr. Blvd finds it enjoyable and we want to deprive him of that. Also, he interferes with farm animals.

Surely gordon, if it was there, you would just love to show us...come on now dumb ass everyone is waiting...

nice troll fail there, Tully lol

Gordo-

You have been given the example of nullification several times and yet you still say that no one has given you an example. Are you functionally illiterate or something?

sigh - my friends here are right - reasoning with hillbillies on the intraweb is silly

I've pointed out how there is no legal was to break a contract you agree to unless the stipulations are in the contract at the onset, but again you gloss over that simple little fact, Tully

but thanks for showing how loyal to the "Confederacy" y'all really are

cause we over here still have no earthly idea why it matters to you how the United States feels about it - since you BETRAYED her, and TOOK UP ARMS against her

and tully, the name changing is about as pathetic as yr mom is walking down Rt 1 - see ya tomorrow ;)

"I've pointed out how there is no legal was to break a contract you agree to unless the stipulations are in the contract at the onset"

You're just making stuff up! That would never hold any water in any court!

Gordon - So if my contract does not specifically say that a group of Mexicans are not allowed to enter my apartment at 3am, then they can just do that?!

grant>Lee
Lincoln>davis

so long losers of the war,
cant deal with you n word using babies anymore
learn how to read and then pick up some books written by decorated historian not southern sympathizers.

later haters!

Gordon, you pathetic moron, leave your whore mother and pimp father out of this, asshole.Now show me where the constitution prohibits secession. Stupid asshole.

sugh..no reply from the ghetto dwellers...

Can we please get back to the original topic - you all have strayed far off of it! Now, when fisting myself, is it better to use KY or Smuckers jelly?

'Gordon Blvd' wrote :
----------------------------
> "I've pointed out how there is no legal was to break a contract you
> agree to unless the stipulations are in the contract at the onset, but
> again you gloss over that simple little fact, Tully."

WRONG AGAIN, DUMBASS.
*ANY* CONTRACT CAN BE VOIDED IF ONE PARTY
BREAKS IT'S *CONTRACTUAL* OBLIGATION.
GLOSS THAT OVER.

'Gordon Blvd' wrote :
---------------------------------------
> " - since you BETRAYED her, and TOOK UP ARMS against her"

ACTUALLY IT WOULD BE THE NORTHERN STATES THAT BETRAYED THE UNITED STATES
BY ILLEGALLY TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST THE SOUTH LIKE THE MURDEROUS TRAITORS
THEY WERE.

yeah that makes sense
ALL THE HISTORY BOOKS GOT IT WRONG!!!
we better do somethin my southern bretheren urrrrrrr damn northern agression, making it so lincoln gets elected and we cant quit!!!!

LINCOLN ?
THAT MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL TRAITOR GOT WHAT HE DESERVED WITH
A SWIFT BULLET TO THE BRAIN.

BESIDES, WHY IS 'Gordon Blvd' POSTING IN OTHER THREADS BUT IS
NOT DEFENDING HIS POSITION ON CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ?
GEEZ, MAYBE HE DECIDED TO SHUT UP BECAUSE HE REALISED WHAT AN
INCREDIBLE ASSWIPE HIS REPETITVE NIEVE BALOGNA MADE HIM LOOK.

yeah im with you brother that long armeed ape lincoln had no right to free niggers!!! hes a murderer he murdered people durr. if it wasnt for him id still be able to sit and watch nigs make me money and i wount have to do shit, of course id be no more educated than i am today.

> "yeah im with you brother that long armeed ape lincoln
> had no right to free niggers!!!

NO HE DIDN'T.
THEY WERE NOT CITIZENS THAT WERE TO BE GOVERNED BY HIM.
THEY WERE PROPERTY.
BESIDES, THIS FREE THE SLAVES CRAP WAS MOST LIKELY POLITICAL CRAP
DONE TO GAIN FAVOR WITH VOTERS.
MUCH LIKE TODAY.

> "hes a murderer"

SURE WAS, HE ORDERED THE KILLING OF AMERICANS OVER PROPERTY
THEY LEGALLY AND FAIRLY BOUGHT FROM NIGGERS IN AFRICA.

> "he murdered people durr."

DURR ?
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY GAY-SPEAK I'M NOT HIP TO.

> "if it wasnt for him id still be able to sit and
> watch nigs make me money and i wount have to do shit,

WELL BEING THEY HAD TO GET THEIR ASSES BEAT ON A REGULAR BASIS,
I DOUBT THEY WERE TO AWFUL PRODUCTIVE.
THEN THERE WERE THE LIVE-IN HOUSE MAID TYPE SLAVES, BUT THAT DOESN'T
PAINT A HORRIBLE ENOUGH PICTURE FOR YOU NOW DOES IT ?

> "of course id be no more educated than i am today."

YOU CAN'T TEACH AN OLD RETARD NEW TRICKS.

There is so much i want to say..

i find this subject very interesting and fun to debate...

however, instead of continuing this argument..

i would just like to say...I FUCKING HATE GORDON BLVD....

I see his posts on this site all the time and i just know he is the type of person i would hate if i met him....


anyways, carry on robert and bart.

the north was more productive than the south

Can a government that maintains slavery and racial inequality by force of arms be truly small?

CAN A GOVERNMENT THAT FORCES PROPERTY OWNERS TO FORFEIT PROPERTY THAT
WAS FAIRLY PURCHASED TO SERVE THOSE WHO WANT TO FEEL LIKE THEY WALK
ON A MORAL HIGH GROUND, TRULY BE JUST ?

Tully Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Still waiting Gordon...where oh where is the
> restriction against secession in the
> constitution..find it yet...lol

The Supreme Court ruled that unilateral secession was unconstitutional, look up Texas v. White. If you don't like America, move.

Posted by: formerhick76 ()
Date: March 22, 2011 08:02AM

Can a government that maintains slavery and racial inequality by force of arms be truly small?

only their penises

@ Jimmy James - I'm honoured to have yr hate, sir - Yr mom said the same thing to me last night LoLz

@ loser - Re: Happy 150th birthday, Confederate Flag
Posted by: Gordon Blvd = BRAINDEAD NIGGER ()
Date: March 21, 2011 11:18PM

um, I love how you think I'm black - now That's pretty hilarious

Texas v White can't helpnyou at all, since it was decided well after the states had already seceded. Not to mention it is garbage. And if you don't like it, move.