It was not a love triangle at all. Except for Fox News (looking at you Shepherd Smith) that piece of fiction was done away with rather quickly. Of course that doesn't stop half the posters in this thread from showing their ass. The rest are just as bad as the antis.
Ooohh this again! Sorry, I just felt the need to get in on this discussion before those who would allow the states (with a lower case "s") abrogate the rights of individuals. So much for due process and equal protection and all that.
Oh yeah, 9th amendment forever!
I just had to add, I find it...
And yet your generation gave us Jimmy Carter. Prior to that, it was FDR.
I doubt that support for same-sex marriage is going to be the death knell of the nation, society, etc.
Victorian-era parents in the early 1910s and 20s and those calling rock-and-roll immoral in the 1950s would absolutely agree with this statement.
Yet here we are.
I rather think the types of links being provided (or in some cases the repeated use of single source information) says all there is to say about the point of view being offered.
"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
But no, the war had nothing to do with slavery at all, just ask the Democrats of 1856:
Democratic Party Platforms: Democratic Party Platform of 1856
As for Lincoln's letter to Greeley, it might be a good idea to actually read what he is saying and...
Deaf ears...
Most of the framers of the Constitution would disagree with secession the way the CSA attempted it. Otherwise, states would continually leave and rejoin at a later date when it suited their interests, thus ensuring a weak nation. Precisely the opposite of what the framers were...
Seems to me that the CSA included territory belonging to the United States as well as property. Also, 9 out of 13 is indeed 2/3. Although, just to be clear, I did add the modifier arguably.
I would argue that the Constitution is quite clear on where that particular power lies.
The Constitution, and the conventions it established, required the assent of 2/3 of the states to ratify it. Arguably, in order to break that covenant, the agreement of 2/3 of the states was also necessary...
+1. Apparently any and all government exists only to subvert people's freedom in the eyes of some. Anarchy in the USA I suppose.
I think I have it about figured out:
Federal Government: Always wrong, should either not exist or do nothing.
States: Do as little as possible except when in conflict...
This is, and always was debatable. The US was created from a compact between the various states and, arguably, can only be dissolved via mutual agreement between the states.
Also, I'm not so sure I like the idea that a single generation of morons (let's use that term to refer to the...
Perhaps if the Southern States had been a bit more magnanimous and tolerant of former slaves, then there would have been no need for things such as the Freedmen's Bureau, Civil Rights Act, Enforcement Acts, etc. All of these, arguably, led to the perception by some that a strong federal...
It's no use arguing. He's got his set of talking points (err notes), all too familiar, that holds the Confederate States as some bastion of freedom and Lincoln as the ultimate tyrannical dictator.
He is right about one thing though. No one died at Fort Sumter. The Confederacy should have taken...
That's a convenient definition.
Also, regarding the "peaceful" abolition of slavery elsewhere, you may wish to exclude Haiti from your list as well as most of Latin America, where the abolition of slaves was the direct result of a series of wars for independence.
You mean this constitution:
or
or how about
We've already covered the 14th Amendment, but hey let's not forget
With this and other rulings, no one is infringing upon anyone's free exercise of religion unless of course that specific religion seeks to impose its will over non-believers.