Politics Trump's immigration reform

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
DaLincolnJones said:
great post Mags..funny thing, I had the same conversation with a co worker today. The states rights VS federal or central government has been an argument in this country ever sense the war for independence.
Click to expand...
I mean, don't get me wrong. I absolutely love how it eventually played out because any human lives matter. But the Civil War did not start because of the North wanting to free slaves.
 
magnifier661 said:
The fact that you can't pull actual quotes from trump will be fine
Click to expand...

You're right, they definitely aren't flocking to him because he said they're mostly rapists or criminals. They're just flocking to him because nobody else has said anything about mass deporting illegals, ever.
 
XuLouDon said:
You're right, they definitely aren't flocking to him because he said they're mostly rapists or criminals. They're just flocking to him because nobody else has said anything about mass deporting illegals, ever.
Click to expand...
100% accurate! Ironically, Hillary is now taking a big public stand on illegal immigration. Even if Trump doesn't win, his run has created a new platform to gain America's interest. Just listen to the people and say what you mean.
 
magnifier661 said:
Here is a little history on the matter.
Click to expand...

Some of South Carolina's reason:
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

Mississippi:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…

Louisiana urging Texas to succeed:
As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.

Texas:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

Alabama legislature:
Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.
Click to expand...


www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
 
When the leader of the union would allow slavery to end the civil war, it's pretty obvious that the war was not because of Slavery.
 
magnifier661 said:
I mean, don't get me wrong. I absolutely love how it eventually played out because any human lives matter. But the Civil War did not start because of the North wanting to free slaves.
Click to expand...
magnifier661 said:
Did Lincoln write letters that stated he would not stop slavery if it stopped the war?
Click to expand...


First off, you are correct. It was a states rights issue. Slavery was as big of an issue as taxation or the division of free vs slave states to be admitted into the union.

If I remember correctly he stated as well as wrote on the subject to the effect you have pointed out. His initial freeing of the slaves served two fold, one was to hinder the souths ability to produce material, and the second was to bolster the northern troop numbers. And yes, before someone pulls some bull shit straw man argument, there were other arguments that were raised as well, but Lincoln is known to have stated these himself verbally and in print.,
 
magnifier661 said:
When the leader of the union would allow slavery to end the civil war, it's pretty obvious that the war was not because of Slavery.
Click to expand...
the south started the civil war over property rights. that the opposing antagonist would have allowed it to continue if it were within his power to avoid the bloodbath speaks to that leaders conviction to avoid war at all cost not the southern grievance
 
lawai'a said:
the south started the civil war over property rights. that the opposing antagonist would have allowed it to continue if it were within his power to avoid the bloodbath speaks to that leaders conviction to avoid war at all cost not the southern grievance
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why I believe slavery was the only major issue.
 
magnifier661 said:
I mean, don't get me wrong. I absolutely love how it eventually played out because any human lives matter. But the Civil War did not start because of the North wanting to free slaves.
Click to expand...

Yes, it started because the south was paranoid the that the newly elected president was coming for their slaves.
www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

The link has every word each state gave as to why they were succeeding/declaring war. Fear of the north electing a Republican president hostile to slavery is the reason given.

magnifier661 said:
Don't say it was because of slavery. If you do, then you need to relearn history
Click to expand...
magnifier661 said:
Which is exactly why I believe slavery was the only major issue.
Click to expand...
Wait, what?
VvtWoZz.gif
 
magnifier661 said:
Which is exactly why I believe slavery was the only major issue.
Click to expand...


well..you are right and wrong, Mags. States right were far deeper than just slavery. There was less of a challenge to the existing slave states. The focus was on the new states being admitted into the union. Also you have to understand that taxation, import and export, property rights (yes, including slaves but far from exclusive) and in general the ability of a state to have the final say in matters. Again this goes back to the founding of this country. In the first go round in 1776 we had a weak federal government and strong states, when the constitution was signed that brought into effect a reversal of positions. Historically the argument festered especially in the south for the next 80 years. One could easily say that the root cause was because of this.
 
DaLincolnJones said:
well..you are right and wrong, Mags. States right were far deeper than just slavery. There was less of a challenge to the existing slave states. The focus was on the new states being admitted into the union. Also you have to understand that taxation, import and export, property rights (yes, including slaves but far from exclusive) and in general the ability of a state to have the final say in matters. Again this goes back to the founding of this country. In the first go round in 1776 we had a weak federal government and strong states, when the constitution was signed that brought into effect a reversal of positions. Historically the argument festered especially in the south for the next 80 years. One could easily say that the root cause was because of this.
Click to expand...
agreed that it can be an underlying cause but defense of slavery appears in all articles of grievance in all the states as the primary cause.
the fact that slavery was outlawed west of the ohio river in 1787, the same time that the constitution was ratified,1787, not 1776, seems to compel a negative reasoning to representation as an argument. states entering the union from territories west of the ohio as free states doomed the south from ever holding a majority or even maintaining status quo representation. your mention of the mason Dixon line was an attempt to placate southern/slave states with the opportunity for representation with westward expansion. the articles of grievance for the dissolution/succession put forth prominently and often exclusively the defense of slavery/states property rights
 
lawai'a said:
agreed that it can be an underlying cause but defense of slavery appears in all articles of grievance in all the states as the primary cause.
the fact that slavery was outlawed west of the ohio river in 1787, the same time that the constitution was ratified,1787, not 1776, seems to compel a negative reasoning to representation as an argument. states entering the union from territories west of the ohio as free states doomed the south from ever holding a majority or even maintaining status quo representation. your mention of the mason Dixon line was an attempt to placate southern/slave states with the opportunity for representation with westward expansion. the articles of grievance for the dissolution/succession put forth prominently and often exclusively the defense of slavery/states property rights
Click to expand...

very well stated. I did not want to get too far into the weeds, but you were able to do so deftly. Hence the reference to 1776 and the signing of the constitution in 1787. Where our modern history books like to make Lincoln out to be single minded in his fight to free slaves, those that read deeper find otherwise.
 
I love the "white" washing of history. Soon the spin on the Civil War will be that it was started by black people because they wanted to remain slaves. Lincoln hated black people and only fought the civil war to take their fun party time enslavement away and force them to become taxpayers.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I love the "white" washing of history. Soon the spin on the Civil War will be that it was started by black people because they wanted to remain slaves. Lincoln hated black people and only fought the civil war to take their fun party time enslavement away and force them to become taxpayers.
Click to expand...
I blame Obama
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I love the "white" washing of history. Soon the spin on the Civil War will be that it was started by black people because they wanted to remain slaves. Lincoln hated black people and only fought the civil war to take their fun party time enslavement away and force them to become taxpayers.
Click to expand...

oh thats great. Can you imagine the Black Lives Matter crowd covering this subject? On second thought, looks like you already have.
 
Trump's crowd has Romney reconsidering another run...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top