big government

[Goodieluver]

It's a unfortunate pastime called revisionist history. The liberal eliists can't stand to have any positive models out there, so the pull up stuff that was rumormongered and present it as historical fact. They seem to want to ignore the sacrifices made to give them the freedom they tend to abuse. We're Lincoln , Washngton, et al perfect saints? No. But they did outshines that. Do we throw out The Declaration of Independence because Jefferson had sex with one of his slaves? Not hardly.

Slavery was a the MAIN issue that split the Union. States rights was a close second. If you read any of Lincoln's speeches (Ex. the "House Divided speech), you know he was opposed to it before the war. However, he didn;t have the POLITICAL clout to go after it until they had enough victoires in the war. Then he did without hesistation. He had to wait for the right time to move.

Unfortuntaley, since the first name of 80% of history teachers in Jr. High and High School is 'Coach,' it is the least well taught subject. Making it easier for the liberal propaganda machines otherwise known as the 'mainstream' press to cloud issues, confuse the masses, and re-write the past as they see fit to fit the DNC's agenda.

One look at how the mine incident was handled is proof of how rotten the press corps are now. I'm not a jurnalist and even I can remember from my Mass Media class in High School 26 years ago that you confirm with 2-3 sources before you report anything like that.

Quality i must say, bout yer history coach analogy, one of the first hist courses i took in college my prof said the exact same thing

 

[alchemy1]

...Don't look at me, I'm a Libertarian. The government that governs the least governs the best. My philosophy and I'm sticking to it.

 

[MistressValerie1]

...Don't look at me, I'm a Libertarian. The government that governs the least governs the best. My philosophy and I'm sticking to it.

My sentiments exactly. I've been voting Libertarian ever since I became a U.S. citizen, and I was vice-president of the Libertarian club at my university even before I became a citizen!

 

[Wade1]

It's a unfortunate pastime called revisionist history. The liberal eliists can't stand to have any positive models out there, so the pull up stuff that was rumormongered and present it as historical fact.

Actually, the guy I know who most vigorously endorses the kind of revisionist Lincoln history people have been discussing here is extremely conservative with libertarian leanings. For whatever that's worth.

I would think the main thing driving historians who come up with new and dubious takes on established figures is the fact that so much has been written already and no one will publish a new biography on a major personage without some kind of a twist.

Most such twists are, of course, transient gimmicks with limited supporting evidence. But that said, I do think it's useful to us to develop a more nuanced and complicated understanding of people in the past, warts and all.

 

[Betchass1]

Actually, the guy I know who most vigorously endorses the kind of revisionist Lincoln history people have been discussing here is extremely conservative with libertarian leanings. For whatever that's worth.

I would think the main thing driving historians who come up with new and dubious takes on established figures is the fact that so much has been written already and no one will publish a new biography on a major personage without some kind of a twist.

Most such twists are, of course, transient gimmicks with limited supporting evidence. But that said, I do think it's useful to us to develop a more nuanced and complicated understanding of people in the past, warts and all.

Kind of like the way the internet works. There's a lot that's undeniably useful and true, there's a lot that's nonsense, and a lot that's lies; but the only hope anyone has of learning to make use of this tool is by being exposed to all three enough to recognize them for what they are. I find most teachers in higher learning even now would rather just discard the internet completely, citing the prevalence of nonsense and lies.

 

[plumr2003]

For a history of what led to the civil war we must review American hostory. After we won the war of independence we did not win the land of the US we only won the right to govern ourselves . The british never surrendered the land on the excuse that the land belonged to private corporations ( Hudson Bay Trading Co. , etc. ) ; therefore could not be given over as a war prize. Our forefathers balked at this so the british began to use subversion to control us thru thier bankers. They bribed an American general by the name of Wilkerson who was in charge of the port of New Orleans to thwart our exporting. This treason was found out by congress so they proposed the 13 Ammendment which said that any american who accepts tribute or title from a foriegn nation or king to lose his citizenship and therefore his ability to hold office. So the british instigated the war of 1812 they invaded us and made a beeline for Washington DC and burned the White House to destroy the constitution and all traces of the 13 Ammendment.Andrew Jackson fought them and the turning point of the war ironically was the Battle of New Orleans. We were forced to accept a british central bank because of our war debt. After the debt was paid Pres Jackson kicked out the bank of London.An assassination attempt failed ( Jackson was convinced that the Rothchilds were behind it ) Then british loyalists in congress tried impeachment it also failed. The brits then instigated the south to secedeand thru the loyalist Pres Buchanan had the constitution republished without the 13 am.The war was a great diversion and Lincoln was forced to break the const. by preventing the south from seceding as as thier right according to states rights provisions of the const.. After the war Lincoln again tried to thwart the brit bankers by issuing greenbacks to pay the war debt . He was killed.

 

[Goodieluver]

My sentiments exactly. I've been voting Libertarian ever since I became a U.S. citizen, and I was vice-president of the Libertarian club at my university even before I became a citizen!

No offense but libertarians terrify me, i watched the libertarian primary on cspan, the presidential candidates were a software designer, a movie director and somethin else

Sorry, i just dont believe in isolationism, which is the vibe i got from what they said

 

[Neutron]

Bs..

For a history of what led to the civil war we must review American hostory. After we won the war of independence we did not win the land of the US we only won the right to govern ourselves . The british never surrendered the land on the excuse that the land belonged to private corporations ( Hudson Bay Trading Co. , etc. ) ; therefore could not be given over as a war prize. Our forefathers balked at this so the british began to use subversion to control us thru thier bankers. They bribed an American general by the name of Wilkerson who was in charge of the port of New Orleans to thwart our exporting. This treason was found out by congress so they proposed the 13 Ammendment which said that any american who accepts tribute or title from a foriegn nation or king to lose his citizenship and therefore his ability to hold office. So the british instigated the war of 1812 they invaded us and made a beeline for Washington DC and burned the White House to destroy the constitution and all traces of the 13 Ammendment.Andrew Jackson fought them and the turning point of the war ironically was the Battle of New Orleans. We were forced to accept a british central bank because of our war debt. After the debt was paid Pres Jackson kicked out the bank of London.An assassination attempt failed ( Jackson was convinced that the Rothchilds were behind it ) Then british loyalists in congress tried impeachment it also failed. The brits then instigated the south to secedeand thru the loyalist Pres Buchanan had the constitution republished without the 13 am.The war was a great diversion and Lincoln was forced to break the const. by preventing the south from seceding as as thier right according to states rights provisions of the const.. After the war Lincoln again tried to thwart the brit bankers by issuing greenbacks to pay the war debt . He was killed.

Learn your history son. This is pish posh.

 

[plumr2003]

I ain,t your son! I'm old enough to be your father. Remember that the history books are written by the winners. We only know what we are taught in school and if you don't research any further you will never know the complete story. History is my hobbyand many historians have written about this very subject. If you want any references let me know.

 

[Neutron]

Son

I ain,t your son! I'm old enough to be your father. Remember that the history books are written by the winners. We only know what we are taught in school and if you don't research any further you will never know the complete story. History is my hobbyand many historians have written about this very subject. If you want any references let me know.

I've forgotten more history than you'll ever know. You must use comic books as sources.

HOW EXACTLY could the Brits have burnt the Capital in 1812 to get rid of the 13th Amendment WHEN that Amendment didn't even EXIST until 1865?

It also has nothing to do with accepting or paying tribute. NO AMENDMENTS address it. In fact in the early days of our country there were those who wanted to PAY tribute to the Barbary Pirates as a matter of National Policy.

Here is the history of the 13th Amendment.


13th. Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Proposal and Ratification

The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-eighth Congress, on the 31st day of January, 1865, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 18th of December, 1865, to have been ratified by the legislatures of twenty-seven of the thirty-six States. The dates of ratification were: Illinois, February 1, 1865; Rhode Island, February 2, 1865; Michigan, February 2, 1865; Maryland, February 3, 1865; New York, February 3, 1865; Pennsylvania, February 3, 1865; West Virginia, February 3, 1865; Missouri, February 6, 1865; Maine, February 7, 1865; Kansas, February 7, 1865; Massachusetts, February 7, 1865; Virginia, February 9, 1865; Ohio, February 10, 1865; Indiana, February 13, 1865; Nevada, February 16, 1865; Louisiana, February 17, 1865; Minnesota, February 23, 1865; Wisconsin, February 24, 1865; Vermont, March 9, 1865; Tennessee, April 7, 1865; Arkansas, April 14, 1865; Connecticut, May 4, 1865; New Hampshire, July 1, 1865; South Carolina, November 13, 1865; Alabama, December 2, 1865; North Carolina, December 4, 1865; Georgia, December 6, 1865.

Ratification was completed on December 6, 1865.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Oregon, December 8, 1865; California, December 19, 1865; Florida, December 28, 1865 (Florida again ratified on June 9, 1868, upon its adoption of a new constitution); Iowa, January 15, 1866; New Jersey, January 23, 1866 (after having rejected the amendment on March 16, 1865); Texas, February 18, 1870; Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected the amendment on February 8, 1865); Kentucky, March 18, 1976 (after having rejected it on February 24, 1865).

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Mississippi, December 4, 1865.

 

[Neutron]

You Might Try Reading Legitimate History...

The Brits were abhored the South Seceded. Though officially neutral they continued trading with AND FINANCED the Northern war effort. They knew a divided US would never restore their former property and could only HURT Brit trade with the US. If anything the Brits put business over everything and would nbot jeopardize their arrangements with the US.

Also they never tried to bankrupt the US. Official early 19th Century Brit policy relied on US Trade. Bankrupting the US would have been counterproductive. The War of 1812 was instigated by subversives in the Brit Governm,ent who couldn't stand the world being at peace after a 10 years of Brit War.

In BOTH the revolutionary and the War of 1812 the Brits did their best not to jeapordize US Economy because they darn well knew regardless of the outcome they lose out on trade with either the Colonies or the US. Either way they knew they'd lose.

New Orleans was not a turning point in 1812. The WAR was OVER by then. Jackson took an illegal action.

I suggest you get better sources.

 

[Neutron]

If You Are Talking This...

Thirteenth Amendment


[Contested Article.]
[Proposed 1810; Possibly Ratified 1819, but evidence lacking, and it seems most likely that the number of ratifying states did not reach 3/4 of the states as new states were admitted.]

If any Citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any Title of Nobility or Honour, or shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, Pension, Office or Emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince or foreign Power, such Person shall cease to be a Citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any Office of Trust or Profit under them, or either of them.



It had nothing to do with Wilkerson, it had EVERYTHING to do with the US Distrust of nobility. The subtext of this Amendment was the real kicker. It implied Government officials were immune from their own laws by default because they were the lawmakers and therefore above the law.

Brits and Brit bankers could have cared less. It in no way shape or form hurt their US interests in the least. It only would have prevented a US citizen from setting up a bank in the name of Great Britain.

 

[Goodieluver]

Learn your history son. This is pish posh.

U also said my story on the killer of dimebag was pish posh

I then posted an interview with his mum and friends provin it and u didnt respond to that, why is that?

 

[Neutron]

Simple..

U also said my story on the killer of dimebag was pish posh

I then posted an interview with his mum and friends provin it and u didnt respond to that, why is that?

SHE and THEY never said that. It was paraphrased. His mother in her OFFICIAL statement to the Columbus police stated she bought him the gun and he was a paranoid schizophrenic. She said he got violent when he was off his meds and any statements about song lyrics were merely speculation. She has no idea why he did it.

Here was the bulk of her statement.


"Clark, who said she was close to her son, repeatedly apologized to the victims as she revealed to the station's interviewer that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. The diagnosis led to his medical discharge last year from the Marines after serving less than half of his four-year stint. She said she purchased the gun for him before his diagnosis."

"And I still didn't understand the whole thing, but he came home with his medications, and I don't know if he took them or not," Clark said. "I don't know if he was afraid to, or ... ashamed to, or ... didn't believe it himself," Clark said. "I have such remorse for those families, and I am so sorry that they are losing their loved ones. Their sons, brothers, fathers."

Also statements by witnesses on stage, including the FIRST person he shot revealed he might not have even known he was shooting at Dimebag Abbott or initially intended on at him.

 

[Goodieluver]

SHE and THEY never said that. It was paraphrased. His mother in her OFFICIAL statement to the Columbus police stated she bought him the gun and he was a paranoid schizophrenic. She said he got violent when he was off his meds and any statements about song lyrics were merely speculation. She has no idea why he did it.

Here was the bulk of her statement.


"Clark, who said she was close to her son, repeatedly apologized to the victims as she revealed to the station's interviewer that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. The diagnosis led to his medical discharge last year from the Marines after serving less than half of his four-year stint. She said she purchased the gun for him before his diagnosis."

"And I still didn't understand the whole thing, but he came home with his medications, and I don't know if he took them or not," Clark said. "I don't know if he was afraid to, or ... ashamed to, or ... didn't believe it himself," Clark said. "I have such remorse for those families, and I am so sorry that they are losing their loved ones. Their sons, brothers, fathers."

Also statements by witnesses on stage, including the FIRST person he shot revealed he might not have even known he was shooting at Dimebag Abbott or initially intended on at him.

And what of his friends with his obsession with pantera music thinking it was his and whatnot?

 

[Neutron]

Uninformed Speculation..

His mother had the low down on his medical condition. She stated he NEVER accused Pantera or DimeBag of stealing his lyrics.

No one knows what he was thinking the night he killed Abbott. What is known was he was paranoid and schizophrenic and he wasn't taking his medicine. He was prone to violence when he was off his meds and like many Paraschizos his condition was accelerating and getting worse.

His friends just wanted their names in the papers. The official investigation was closed with a most likely due to mental illness. The gunman most likely wanted to enjoy a Damageplan show, had a schizo attack (which I hear can last for days). Fixated on Damageplan and their crew because he was initially there to watch them, then decided to shoot some people.

Anything else is pish posh.

 

[plumr2003]

There is irrefutable proof though that still exists that the 13th admendment was ratified. Constitutional concepts retains that proof.
Passed by Congress May 1, 1810 - Ratified December 9, 1812.

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the united States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

(Considerable controversy surrounds this Amendment - The official position of the Federal Government is that it was never ratified - but - in the past few months there is more than ample evidence that shows the Amendment was properly ratified on December 9, 1812, and if not then, certainly no later than March 10, 1819.
For over 50 years this Amendment was included in the publications of the Constitution for the united States.

Many States, Territories, and even the Federal Government, itself, printed copies of the Constitution containing this Amendment.
It was unlawfully removed by persons unknown for their own personal greed and aggrandizement.
Even though it was properly ratified, it appears that it was never enforced. Thus, all laws, treaties, appointments of officers to government positions, and other acts and actions of the Federal government since 1812 are of questionable validity and may therefore be null and void.
You can examine for yourself the images of the various documents that prove conclusively the validity of the 13th Amendment
It is very interesting to note that only the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th Articles of Amendment had numbers assigned to them at the time of ratification. The reason behind the numbering was to insure that the removal of the validly existing 13th Amendment was fully hidden by the proposed, and wrongfully numbered new 13th Amendment. To have just numbered the new proposed Amendment as the 13th and then not number any others would have called attention to the facts surrounding the situation. Whoever was behind the removal of the valid 13th Amendment had to number the next few Amendments so as to further hide their unlawful actions.

This Amendment was for the specific purpose of banning participation in government operations by attorneys and bankers who claimed the Title of Nobility of "Esquire." These people had joined the International Bar Association or the International Bankers Association and owed their allegiance to the King of England. Banning Titles of Nobility began in the Articles of Confederation, continued in two places in the Constitution, and finally was added as an Amendment to the Constitution -- an Amendment that was needed as the other bans had no teeth in them to punish those persons who chose to ignore the Constitutional Law.

The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Eleventh Congress, Second Session, on the 1st of May, 1810. The dates of ratification were:

1 Maryland 1810, Kentucky 1811, ohio 1811, Delaware 1811, Penn. 1811, New Jerszey 1811, Vermont 1811, Tenn. 1811, Georgia 1811, N. Carolina 1811,Mass. 1812, New York 1812

 

[plumr2003]

I never said the british tried to bankrupt the US, I said they tried to control us thru their banking just as they do now thru the federal reserve bank. Then you said Jackson 's Battle of New Orleans was illegal, would you have preferred we lost the War of 1812. You better get your priorities straight kid and stop accepting at face value what you're told by mass media. There have been to many changes to the laws of this land because people like you are too lazy and arrogasnt to find the real truth behind headlines. WAKE UP !!!

 

[Betchass1]

Many States, Territories, and even the Federal Government, itself, printed copies of the Constitution containing this Amendment.
It was unlawfully removed by persons unknown for their own personal greed and aggrandizement.
Even though it was properly ratified, it appears that it was never enforced. Thus, all laws, treaties, appointments of officers to government positions, and other acts and actions of the Federal government since 1812 are of questionable validity and may therefore be null and void.

More likely that would lead to abandoning the Constitution as void and implementing, as an emergency measure, the Bushstitution, until further notice. We are acting at all times in the best interest of Americans. We only use this emergency measure to prevent terrorist attacks. We do not condone torture. We believe in Santa Claus.

 

[Neutron]

LOL What??

I never said the british tried to bankrupt the US, I said they tried to control us thru their banking just as they do now thru the federal reserve bank. Then you said Jackson 's Battle of New Orleans was illegal, would you have preferred we lost the War of 1812. You better get your priorities straight kid and stop accepting at face value what you're told by mass media. There have been to many changes to the laws of this land because people like you are too lazy and arrogasnt to find the real truth behind headlines. WAKE UP !!!

Sorry, it's NOT that clear on the ratification. In the early days of the Constitution the Founding Fathers believed ALL States had to ratify an amendment since it was the STATES that ratified the Constitution.

Only 12 states ratified. NOT Thirteen. The Founding Fathers were still around and many voiced their opinion it couldn't be an amendment. Since Congress wouldn't accept it due to the various opinions they elected NOT to adopt it. Nothing shady was done. If you read the writings and papers at the time you'll see it was on the Up and Up. Later a protocal was decided upon to adopt amendments because they realized the country was only going to get bigger, and unanimous would most likely not happen

The Brits could have gave a shit. It also wasn't news the Brits controlled a lot of American Banking. THEY CONTROLLED THE FINANCIAL WORLD EVERYWHERE, including France, Russia, The German Kingdoms, Spain... need I go on? They were the rishest country in the world anbd the first version of the World Banking Organization. 1812 had nothing to do with Banking. It had everything to do with the US wanting to establish once and for all that we wouldn't harbor our citizens being fucked with.

On the Brit end it wasn't about conquest the Brits and the US both knew it was in the Brits best interest for the US to be independent, the Brits were already having trouble governing and paying for what they ALREADY controlled. . They KNEW they couldn't control an area the size of the United States. They burnt Washington to send a message. IT WAS TRADITIONAL IN WARS AT THE TIME TO BURN THE CAPITAL CITY OF YOUR ENEMY NATION IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY!!!. To think the Brits thought burning the Constitution would stop adopting an amendment or destroy any trace the consititution is ignorant at best and quite moronic.

Jackson didn't win the war. You cannot WIN a war that is already over.... The war had been ended for at least a month. Jackson knew it, and in fact performed the moral equivalent of Pearl Harbor. New Orleans should have never happened, the fact it did was more due to the appetites of a bloodthirsty, genocidal, misogynist than anything else.

Do you get your history off a cracker jack box?

 

[plumr2003]

The thing to remember, though, is that fomenting the split in the union was a long-term project which was concocted by the scions of the British aristocracy, who were sorely punished when Andrew Jackson manuevered against them in the southwestern frontier territories during the War of 1812, and when his patchwork, "multi-cultural" army of frontier militia volunteers, Free Men of Color, Haitian refugees and Choctaw warriors repulsed and then slaughtered the British army in detail, during the campaign now known as the Battle of New Orleans (culminating on January 8th, 1815).

It is clear from the disposition of troop ships which carried the British regiments and rocket battalions that there was a plan to capture, occupy and claim New Orleans and southern Louisiana for the British crown. The Scottish commanders and the Highlanders, or 93rd Regiment, were prepared to establish a civil government.

Furthermore, many of the men of the 93rd were accompanied by their wives and a total of 104 children! This was to be the nucleus of the garrison of occupation, and it is thought that Sir Edward Pakenham was to be appointed Governor and awarded an "earldom," and that the ships and commodities of New Orleans were to be condemned by the Admiralty as prizes of war. This would have meant a windfall of some $20,000,000 for all of the soldiers and sailors and marines of the expedition.

The British armed forces which attacked Washington and burned its federal buildings in August of 1814 did exactly that, with the goods and ships seized at Alexandria, Virginia. Their planned assault on Baltimore was also designed to wreck American merchant shipping by destroying its most important middle-states port, and seizing its huge stores of tobacco, cotton, and other valuable commodities. Only the valiant defense of Baltimore by leaders like Senator Samuel Smith and Philip Reed (who had also served in the United States Senate), the Maryland militia and especially the flotillamen and sailors of Joshua Barney, acquitted the shame of having the Capitol destroyed.

Reed is known now as the principal author of the Titles of Nobility and Honour, or original Thirteenth Amendment, frequently referred to as the TONA. It was crafted in response to the continuous espionage and political chicanery of the British leaders in Parliament, and acting upon behalf of the Prince Regent (since George the III was by then, quite mad). It was, in its original form, considered with other proposals to create and secure liberty known as the Bill of Rights. However, it did not make the cutdown from the seventeen proposals to the twelve which were issued by the First Congress.

: A financial tailspin may be the trigger setting loose a
: smart-bomb to wreck ... Washington. In a more pedestrian
: analogy, some call it simply a horrendous foreign-created train : wreck. Stay tuned.

This is quite perceptive, and dove-tails precisely with the final ratification of the Titles of Nobility Amendment, which was conducted when the Legislature of Virginia voted, en bloc, to approve the Revised Code of 1819, which had been three or four years in preparation. The TONA had been considered as an enrolled bill by the Virginia legislature in 1811, where it was approved by the House of Delegates but tabled following a tie vote in the Senate. The legislation was "pretermitted" during the following years -- interrupted by the War of 1812 and its events -- but never dropped or rejected by a defeat. It, along with a comprehensive and meticulously edited new edition of all of Virginia's laws, were passed by the actions of their legislature and published, under bond, and at public expense.

Not six months after the date of ratification, or March 12th, 1819, Virginia and much of the country was swept up in a panic which apparently had its origins in faulty or crooked banking practices conducted by the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States. Many prominent men were ruined and some died from either 'worry' or what amounts to suicide by bankruptcy. Early in 1820, a joint resolution of the legislature of Pennsylvania was introduced to the Senate, calling for a constitutional amendment to prohibit national and branch banking in all parts of the country except for the District of Columbia. However, as the panic and the depression gradually subsided, the impetus for such a measure was lessened and the Bank of the U.S. lived on until Andrew Jackson was elected President. He vetoed its re-charter.

For the whole of the Jacksonian era, the sovereign States of this federal union enjoyed great freedom, and the central government was strong but limited. Following the death of Andrew Jackson, in 1845, with his Florida having just joined the union, and with him being secure in the knowledge that Sam Houston had saved the Republic of Texas from becoming a British colony on the Brazos, Philadelphia lawyers and judges allied to James Buchanan went to work to suppress the Titles of Nobility Amendment.

Buchanan and pro-slavery judicial titans like Roger Taney, and corrupt demagogues like Henry Clay, subsidized and endorsed the issuance of a comprehensive new edition of the Constitution. It was drawn up by one William Hickey, and it is important to note that its principal printings occurred while Buchanan was the Secretary of State, or our ambassador to Great Britain. In it, every aspect of the Bill of Rights was examined and explained, every word of the Constitution checked for spelling and for the proper punctuation and capitalization (two things that were somewhat notoriously bad in that era). Both the Eleventh and Twelfth Amendments are explicated in detail. But there is no mention WHATSOEVER of the original Thirteenth Amendment, despite the fact that it was published by Connecticut's legislature in their Statute Laws in 1839 (for at least the third time), and again by Ohio in 1848. Pro-slavery lawyers, operating with monies obtained from Spanish agents and from the illegal slave trade, conspired to simply exclude the amendment from their publications -- all privately printed.

However, one cannot underestimate the power of an endorsement by federal judges, current and former Senators, and the current Secretary of State -- a man who was designated by law (1818 and 1820), with the responsibility of keeping faithful and accurate records of all constitutional amendments, ratifications, etc. Again, it bears repeating: the various Hickey editions of the Constitution were marvelously well-researched, handsomely printed and bound, and made available by the printing firm F.G. Collins.

They did not change the Constitution, in toto, they simply omitted one crucial amendment -- prohibiting Titles of Honour and the acceptance of "presents, pensions" and "emoluments" from Kings or Princes, and "foreign Powers." That wording is crucial.

In the housing and redevelopment game, there is a long-standing 'scam' or officially-sanctioned policy known as "demolition by neglect." Simply by ignoring a building or a property, and allowing it to fall into disuse and disrepair, sharp operators can destroy its value and then obtain the permits necessary, later, to wreck it, salvage the good parts, and to build anew.

That is what is happening to these United States, right now, and Mr. Skolnick has been among the greatest of our reformers and patriots, for exposing so many crooked deals and corrupt practices. More than 150 years ago, pro-slavery lawyers were successful at getting new editions of the Constitution printed which allowed them to "ignore to death" the TONA. It took more than twenty years for them to accomplish their goals, and it is curious that they finally succeeded in this work in 1876, the year that Rutherford B. Hayes and his Republicans frustrated Samuel Tilden by stealing the presidency ... and in Florida.

That was the year that Colorado was admitted to the union, without the TONA on its books, when it had continuously published it as being valid in its Territorial Laws -- and even in a Spanish language translation! -- through 1868. That was the last time that the Territory of Wyoming issued its laws with the TONA published in its proper place, intact, and with the Anti-slavery Amendment of 1865 as Article XIV, and the civil rights amendment or Article XV also listed as proper and intact.

That mining and pioneering territory, where women had the right to vote, refused to sanction or publish the bogus and fraudulent 'citizenship amendment' which we now call the Fourteenth! In fact, from the early 1860s on through 1868, the Dakota Territory and Colorado and Nebraska published the TONA. The State of Kansas recognized it as being lawful, with the Anti-slavery amendment as being Article XIV, as late as 1868, as well.

The Titles of Nobility Amendment was created by men who had served in the Revolutionary War, and by their younger brothers and colleagues, to protect this union of sovereign States from the depredations and bullying tactics of the international bankers and aristocrats of that time and era -- Spanish grandees, British earls and French military dictators, Bonapartists. It was properly issued, properly ratified, and then later suppressed by a very clever subterfuge -- one that took an entire generation to accomplish its work -- and thus, completely forgotten after our bloody War of Rebellion and Reconstruction. Because of the Internet, it has been reinvestigated, its truths proved out, and the long and difficult work of research and discovery conducted by Tom Dunn and David Dodge, among others, validated. It is the last installment of the Bill of Rights: it exists to give this union of sovereign States a constitutional weapon to wield against the spies, the liars and the bankers of the New World Order. Take it out for a spin, and use it. It can work.

Send an E-mail if you wish to receive a .jpg copy of either the Colorado, or the Territory of Wyoming's publication of the TONA.

Or, go to: http://www.amendment-13.org/ to learn

 

[Neutron]

That's The Biggest Bunch Of Bullshit..

I've ever seen posted on an internet board. A bunch of imgained facts and quarter truths.

The Origiginal 13th Amendment was officially killed by Congress in 1819. Any state that referenced it was doing so in violation of the Constitution or simply had put the law in based on their believing the Amendment would pass. The fact was, in the rules in effect at the time it was NOT a passed amendment. The founding fathers said it wasn't, and Congress didn't view it as passed, you cannot backfit the laws of today with those of yesterday, it doesn't work that way. In the mid 1860s it became the law that slavery was illegal. If a state still had laws saying you could own slaves in that state does that make it right?

You DO have a better source than an internet site do you not? Like maybe a collection of the original papers? A verifiable history?

You also realize it was common practice for British Army Officers to travel to with their families when they were abroad? It didn't matter whether it was war or peace.

Jackson knew exactly what he was doing. Attacking during a TRUCE in order to murder people he hated that being Brits and those from the UK.

Get a real source, not wikipedia or a bogus website.

LOL when exactly did the Brits show interest in Texas? I'm curious who made this up!! Are you always this believing of poppycosh or do you bother to do original research? Wait that would require effort. I withdraw the question.

 

[Betchass1]

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaayum

 

[plumr2003]

You know what kid I've given enough links for you to obtain info. If you spent the time it takes you to come up with sophmoric witty(?) remarks about cracker jack boxes and comic books and used it to read you might learn something, so that being said I give up . You go along with your head in the sand if you want to but if you can EVER get past your tremendous ego and think you might have something to learn then and only then you might learn that nobody knows everything. Have a nice life.

 

[Hungarian21]

wow, there are some posts here that could even challange Vlad...😛