Comment: Add to that, that he

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: _lincoln_? But surely you jest. (see in situ)

Add to that, that he

Add to that, that he illeagally invaded an American state which initiated the war. This makes the war an international war not a Civil War.

Members of the American union are states, or countries and nationalities, in the same fassion that the members of the European Union are indevidual sovereign states or countries and nationalities.

The United States was never a true state, because it had no population or nationality, and owed its existence to the consent of the American states in union. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was forced down everyone's throats, which disenfranchised state nationals and forcibly imopsed "federal" nationality upon all the peoples of the states, that the US could remotely be called a state.

Rebellion can only exist within a state. The Constitution allows for federal assistance in the case of rebellion within a state. The Southen states had no condition of rebellion within them. Therefore, Lincoln's invasion of the Southern states was an illeagal act of unprovolked agression.

Lastly, at least for now, Lincoln's executive order #1 to call together a rump Congerss was an equally unlawful act, as the moment that the Southern states seceded from the Union, the Union ceased to exist. This means that even Lincoln's own office ceased to exist, possibly even before he took office.

This makes Lincoln the first "de facto" president in the succeding line of "de facto" presidents.

So I guess the question remains: which of these liars and userpers, "rulers" if you will, do you like the best? Put another way, which of your prison wardens are you most fond of?

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/