Comment: I concur that the

(See in situ)


I concur that the

I concur that the Constitution itself was problematic from the beginning as its main purpose, it seems, was to seize taxing and military authority from the States in order to maintain the validity of debt held by, as well as the continuity of payments to, many foreign states and indeviduals.

However, the so called Civil War was in fact no such thing. It was an international war among states. There was in fact no rebellion in lawful terms. The peoples of the Southern States were not in rebellion against their own governments, and The Unites States was not their government so there was no rebellion there either. The Constitution only permits military action within a State to quell "domestic violence." None existed within any of the Southern States. Lincoln's agression against North Carolina was an internationally unprovolked and unlawful act.

The free and sovereign Republics of the American Union were born of secession. Their existence is predicated upon the validity of it in law. The Southern States were acting only in the lawful manner that their ancestors had. Whatever failures the Constitution possesses, I feel certain that it had on bearing on Lincoln's lawlessness.

good posts.

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