TexasCHLforum.com

Can you impeach a Senator? I thought they had to be voted out by 2/3rds of their colleagues only. I guess that's semantic whether you call it impeachment.

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome (Senator)? -Henry II

I prefer the term "perp" or "mook" or "thug" like on Law and Order on TV!

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, two years after the American Civil War started, but your point is still valid.

You are, of course, correct. I got a little over zealous.

Still, when Lincoln was elected, the southern Democrats saw the writing on the wall and that lead to the Civil War. Slavery was not the ONLY issue, but it was a big one.

Arguably the main one. I never bought the "mean old Northern businessmen and tariffs".

ScottDLS,
You should have "Bought" it. It is true.

It is also arguable that the "War of Northern Aggression" would not have happened without the North attacking the south. It is a truth that although there is a DIRECTED verdict by the SCOTUS that the South couldn't secede, it is also true that the members of the court who so voted were traitors to the constitution. Logic dictates that any singularity or group that voluntarily joins a larger group also has the inate ability to leave that group.

Logic may dictate so, but the Constitution doesn't (provide a mechanism for secession). The Union was worth preserving and ultimately slavery was doomed, but the Civil War got it done faster and to our Nation's benefit.

I really don't see anything noble about Southern gentry sending hundreds of thousands of their poor white countrymen to fight and die for a system built on slavery to benefit the elite. They were the traitors by any stretch. There were good men on both sides, but the South's ultimate cause was not just, which I like to think is why they lost.

Pawpaw wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, two years after the American Civil War started, but your point is still valid.

You are, of course, correct. I got a little over zealous.

Still, when Lincoln was elected, the southern Democrats saw the writing on the wall and that lead to the Civil War. Slavery was not the ONLY issue, but it was a big one.

Arguably the main one. I never bought the "mean old Northern businessmen and tariffs".

RogueUSMC wrote:And the Emancipation Proclamation was a martial law declared in occupied areas, not a law of the land...

Yeah it took the 13th amendment to make "law of the land".

Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, two years after the American Civil War started, but your point is still valid.