There was an attempt to get rid of Abbott in the last primary 4 years ago. Don Huffines, Allen West, and Chad Prather all ran against him. If two of those three had dropped out, they could have forced a run-off and who knows what might have happened. I voted for Huffines because he was the only one willing to do nullification and tell the Federal government and anyone else No. I know you sorta disagree on it being realistic, but I think it can be effective as we've seen with the left on sanctuary cities and both sides on marijuana. I don't agree with either of those, but it shows that doing things contrary to Federal law is possible.
Voted against Abbott again, but he basically ran unopposed this time around. He's a pretty good politician in that he is not afraid to appear to change his mind and do the bare minimum in order to survive the next election and most people in this state still aren't there yet in regards to getting rid of him. It'll happen eventually and hopefully for the better. I mean we did get rid of Cornyn finally and whatever you say about Paxton, he's at least not Cornyn. If only we could get rid of Cruz too.
Huffines will at least become the Comptroller this year and will at least check Abbott on the financial side and hopefully put a wrench in the Democrats ability to hamper or make things worse in this state. The guy Huffines beat was Abbott's buddy that he put in and backed, so that was a good win there too.
Yes, I wanted to address this matter as well. In response to Napoleon crowning himself Emperor of France, the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Germany Francis II made crowned himself the first Emperor of Austria in 1804, so as to prevent a loss of an imperial status in the chance that Napoleon would invade. It would turn out for this to occur only two years later, when in 1806 the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was dissolved with the "Reichsdeputationshauptschluss" and so, besides the new title of the Emperor of Austria, there was no longer a unified German state for which a ruler could be sovereign. Upon Napoleon's defeat was founded the German Confederation in the Congress of Vienna in 1815 as a replacement for the Holy Roman Empire, yet it served merely as an economic measure, not as a political unification for the politically splintered German nation. Despite popular belief and modern leftist revisionist lies, the German Revolution of 1848, although involving certain leftist factions of a democratic and socialist vein, pursued primarily constitutional monarchist aims and attempted to crown the Prussian King Frederick William IV in the conclusion of the Frankfurt Assembly, but failed in doing so due to conservative/reactionary suppression. As you correctly state, Germany was only (partially) unified in 1871 with the German Empire, albeit with the "Lesser German Solution", i. e. with Austria remaining a seperate political state (despite Austria being but one land of many that have for many centuries comprised the German nation).
So yes, long story short, there was indeed no 'Kaiser' in 1848, as you correctly point out.
Never in my entire life as an American, in 46 years as a Southerner, with plenty of Northern friends, family, and acquaintances, had I ever, ONCE, heard Lee or Southern leaders or generals being called “traitors.” Not from any academic, any historian, any American. Never. Not one time.
And then two days ago I see it written online: by an effin’ Hindu Indian Invader who works for a Neocon magazine.
How disgusting. How rank, this foul non-American invader calling Our People these names that not even other Whites would use against them. The gall, the hubris, the total ignorance of history and culture and religion, the anti-White hatred from that invader scum.
Love it!!!!!! I had read this story in Taylor’s history if the war. Always good for a laugh. Speaking of “treason”, the North sent recruiting agents to Europe to hire mercenaries, bums, hobo’s, and desperate paupers to kill Americans.
"American" isn't either 100% or 0%, but it is 0% unless you're descended from a man who legally voted in a US election before 1848 (treaty of Guadalupe-Hildago, end of Mexican-American War). Not at all American, no say in America. Qualify for citizenship elsewhere? Then regardess of your <50% Americanness your US citizenship should be revoked and you need to go. (Mostly American, you can choose to renounce your foreign citezenship eligibility.) But just being American shouldn't be enough to vote. Pro immigration, Israel, feminism, or diversity, or anti-nationalist, anti-White, or anti-American, no vote or office or grants for you.
And hang every criminal and traitor like Jane Fonda. The elite sponsors and cartels enabled this. Remove their protection and the lowly immigrants will thinks twice about coming here.
Thank you for sharing that amazing, frightening and important story about Taylor and Osterhaus. Very enlightening, especially as it echoes into our current demographic disaster.
They’re brown invaders, I don’t give a fuck what piece of paper they have. Being born here doesn’t make you a real American, it gives you a piece of paper. They are the anchor baby children of h1b fraudsters of those who stole jobs from Americans. Sorry we don’t want all American children to have to compete with the entire world for a job or school slot.
Hmmm. Really. The South wanted to secede from a political and economic union Southerners no longer wanted to be a part of. There is nothing wrong with secession. We seceded from the British Empire and so did the Irish. It might have been unwise to leave the union, but indefensible?
Please do not bring up the slavery canard. Slavery was legal and supported by the Federal government in 1861.
The entire Western Hemisphere had been one vast slave empire since the 16th century. Slavery was abolished peacefully in British colonies in the 1830’s and in most of Latin America by the 1850’s.
Slavery would have died a natural death, but we stand proudly with Haiti as the only places it was violently ended.
Traitor? Have you always been an idiot? Taylor’s state seceded and he went with it, as did millions of others. Secession is not treason. I have had quite enough of Yankees patting themselves on the back. One if the main reasons the South left the former - repeat, former - union, was to get the hell away from people like you. The oath he took became null and void the minute his state left the former union. Oh, and Taylor’s father was a US president. Perhaps he knew more about the secession issue than you.
Hansen, OK. Can you provide our readers with the details of the “treason” trials of Lee, Davis, or ANY Confederate leader? Uh, no. Why? The government’s own attorney warned against any such trials, as the government would lose and they knew it. When Virginia left the union Lee’s oath became null and void. You are a pathetic product of a corrupt, Mickey Mouse educational system. Oh! The good guys won! The other guys were traitors! I have listened to this horseshit quite long enough.
They weren’t tried for treason but he was indicted. The decision not to prosecute him was a political decision, Grant insisted his grant of amnesty at Appomattox prevented Lee’s arrest, not because it was legally difficult to prove. There is no basis for your claim that a state claiming to have left the Union negated the oath those from that state took to the country.
Yes, irrelevant. Lee took an oath and he violated that oath by making war against the country he swore to defend. The actions of the VA state legislature had nothing bearing on that oath.
You can only commit treason against a country if you are a citizen of that country. Lee was no longer a citizen of the United States, as he was a citizen of the Confederate States. No different than the Americans who fought against England after the colonies declared their independence. Former citizens owe no allegiance to their former countries, regardless of their military service.
The Confederate generals were not in the US, nor subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. If they were, then W. Va. would not legitimately be a US state. The Confereracy was in fact and law a foreign state. So no treason. You can't point to a single precedent showing otherwise.
You, on the other hand, took an oath to the Constitution and yet support Israel, which has attacked the US constantly since before it was recognized. That's treason.
Some of the attacks by Israel on the US:
Election of Truman was due to big under-the-table Zionist bribe.
JFK assassination heavily Israel-linked
LBJ crypto-Jewish serial killer (through intermediaries), called planes back from giving aid to the USS Liberty, attacked by Israel
JJ Angleton, head of CIA counterintelligence was their mole, did inestimable damage
Apollo/NUMEC Israel stole enough bomb material for dozens of nukes.
Johnathan Pollard
Agents provacateurs of Israel in every important ME terrorist group, directing attacks
9/11 entirely Israeli aside from patsies and collaborators
67%+ of the US Congress bribed or blackmailed by Israel
Spying, more than any opponent, let alone ally
Thorough infiltration of government, academia, think tanks, NGOs and media, effectively total overthrow of not only the American government but of any possibility of effective opposition.
Many, many other less high-profile cases show that Israel is factually and intentionally an enemy of the US, so support for them, adhering to their cause by advocating their propaganda positions and lies, or even by tolerating those doing so, is treason punishable by death under the Constitution. No maybe, no possibly, it's death-penalty treason.
You are a hopeless fool. If fools like you manage to get an El Sayyid in the White House, are US officers obliged by their “oath” to carry out his orders, a foreign subversive (being born here does not make you an American and he isn’t one)? Of course not.
Your simple-minded view of one of the worst periods in our country’s history is alarming, to say the least. If you think one third of the country was composed of traitors, you are a downright moron.
Resignation ends the ability to exercise the powers of the office, it does not alter the loyalty expressed in the oath one took in order to exercise those powers. An officer today who resigned his commission today and made war against the US tomorrow would be guilty of treason.
Of course Washington was a traitor and everyone at the time would have acknowledged that. There may be legitimate reasons to betray your country and Washington arguably had them.
Lee, OTOH did not and his oath had nothing to do with Virginia or its place in the Union.
Lee did, indeed, take an Oath of Office swearing his allegiance to the United States of America.
Depending on which oath he took (the wording of the Oath of Office for Commissioned Officers changed right around the same time he commissioned), he may have also sworn his support for the Constitution of the United States and that he had never taken up arms nor willingly rendered support to enemies of the United States.
Throughout his commission in the US Army (the office binding him to that oath), he seems to have faithfully abided by his word.
However, he never betrayed that oath. Two days following the Union’s offer of field command, Colonel Lee officially resigned his commission (officially vacating the office binding that oath). The oath was no longer binding.
He did not commission as commander of the Virginia state forces for three more days, and another three weeks before his appointment within the regular Confederate Army.
His first engagement with Union forces wouldn’t occur for several more months.
__________
There is some wiggle room if you want to debate whether his resignation took effect on the date he issued it (as the running issue in this argument has been whether he was a man of his word, I’d say it took effect the moment he signed the letter), the date the Secretary of War accepted it (two days after he commissioned with the Virginia military and naval forces), or after the official 30 day grace period of the USA bureaucracy (probably shortly after he joined the CSA Army).
No, the “oath of office” is binding only as long as he holds that office.
If he were to violate that oath while maintaining that office, it would be grounds to remove him from said office.
Resigning from that office unbinds the previously-sworn holder going forward.
The oath is defined by holding the office, and resignation is the honorable way to relieve oneself of such a commitment. Even today, retired military officers are still bound by their oaths and can be legally held responsible for behavior that conflicts with their oath; officers who have resigned their commissions are only accountable for violations prior to their resignation.
_________
Washington, incidentally, never held a royal military commission, despite repeated attempts to be awarded one - prior to the revolution, he resigned his colonial commission and alleviated any sworn obligation to the crown that that would have carried.
Benedict Arnold attempted to tender his resignation multiple times, but Washington consistently persuaded him to withdraw them. As he still held his sworn office when he attempted to sell out West Point, he did break his oath and betrayed his side.
There was an attempt to get rid of Abbott in the last primary 4 years ago. Don Huffines, Allen West, and Chad Prather all ran against him. If two of those three had dropped out, they could have forced a run-off and who knows what might have happened. I voted for Huffines because he was the only one willing to do nullification and tell the Federal government and anyone else No. I know you sorta disagree on it being realistic, but I think it can be effective as we've seen with the left on sanctuary cities and both sides on marijuana. I don't agree with either of those, but it shows that doing things contrary to Federal law is possible.
Voted against Abbott again, but he basically ran unopposed this time around. He's a pretty good politician in that he is not afraid to appear to change his mind and do the bare minimum in order to survive the next election and most people in this state still aren't there yet in regards to getting rid of him. It'll happen eventually and hopefully for the better. I mean we did get rid of Cornyn finally and whatever you say about Paxton, he's at least not Cornyn. If only we could get rid of Cruz too.
Huffines will at least become the Comptroller this year and will at least check Abbott on the financial side and hopefully put a wrench in the Democrats ability to hamper or make things worse in this state. The guy Huffines beat was Abbott's buddy that he put in and backed, so that was a good win there too.
Ugh. So many examples of obstinate behavior from the part of the GOP with better views but very self promoting characters
There was no Kaiser in Germany (that I am aware of) in 1848. The German Empire did not assemble until 1871.
You are right. Ridiculously dumb mistake on my part. My apologies. It has been fixed.
Yes, I wanted to address this matter as well. In response to Napoleon crowning himself Emperor of France, the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Germany Francis II made crowned himself the first Emperor of Austria in 1804, so as to prevent a loss of an imperial status in the chance that Napoleon would invade. It would turn out for this to occur only two years later, when in 1806 the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was dissolved with the "Reichsdeputationshauptschluss" and so, besides the new title of the Emperor of Austria, there was no longer a unified German state for which a ruler could be sovereign. Upon Napoleon's defeat was founded the German Confederation in the Congress of Vienna in 1815 as a replacement for the Holy Roman Empire, yet it served merely as an economic measure, not as a political unification for the politically splintered German nation. Despite popular belief and modern leftist revisionist lies, the German Revolution of 1848, although involving certain leftist factions of a democratic and socialist vein, pursued primarily constitutional monarchist aims and attempted to crown the Prussian King Frederick William IV in the conclusion of the Frankfurt Assembly, but failed in doing so due to conservative/reactionary suppression. As you correctly state, Germany was only (partially) unified in 1871 with the German Empire, albeit with the "Lesser German Solution", i. e. with Austria remaining a seperate political state (despite Austria being but one land of many that have for many centuries comprised the German nation).
So yes, long story short, there was indeed no 'Kaiser' in 1848, as you correctly point out.
Y'all are both right about the Kaiser thing. Dumb mistake on my part.
Now if only the recent arrivals in America would be as humble and admit their mistaken beliefs about a country which is still not their own.
Never in my entire life as an American, in 46 years as a Southerner, with plenty of Northern friends, family, and acquaintances, had I ever, ONCE, heard Lee or Southern leaders or generals being called “traitors.” Not from any academic, any historian, any American. Never. Not one time.
And then two days ago I see it written online: by an effin’ Hindu Indian Invader who works for a Neocon magazine.
How disgusting. How rank, this foul non-American invader calling Our People these names that not even other Whites would use against them. The gall, the hubris, the total ignorance of history and culture and religion, the anti-White hatred from that invader scum.
Deport every last one of them.
Love it!!!!!! I had read this story in Taylor’s history if the war. Always good for a laugh. Speaking of “treason”, the North sent recruiting agents to Europe to hire mercenaries, bums, hobo’s, and desperate paupers to kill Americans.
"American" isn't either 100% or 0%, but it is 0% unless you're descended from a man who legally voted in a US election before 1848 (treaty of Guadalupe-Hildago, end of Mexican-American War). Not at all American, no say in America. Qualify for citizenship elsewhere? Then regardess of your <50% Americanness your US citizenship should be revoked and you need to go. (Mostly American, you can choose to renounce your foreign citezenship eligibility.) But just being American shouldn't be enough to vote. Pro immigration, Israel, feminism, or diversity, or anti-nationalist, anti-White, or anti-American, no vote or office or grants for you.
48ers are a people unto themselves. The world would be a better place if this was still known.
Who would I deport? Every single democrat who laughed during the 9/11 commemoration. Then i'd continue with every Muslim and East Indian in Texas.
Crap, I'll take hard working Mexican Immigrants over Muslims and East Indians.
And hang every criminal and traitor like Jane Fonda. The elite sponsors and cartels enabled this. Remove their protection and the lowly immigrants will thinks twice about coming here.
Thank you for sharing that amazing, frightening and important story about Taylor and Osterhaus. Very enlightening, especially as it echoes into our current demographic disaster.
Glad you liked it! It’s one of my favorites from the war
They’re brown invaders, I don’t give a fuck what piece of paper they have. Being born here doesn’t make you a real American, it gives you a piece of paper. They are the anchor baby children of h1b fraudsters of those who stole jobs from Americans. Sorry we don’t want all American children to have to compete with the entire world for a job or school slot.
https://zoneofsulphur.substack.com/p/abolish-whiteness?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4c4akx
It's good the south lost, their cause was indefensible
Hmmm. Really. The South wanted to secede from a political and economic union Southerners no longer wanted to be a part of. There is nothing wrong with secession. We seceded from the British Empire and so did the Irish. It might have been unwise to leave the union, but indefensible?
Please do not bring up the slavery canard. Slavery was legal and supported by the Federal government in 1861.
The entire Western Hemisphere had been one vast slave empire since the 16th century. Slavery was abolished peacefully in British colonies in the 1830’s and in most of Latin America by the 1850’s.
Slavery would have died a natural death, but we stand proudly with Haiti as the only places it was violently ended.
Enough bogus Ken Burns history.
This is the rightwing equivalent to the left always distorting history to “prove” their latest insanity.
He was a traitor to the country he took an oath to serve.
Traitor? Have you always been an idiot? Taylor’s state seceded and he went with it, as did millions of others. Secession is not treason. I have had quite enough of Yankees patting themselves on the back. One if the main reasons the South left the former - repeat, former - union, was to get the hell away from people like you. The oath he took became null and void the minute his state left the former union. Oh, and Taylor’s father was a US president. Perhaps he knew more about the secession issue than you.
Erm… Lee was a traitor.
Hansen, OK. Can you provide our readers with the details of the “treason” trials of Lee, Davis, or ANY Confederate leader? Uh, no. Why? The government’s own attorney warned against any such trials, as the government would lose and they knew it. When Virginia left the union Lee’s oath became null and void. You are a pathetic product of a corrupt, Mickey Mouse educational system. Oh! The good guys won! The other guys were traitors! I have listened to this horseshit quite long enough.
They weren’t tried for treason but he was indicted. The decision not to prosecute him was a political decision, Grant insisted his grant of amnesty at Appomattox prevented Lee’s arrest, not because it was legally difficult to prove. There is no basis for your claim that a state claiming to have left the Union negated the oath those from that state took to the country.
Yes, irrelevant. Lee took an oath and he violated that oath by making war against the country he swore to defend. The actions of the VA state legislature had nothing bearing on that oath.
You can only commit treason against a country if you are a citizen of that country. Lee was no longer a citizen of the United States, as he was a citizen of the Confederate States. No different than the Americans who fought against England after the colonies declared their independence. Former citizens owe no allegiance to their former countries, regardless of their military service.
The Confederate generals were not in the US, nor subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. If they were, then W. Va. would not legitimately be a US state. The Confereracy was in fact and law a foreign state. So no treason. You can't point to a single precedent showing otherwise.
You, on the other hand, took an oath to the Constitution and yet support Israel, which has attacked the US constantly since before it was recognized. That's treason.
Some of the attacks by Israel on the US:
Election of Truman was due to big under-the-table Zionist bribe.
JFK assassination heavily Israel-linked
LBJ crypto-Jewish serial killer (through intermediaries), called planes back from giving aid to the USS Liberty, attacked by Israel
JJ Angleton, head of CIA counterintelligence was their mole, did inestimable damage
Apollo/NUMEC Israel stole enough bomb material for dozens of nukes.
Johnathan Pollard
Agents provacateurs of Israel in every important ME terrorist group, directing attacks
9/11 entirely Israeli aside from patsies and collaborators
67%+ of the US Congress bribed or blackmailed by Israel
Spying, more than any opponent, let alone ally
Thorough infiltration of government, academia, think tanks, NGOs and media, effectively total overthrow of not only the American government but of any possibility of effective opposition.
Many, many other less high-profile cases show that Israel is factually and intentionally an enemy of the US, so support for them, adhering to their cause by advocating their propaganda positions and lies, or even by tolerating those doing so, is treason punishable by death under the Constitution. No maybe, no possibly, it's death-penalty treason.
You are a hopeless fool. If fools like you manage to get an El Sayyid in the White House, are US officers obliged by their “oath” to carry out his orders, a foreign subversive (being born here does not make you an American and he isn’t one)? Of course not.
Your simple-minded view of one of the worst periods in our country’s history is alarming, to say the least. If you think one third of the country was composed of traitors, you are a downright moron.
Resignation ends the ability to exercise the powers of the office, it does not alter the loyalty expressed in the oath one took in order to exercise those powers. An officer today who resigned his commission today and made war against the US tomorrow would be guilty of treason.
Of course Washington was a traitor and everyone at the time would have acknowledged that. There may be legitimate reasons to betray your country and Washington arguably had them.
Lee, OTOH did not and his oath had nothing to do with Virginia or its place in the Union.
Lee took an oath to the United States of America.
The rest of what you wrote is abject nonsense.
Lee did, indeed, take an Oath of Office swearing his allegiance to the United States of America.
Depending on which oath he took (the wording of the Oath of Office for Commissioned Officers changed right around the same time he commissioned), he may have also sworn his support for the Constitution of the United States and that he had never taken up arms nor willingly rendered support to enemies of the United States.
Throughout his commission in the US Army (the office binding him to that oath), he seems to have faithfully abided by his word.
However, he never betrayed that oath. Two days following the Union’s offer of field command, Colonel Lee officially resigned his commission (officially vacating the office binding that oath). The oath was no longer binding.
He did not commission as commander of the Virginia state forces for three more days, and another three weeks before his appointment within the regular Confederate Army.
His first engagement with Union forces wouldn’t occur for several more months.
__________
There is some wiggle room if you want to debate whether his resignation took effect on the date he issued it (as the running issue in this argument has been whether he was a man of his word, I’d say it took effect the moment he signed the letter), the date the Secretary of War accepted it (two days after he commissioned with the Virginia military and naval forces), or after the official 30 day grace period of the USA bureaucracy (probably shortly after he joined the CSA Army).
His resignation did not release him from his oath, he remained sworn to defend the United States.
No, the “oath of office” is binding only as long as he holds that office.
If he were to violate that oath while maintaining that office, it would be grounds to remove him from said office.
Resigning from that office unbinds the previously-sworn holder going forward.
The oath is defined by holding the office, and resignation is the honorable way to relieve oneself of such a commitment. Even today, retired military officers are still bound by their oaths and can be legally held responsible for behavior that conflicts with their oath; officers who have resigned their commissions are only accountable for violations prior to their resignation.
_________
Washington, incidentally, never held a royal military commission, despite repeated attempts to be awarded one - prior to the revolution, he resigned his colonial commission and alleviated any sworn obligation to the crown that that would have carried.
Benedict Arnold attempted to tender his resignation multiple times, but Washington consistently persuaded him to withdraw them. As he still held his sworn office when he attempted to sell out West Point, he did break his oath and betrayed his side.