I hold it, too, and have that trapped feeling. But this company isn't making money. In fact, and one wonders how long it can continue, it's losing 61¢ on each share.
Are they committed to buying or is this an "up to" that possible quantity program?
Who is it that has the legitimate authority to tell the American people with whom it is that they will associate and enter into contracts with? I cannot recall any legitimate delegation of that authority. So it must fall under the heading of consent, which means that the right to not consent is still present as well.
That's a fact, Jack.
Gold is going to have a remarkably greater downward pressure. This is huge.
Slavery was protected by the Constitution. Why would the southern states want to leave otherwise? If you understood the economics, the high tariffs on the foreign goods that the south wanted to buy because northern manufactured goods were shoddy, and all were raised yet again with the Morill tariff, you might have a grasp on the matter. Otherwise, your propagandized mindset precludes any further discussion.
History is always written by the victors and the only way that the victors could assume the moral high ground here, when the states were within their right to leave the union, was to claim that the war was about slavery when obviously it was not. That was my point.
Moreover, and I have already pointed it out, there were those that were employing slave labor above the Mason-Dixon all throughout the war (white washing the buildings in the capitol comes to mind for just one example), but that truth is always conveniently glossed over by those that attempt, as you are, to be politically correct about in a situation you obviously know very little about.
Perhaps you should research the Rum Triangle and discover for yourself what segment of the country benefited the most financially from slavery.
That is not quite the whole truth:
Julia Dent Grant came from a slave-owning family and was an apologist for slavery throughout her life and the Civil War. The Grants owned slaves that came from Julia's father and Grant himself was responsible for supervising them. These slaves were not freed until 1865 when Missouri officially abolished slavery.
Grant actually owned one slave himself as well, which he did release. The others, however were not until after the war, which purportedly ended slavery.
Were you aware that General Ulysses S. Grant had to be cajoled into releasing his own slaves in Ohio after the War of Northern Aggression? Or that he said that if he had thought for a moment that the war was over slavery that he would have resigned his commission and offered his sword to the South?
Were you aware that when the US bought all the slaves in DC that they owned them? Were you aware that they claimed all the slaves in the southern states as booty of war; that they owned them too? The Emancipation Proclamation was hardly anything like what you've been led to believe. They weren't given legal status until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 wherein they were labelled to be US citizens, the same status that exists today in USC §42. Now stop and think about what it might mean to represent yourselves as US citizens, too.
Anyone who believes, even for a nano moment that the southern people were fighting to preserve slavery or that the north was fighting to eliminate it is really screwed up in the head.
There was a paper issued just the other day by a researcher, who after reading the correspondence of over 25,000 soldiers, both blue and grey, stated that the obvious cause of southern willingness to fight was that they viewed Washington as a tyrannical government. If you know nothing of the economics of the period and the imposition of the Morrill Tariff, you aren't qualified to have anything but a perverted opinion on the matter; you don't S$$$ from Shinola.
They want to scare you away so that they can buy on the cheap.