The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Luke Smith on May 02, 2009, 02:09:59 AM
-
There are a bunch of people in the "liberty movement" and the Free State Movement and in the FTL community who keep saying that the South had a right to secede in 1861. This is complete and utter hogwash. There is no right to secede, and if you secede you are a traitor, and if you advocate secession you are a seditionist.
When the North fought the Civil War against the South, it was fighting to bring a group of people who had seceded and thus had committed treason back into the Union, which it certainly had the right to do. And furthermore, when the South seceded, everyone in the South who aided and/or abetted secession lost all their rights, and only had the rights that the rest of the Union (the North) was willing to give to them. So if the North would have decided that the South was only to have half the rights that they had before, i.e. that every Southern state was now to be only a half-state with only one Senator in the national Congress and only half the representatives that they had before, then that would be legit. If the North would have decided that the South now had no rights, and was to be governed as a conquered territory with no rights indefinately, then that would have been legit too. But luckily for the South they got Andrew Johnson in there and he pardoned them, so all their rights were restored. But if Johnson hadn't have gotten in there, and it was decided by the North that they were to only have half rights or no rights, then that would have been perfectly legit because they seceded and committed treason and thus lost all their rights.
-
or the South could have seceded because of tariffs imposed by the majority
tariffs which had to do with cotton, cotton grown using Negro slavery
funny how the North never attacked until the incident at Fort Sumter, if it was really about "secession" . . .
-
Dear Luke,
You are part of the problem...not the solution...
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Seems like you're trolling...
die troll, die...
enjoy!
-
You mean, contrary to the Declaration of Independence, people don't have a right to seceded? There IS no "consent of the governed?" Does that mean the US ought to rejoin the United Kingdom?
How evil and abusive may a government become before its citizens have a right to secede?
And, what about those states which included a provision for secession within their own constitutions, as a condition for joining the Union?
-
There is no right to secede, and if you secede you are a traitor, and if you advocate secession you are a seditionist.
That's right! They should have strung up every last one of those founding fathers! There is no just cause! REX LEX!
-
There is no right to secede, and if you secede you are a traitor, and if you advocate secession you are a seditionist.
That's right! They should have strung up every last one of those founding fathers! There is no just cause! REX LEX!
Let's not forget about Sam Houston.
He was a general fighting against the legitimate Mexican government, clearly he deserved to be executed
as did Simon Bolivar and Jose Marti
-
I've been seeing a lot of lefties talk about traitors and treason lately...
-
I've been seeing a lot of lefties talk about traitors and treason lately...
torturers? liars?
tar, feathers, hemp rope . . .
enjoy!
-
I've been seeing a lot of lefties talk about traitors and treason lately...
torturers? liars?
tar, feathers, hemp rope . . .
enjoy!
jizzed
-
Dear Luke,
You are part of the problem...not the solution...
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Seems like you're trolling...
die troll, die...
enjoy!
No, it's you who are the troll, not me. And I'm not talking about a troll on a website, either. You're far worse than that. You're a troll in this country. You are a subversive. An insurrectionist. A seditionist. A traitor. You are a termite that is gnawing, gnawing, gnawing away at the foundations of this country, just like the termites who gnawed, gnawed, gnawed away at the Vietnam war effort all those years ago. Sooner or later (hopefully sooner) somebody is going to call pest control on you, and they're going to remove you and your little termite nest right out of this country and then you'll be some other country's problem. Hopefully one with a hell of a lot less tolerance for insurrectionists/traitors/termites than this one.
-
Dear Luke,
You are part of the problem...not the solution...
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Seems like you're trolling...
die troll, die...
enjoy!
No, it's you who are the troll, not me. And I'm not talking about a troll on a website, either. You're far worse than that. You're a troll in this country. You are a subversive. An insurrectionist. A seditionist. A traitor. You are a termite that is gnawing, gnawing, gnawing away at the foundations of this country, just like the termites who gnawed, gnawed, gnawed away at the Vietnam war effort all those years ago. Sooner or later (hopefully sooner) somebody is going to call pest control on you, and they're going to remove you and your little termite nest right out of this country and then you'll be some other country's problem. Hopefully one with a hell of a lot less tolerance for insurrectionists/traitors/termites than this one.
cause it's YOUR country...amiright?
spoken like a true British Royal Tory during the struggle for American independence from King George...
hmm....
sad
-
The lesson here:
If you don't like what the government's doing, bend over and take it like a man. YOu have no rights.
He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn
what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless
misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two
gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right,
everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over
himself. He loved Big Brother.
-
Luke is a stupid, vile piece of brainwashed crap. He's sold his soul to the devil, and he likes it hot.
-
Dear Luke,
You are part of the problem...not the solution...
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Seems like you're trolling...
die troll, die...
enjoy!
No, it's you who are the troll, not me. And I'm not talking about a troll on a website, either. You're far worse than that. You're a troll in this country. You are a subversive. An insurrectionist. A seditionist. A traitor. You are a termite that is gnawing, gnawing, gnawing away at the foundations of this country, just like the termites who gnawed, gnawed, gnawed away at the Vietnam war effort all those years ago. Sooner or later (hopefully sooner) somebody is going to call pest control on you, and they're going to remove you and your little termite nest right out of this country and then you'll be some other country's problem. Hopefully one with a hell of a lot less tolerance for insurrectionists/traitors/termites than this one.
Dude, what is with you and Nam?
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
The North is not a husband, and the South is not a wife. They are two areas of the USA, one of which decided to commit treason against the USA.
The fact is that the South had its opportunity to become its own nation, right at the beginning when the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were being drafted and signed by the various delegates from the various states. If, during that time, the South had decided to create its own convention instead of the main convention, and use that convention to become its own country, then that would have been fine. But what the South did instead is signed the documents from the main convention and then decided 70 years later that it didn't want to live by the documents it signed 70 years earlier. That just doesn't work, folks. Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
-
Dude, what is with you and Nam?
What, besides it being the pinnacle of the subversive forces within this country defeating and tearing apart the patriotic forces within this country?
Ok, the reason why it's been on my mind recently is because there is a retired marine, named USMC Sgt. Peter MacDonald, who was treated terribly after he returned from Vietnam. He was spat on by a hippie girl, and called a "baby killer" at the airport when he arrived back in the United States. He has afterwards gotten terrible, terrible treatment from all these left-wing politicians that are now in power in New Hampshire, and it just makes me so, so mad.
-
Luke, what exactly made it a noble and heroic act for the American colonies to secede from the British crown over a 4% tax rate, while it was wrong for the Southern states to secede over a 35% tariff that was impoverishing them?
It was essentially the same political act. The only difference was the governments involved in the conflicts. And don't tell me the difference was slavery, either - slavery was not even brought up as a causus belli except by one of the seceding states, and it was not even made an issue by the north until 4 years after the war had started.
-
Dude, what is with you and Nam?
What, besides it being the pinnacle of the subversive forces within this country defeating and tearing apart the patriotic forces within this country?
Ok, the reason why it's been on my mind recently is because there is a retired marine, named USMC Sgt. Peter MacDonald, who was treated terribly after he returned from Vietnam. He was spat on by a hippie girl, and called a "baby killer" at the airport when he arrived back in the United States. He has afterwards gotten terrible, terrible treatment from all these left-wing politicians that are now in power in New Hampshire, and it just makes me so, so mad.
Yeah, my uncle was in the Seabees. He was treated like shit too.
But Vietnam was about as useful to the United States as the CIA instigating coups in various Latin-American countries. It was a pointless war. Deal with it.
-
A lot of people here don't believe treason exists, and most of the rest would take it as a compliment. I suggest you find something else to throw around.
-
A lot of people here don't believe treason exists, and most of the rest would take it as a compliment. I suggest you find something else to throw around.
The only people who would find it convenient to believe that treason doesn't exist are traitors.
-
A lot of people here don't believe treason exists, and most of the rest would take it as a compliment. I suggest you find something else to throw around.
The only people who would find it convenient to believe that treason doesn't exist are traitors.
so why are you on the federal government's cock so much
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
The North is not a husband, and the South is not a wife. They are two areas of the USA, one of which decided to commit treason against the USA.
The fact is that the South had its opportunity to become its own nation, right at the beginning when the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were being drafted and signed by the various delegates from the various states. If, during that time, the South had decided to create its own convention instead of the main convention, and use that convention to become its own country, then that would have been fine. But what the South did instead is signed the documents from the main convention and then decided 70 years later that it didn't want to live by the documents it signed 70 years earlier. That just doesn't work, folks. Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
cause you signed it...amiright?
I didn't sign jack shit mothafucka
either you leave others alone or sooner or later you'll get back in spades, what you propose to "dish-out"...
can't happen soon enough from where we stand...
-
Dude, what is with you and Nam?
What, besides it being the pinnacle of the subversive forces within this country defeating and tearing apart the patriotic forces within this country?
Ok, the reason why it's been on my mind recently is because there is a retired marine, named USMC Sgt. Peter MacDonald, who was treated terribly after he returned from Vietnam. He was spat on by a hippie girl, and called a "baby killer" at the airport when he arrived back in the United States. He has afterwards gotten terrible, terrible treatment from all these left-wing politicians that are now in power in New Hampshire, and it just makes me so, so mad.
Love it or leave it, bitch.
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
The North is not a husband, and the South is not a wife. They are two areas of the USA, one of which decided to commit treason against the USA.
The fact is that the South had its opportunity to become its own nation, right at the beginning when the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were being drafted and signed by the various delegates from the various states. If, during that time, the South had decided to create its own convention instead of the main convention, and use that convention to become its own country, then that would have been fine. But what the South did instead is signed the documents from the main convention and then decided 70 years later that it didn't want to live by the documents it signed 70 years earlier. That just doesn't work, folks. Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
cause you signed it...amiright?
I didn't sign jack shit mothafucka
either you leave others alone or sooner or later you'll get back in spades, what you propose to "dish-out"...
can't happen soon enough from where we stand...
You may not have signed it personally, but the state that you live in signed it, so therefore you have to abide by it, otherwise move to a different country.
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
The North is not a husband, and the South is not a wife. They are two areas of the USA, one of which decided to commit treason against the USA.
The fact is that the South had its opportunity to become its own nation, right at the beginning when the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were being drafted and signed by the various delegates from the various states. If, during that time, the South had decided to create its own convention instead of the main convention, and use that convention to become its own country, then that would have been fine. But what the South did instead is signed the documents from the main convention and then decided 70 years later that it didn't want to live by the documents it signed 70 years earlier. That just doesn't work, folks. Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
cause you signed it...amiright?
I didn't sign jack shit mothafucka
either you leave others alone or sooner or later you'll get back in spades, what you propose to "dish-out"...
can't happen soon enough from where we stand...
You may not have signed it personally, but the state that you live in signed it, so therefore you have to abide by it, otherwise move to a different country.
cause all them there treaties that the states signed with the indians are still being observed...amiright?
why do you repeatedly attempt to create a contractual obligation where NONE exists?
you are a perfect specimen of the species more commonly known as looters...
you want others "gone" so badly...maybe you should buy them out...
instead, you'd rather employ others to push them around...
to beat them, to kidnap them, to murder them...
and it's all done in YOUR name...
NEVER in my name...
not on my watch...
go figure...
hmm...
...
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
The North is not a husband, and the South is not a wife. They are two areas of the USA, one of which decided to commit treason against the USA.
The fact is that the South had its opportunity to become its own nation, right at the beginning when the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were being drafted and signed by the various delegates from the various states. If, during that time, the South had decided to create its own convention instead of the main convention, and use that convention to become its own country, then that would have been fine. But what the South did instead is signed the documents from the main convention and then decided 70 years later that it didn't want to live by the documents it signed 70 years earlier. That just doesn't work, folks. Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
I believe that as many as three of the original states signing the constitution had explicit escape clauses to get out.
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
The North is not a husband, and the South is not a wife. They are two areas of the USA, one of which decided to commit treason against the USA.
The fact is that the South had its opportunity to become its own nation, right at the beginning when the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were being drafted and signed by the various delegates from the various states. If, during that time, the South had decided to create its own convention instead of the main convention, and use that convention to become its own country, then that would have been fine. But what the South did instead is signed the documents from the main convention and then decided 70 years later that it didn't want to live by the documents it signed 70 years earlier. That just doesn't work, folks. Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
cause you signed it...amiright?
I didn't sign jack shit mothafucka
either you leave others alone or sooner or later you'll get back in spades, what you propose to "dish-out"...
can't happen soon enough from where we stand...
You may not have signed it personally, but the state that you live in signed it, so therefore you have to abide by it, otherwise move to a different country.
like hell
seems you don't like New Hampshire that much, or the USA - why don't you move?
-
Luke you another goverment troll...
Look at the facts-
Economy in shit, GDP just dropped another 6.1...
We pretty much getting taxed half of our paycheck (if you include all the taxes you get when you go to the store by food and etc.)
640 THOUSAND unemployed in US.
This whole swine flu (by the way its actually swine/bird/human flu) which they wont close mexicam borders, but at the same time want to quaratine the entire country from every1 else (this is gonna be a huge blowback in toursim and lose of so much needed money to recover a tleast a bit)
WHO (world health organization) raised alert level to 5, which means we having martial law on paper. Over a flu that killed like 165 mexicans...great... More people die from regular flu every year.
And most important, people of united states dont have any control of what fed gov. does...They wanna go to war with Iraq/Iran/Pakistan they will go to work...Pass patriot act they will do it and they dont care what you do or think.
Have you seen MIAC report? Have you read patriot act? Do you know exactly what feds doing with our tax money? Congress have to pass (or trying to pass) bill just to audit federal reserve (which is PRIVATE bank).
Helloooooo? is anybody there? You getting fu*ed by bankers all day long everyday.
SAY NO TO BANKER COCK!
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
The North is not a husband, and the South is not a wife. They are two areas of the USA, one of which decided to commit treason against the USA.
The fact is that the South had its opportunity to become its own nation, right at the beginning when the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were being drafted and signed by the various delegates from the various states. If, during that time, the South had decided to create its own convention instead of the main convention, and use that convention to become its own country, then that would have been fine. But what the South did instead is signed the documents from the main convention and then decided 70 years later that it didn't want to live by the documents it signed 70 years earlier. That just doesn't work, folks. Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
cause you signed it...amiright?
I didn't sign jack shit mothafucka
either you leave others alone or sooner or later you'll get back in spades, what you propose to "dish-out"...
can't happen soon enough from where we stand...
You may not have signed it personally, but the state that you live in signed it, so therefore you have to abide by it, otherwise move to a different country.
The state signed something? How's that possible? You mean some men who called themselves the government of the state, well over 200 years ago, signed a document which nobody even pays attention to anymore. If it isn't even going to be binding to the people who call themselves the government of the state today, how on earth can it be binding upon me? Seems like you think the more vociferously you insist on something, the more true it becomes, but the truth is, the more you insist and make threats and accusations, the more obvious the lie becomes, and you and your position are revealed in all their stupendous absurdity.
Luke, you are an idiot. No matter how many times you repeat your line of bullshit, no one here will buy it. The fact that you seem to take it seriously is the most damning indictment against your intelligence and character anyone could make. You're a joke. A fool. You think that you are made powerful and important by your allegiance to this monstrous state? They'll use you up and spit you out too. The reality of your insignificance to Leviathan will smack you up side the head one day, I just hope that your fragile ego can withstand the crushing blow that realization will deal you.
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
The North is not a husband, and the South is not a wife. They are two areas of the USA, one of which decided to commit treason against the USA.
The fact is that the South had its opportunity to become its own nation, right at the beginning when the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were being drafted and signed by the various delegates from the various states. If, during that time, the South had decided to create its own convention instead of the main convention, and use that convention to become its own country, then that would have been fine. But what the South did instead is signed the documents from the main convention and then decided 70 years later that it didn't want to live by the documents it signed 70 years earlier. That just doesn't work, folks. Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
cause you signed it...amiright?
I didn't sign jack shit mothafucka
either you leave others alone or sooner or later you'll get back in spades, what you propose to "dish-out"...
can't happen soon enough from where we stand...
You may not have signed it personally, but the state that you live in signed it, so therefore you have to abide by it, otherwise move to a different country.
The state signed something? How's that possible? You mean some men who called themselves the government of the state, well over 200 years ago, signed a document which nobody even pays attention to anymore. If it isn't even going to be binding to the people who call themselves the government of the state today, how on earth can it be binding upon me? Seems like you think the more vociferously you insist on something, the more true it becomes, but the truth is, the more you insist and make threats and accusations, the more obvious the lie becomes, and you and your position are revealed in all their stupendous absurdity.
Luke, you are an idiot. No matter how many times you repeat your line of bullshit, no one here will buy it. The fact that you seem to take it seriously is the most damning indictment against your intelligence and character anyone could make. You're a joke. A fool. You think that you are made powerful and important by your allegiance to this monstrous state? They'll use you up and spit you out too. The reality of your insignificance to Leviathan will smack you up side the head one day, I just hope that your fragile ego can withstand the crushing blow that realization will deal you.
No Dylboz. I'm not trying to be powerful and important through allegiance to the state. Hell, my allegience isn't even to the state. It's to the nation. That's why I despise traitors and praise those who serve the nation. I could care less about the state. If the entire government were diselected tomorrow and an entirely new group of 30 million or however-many-there-are government officials were in their place I could care less. Might be nice if the new group weren't so far to the left, but that's not the big point. The big point is that we are a nation that is founded on the principles of rule by law and republicanism. Not lawlessness, anarchy, or anything like that. If you want to live in a lawless, anarchic society, then you need to move to a society that is lawless and anarchic like Somalia rather than trying to force the US or New Hampshire to become lawless and anarchic.
-
Mah Kountry, raght or rong! Worship it!!!
Yeah, you like that, dontcha, bitch!
Sorry, Luke, but the whole "Yay Team" mentality is the realm of low-information voters who'd rather just
take it on faith that their team MUST be right, even when it's wrong. Easy, no thought required, and you
can leave anything other than pre-packaged "morality" in the closet.
Luke=FAIL
-
No Dylboz. I'm not trying to be powerful and important through allegiance to the state. Hell, my allegience isn't even to the state. It's to the nation. That's why I despise traitors and praise those who serve the nation. I could care less about the state. If the entire government were diselected tomorrow and an entirely new group of 30 million or however-many-there-are government officials were in their place I could care less. Might be nice if the new group weren't so far to the left, but that's not the big point. The big point is that we are a nation that is founded on the principles of rule by law and republicanism. Not lawlessness, anarchy, or anything like that. If you want to live in a lawless, anarchic society, then you need to move to a society that is lawless and anarchic like Somalia rather than trying to force the US or New Hampshire to become lawless and anarchic.
By your own logic, you can have no objection to a bunch of people moving to New Hampshire and convincing (not forcing!) everyone to choose liberty over statism.
-
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=2879 (http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=2879)
excerpt:
It is heartening that at last, thanks to a few off-the-cuff remarks by Texas governor Rick Perry on “tea-party” day, people are starting to talk about secession in these not-very-United States, and for the most part taking the concept seriously. (”Secession Talk,” as the New York Times put it, “Stirs Furor.”) It’s the first time it has been a genuine subject in American public discourse, says Emory University secession scholar Donald Livingston, since the war of Southern Independence was settled in 1865.
So it’s no surprise that a lot of people have completely misunderstood it, and that the nerve in their knees often impels them to declare it illegal and unconstitutional. Robert Schlesinger, a columnist for U.S. News, is typical: under a headline “Texas Can’t Secede,” he wrote that “one third of the voters think the state has the legal right to secede from the Union.” Then, so sure of his errant position he could get cutsey, he added, “Ummm, no,” and went on to scold them for being so ignorant.
But the plain truth is that Texas has that right, and so do the other 49 states.
In fact, there has never been a real question about the legitimacy of secession. It was the principle that led the 13 colonies to fight to get out from under the British crown in the war of 1776. It was the principle implicit in the 13 states ratifying the Constitution in 1789, made explicit in the ratifying documents of New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island. It was the option understood to be available to all states from that time until 1861, and considered by New England states at the Hartford Convention of 1814. No one put forth a compelling argument that secession was unconstitutional, and the fact that the US Congress in 1861 debated and failed to pass a law against it proves that it was not illegal even in that year.
Lincoln put forth various, and often greatly varying, arguments against secession, but, as Livingston says, relying on their refutation by pro-Unionist philosopher Christopher Wellman (A Theory of Secession, 2005), “Lincoln’s arguments are preposterous.” He was not relying on reason and history and philosophical argument, no more than his party did, but on instinct and temperament, with pride and egotism (”Not on my watch”) mixed in.
(In fact, so far as reason has to do with it, Lincoln had previously argued that “any people anywhere… have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better,” and in his First Inaugural held that “if a majority deprives a minority of a clearly written constitutional right,” that would justify revolution.)
Of course it is true that the particular secession of 1861-65 did not succeed–but that didn’t make it illegal or even unwise. It made it a failure, that’s all. The victory by a superior military might is not the same thing as the creation of a superior constitutional right. In fact it dealt only with the question of whether secession would work that one time, decisively decided in the negative by an autocratic, unconstitutional usurpation of power and the waging of a deadly war that defied all civilized standards of warfare to date.
Amid all the talk today, it will be necessary for those who know history and the Constitution to refute those who throw up the rhetoric of “illegal” and “unconstitutional” and the like so that we can get on to an examination of its particular merits.
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
What the hell does something an 19th Century National Socialist wrote as a pledge of allegiance to the flag have to do with right of states to secede? The pledge of allegiance was written after the War of Northern Aggression. And there wasn't liberty and justice for all. 75% of southern's did not own slaves, they worked their own farms. Southerner's were forced to pay 35% tariffs while Northern industrialist paid considerably less in taxes. Southerner's wouldn't have fought for slavery because by the time the war broke out only the wealthy minority owned any slaves. The Northern states were over represented in government and used that majority to force, through unfair taxes, southern citizens to pay northern debts.
The Constitution includes a clause which is the consent of the governed. This means when the consent is withdrawn they are free to leave. Many of the Anti-Federalist would have never signed the US Constitution if it did not include an escape clause. http://mises.org/story/3427 (http://mises.org/story/3427) The Inalienable Right of Secession. Really good article about the legal grounds on which secession can be established. Sorry Luke no mention of it being treason.
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
What the hell does something an 19th Century National Socialist wrote as a pledge of allegiance to the flag have to do with right of states to secede? The pledge of allegiance was written after the War of Northern Aggression. And there wasn't liberty and justice for all. 75% of southern's did not own slaves, they worked their own farms. Southerner's were forced to pay 35% tariffs while Northern industrialist paid considerably less in taxes. Southerner's wouldn't have fought for slavery because by the time the war broke out only the wealthy minority owned any slaves. The Northern states were over represented in government and used that majority to force, through unfair taxes, southern citizens to pay northern debts.
Doesn't change the fact that the average Southerner aspired to own slaves . . .
You know, there really wasn't any good side in the War between the States. The Confederacy was led by slave-holding lawyers, planters, and generals, and the United States was led by ravenous industrialists and lawyers.
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
What the hell does something an 19th Century National Socialist wrote as a pledge of allegiance to the flag have to do with right of states to secede? The pledge of allegiance was written after the War of Northern Aggression. And there wasn't liberty and justice for all. 75% of southern's did not own slaves, they worked their own farms. Southerner's were forced to pay 35% tariffs while Northern industrialist paid considerably less in taxes. Southerner's wouldn't have fought for slavery because by the time the war broke out only the wealthy minority owned any slaves. The Northern states were over represented in government and used that majority to force, through unfair taxes, southern citizens to pay northern debts.
Doesn't change the fact that the average Southerner aspired to own slaves . . .
You know, there really wasn't any good side in the War between the States. The Confederacy was led by slave-holding lawyers, planters, and generals, and the United States was led by ravenous industrialists and lawyers.
I don't think so. Slavery was pricing itself out of the marketplace. It was cheaper to higher labor than to maintain slaves. General Lee and Stonewall Jackson never owned any slaves. However, Grant and Sherman both owned slaves. This was a war between homesteaders and industrialist. It was a war about the growing mercantilism of the US government that favored industrialist interests. Union General U.S. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." A war over slavery? Not hardly! The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer. The term "free state" meant free from Blacks. Northerners did not want to live with Blacks, slave or free, and many Northern states and territories actually passed laws prohibiting free Blacks from entering into them.
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
What the hell does something an 19th Century National Socialist wrote as a pledge of allegiance to the flag have to do with right of states to secede? The pledge of allegiance was written after the War of Northern Aggression. And there wasn't liberty and justice for all. 75% of southern's did not own slaves, they worked their own farms. Southerner's were forced to pay 35% tariffs while Northern industrialist paid considerably less in taxes. Southerner's wouldn't have fought for slavery because by the time the war broke out only the wealthy minority owned any slaves. The Northern states were over represented in government and used that majority to force, through unfair taxes, southern citizens to pay northern debts.
Doesn't change the fact that the average Southerner aspired to own slaves . . .
You know, there really wasn't any good side in the War between the States. The Confederacy was led by slave-holding lawyers, planters, and generals, and the United States was led by ravenous industrialists and lawyers.
I don't think so. Slavery was pricing itself out of the marketplace. It was cheaper to higher labor than to maintain slaves. General Lee and Stonewall Jackson never owned any slaves. However, Grant and Sherman both owned slaves. This was a war between homesteaders and industrialist. It was a war about the growing mercantilism of the US government that favored industrialist interests. Union General U.S. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." A war over slavery? Not hardly! The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer. The term "free state" meant free from Blacks. Northerners did not want to live with Blacks, slave or free, and many Northern states and territories actually passed laws prohibiting free Blacks from entering into them.
not to even mention all the machines that were making agricultural slave-labor terribly obsolete...
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
What the hell does something an 19th Century National Socialist wrote as a pledge of allegiance to the flag have to do with right of states to secede? The pledge of allegiance was written after the War of Northern Aggression. And there wasn't liberty and justice for all. 75% of southern's did not own slaves, they worked their own farms. Southerner's were forced to pay 35% tariffs while Northern industrialist paid considerably less in taxes. Southerner's wouldn't have fought for slavery because by the time the war broke out only the wealthy minority owned any slaves. The Northern states were over represented in government and used that majority to force, through unfair taxes, southern citizens to pay northern debts.
Doesn't change the fact that the average Southerner aspired to own slaves . . .
You know, there really wasn't any good side in the War between the States. The Confederacy was led by slave-holding lawyers, planters, and generals, and the United States was led by ravenous industrialists and lawyers.
I don't think so. Slavery was pricing itself out of the marketplace. It was cheaper to higher labor than to maintain slaves. General Lee and Stonewall Jackson never owned any slaves. However, Grant and Sherman both owned slaves. This was a war between homesteaders and industrialist. It was a war about the growing mercantilism of the US government that favored industrialist interests. Union General U.S. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." A war over slavery? Not hardly! The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer. The term "free state" meant free from Blacks. Northerners did not want to live with Blacks, slave or free, and many Northern states and territories actually passed laws prohibiting free Blacks from entering into them.
Southerners didn't want to live with free Blacks either.
The CSA was pretty much intolerant to black people, and was one, at the time, one of the three last slaveholding countries in the Western world. (The other two were the USA, in some districts, and the Empire of Brazil, which didn't free their slaves until the 1880s.)
I reiterate, neither side was really the "good guy" in that conflict. Both the Union government and the Confederate government could be considered to be oppressive.
-
No, it's you who are the troll, not me. And I'm not talking about a troll on a website, either. You're far worse than that. You're a troll in this country. You are a subversive. An insurrectionist. A seditionist. A traitor. You are a termite that is gnawing, gnawing, gnawing away at the foundations of this country, just like the termites who gnawed, gnawed, gnawed away at the Vietnam war effort all those years ago. Sooner or later (hopefully sooner) somebody is going to call pest control on you, and they're going to remove you and your little termite nest right out of this country and then you'll be some other country's problem. Hopefully one with a hell of a lot less tolerance for insurrectionists/traitors/termites than this one.
Dude, what is with you and Nam?
I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h35/joboo6401/TheBigLebowski.jpg)
-
No, it's you who are the troll, not me. And I'm not talking about a troll on a website, either. You're far worse than that. You're a troll in this country. You are a subversive. An insurrectionist. A seditionist. A traitor. You are a termite that is gnawing, gnawing, gnawing away at the foundations of this country, just like the termites who gnawed, gnawed, gnawed away at the Vietnam war effort all those years ago. Sooner or later (hopefully sooner) somebody is going to call pest control on you, and they're going to remove you and your little termite nest right out of this country and then you'll be some other country's problem. Hopefully one with a hell of a lot less tolerance for insurrectionists/traitors/termites than this one.
Dude, what is with you and Nam?
I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h35/joboo6401/TheBigLebowski.jpg)
petition for a new internet law: anyone who finds a way to connect The Big Lebowski with any internet argument automatically wins
-
The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer.
That is really interesting. Do you have a citation for that? Would love to read up on it.
-
The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer.
That is really interesting. Do you have a citation for that? Would love to read up on it.
If that would have happened it likely happened near the end of the war, when there were proposals to form all-Black regiments out of slaves anyway.
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
What the hell does something an 19th Century National Socialist wrote as a pledge of allegiance to the flag have to do with right of states to secede? The pledge of allegiance was written after the War of Northern Aggression. And there wasn't liberty and justice for all. 75% of southern's did not own slaves, they worked their own farms. Southerner's were forced to pay 35% tariffs while Northern industrialist paid considerably less in taxes. Southerner's wouldn't have fought for slavery because by the time the war broke out only the wealthy minority owned any slaves. The Northern states were over represented in government and used that majority to force, through unfair taxes, southern citizens to pay northern debts.
Doesn't change the fact that the average Southerner aspired to own slaves . . .
You know, there really wasn't any good side in the War between the States. The Confederacy was led by slave-holding lawyers, planters, and generals, and the United States was led by ravenous industrialists and lawyers.
I don't think so. Slavery was pricing itself out of the marketplace. It was cheaper to higher labor than to maintain slaves. General Lee and Stonewall Jackson never owned any slaves. However, Grant and Sherman both owned slaves. This was a war between homesteaders and industrialist. It was a war about the growing mercantilism of the US government that favored industrialist interests. Union General U.S. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." A war over slavery? Not hardly! The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer. The term "free state" meant free from Blacks. Northerners did not want to live with Blacks, slave or free, and many Northern states and territories actually passed laws prohibiting free Blacks from entering into them.
Southerners didn't want to live with free Blacks either.
The CSA was pretty much intolerant to black people, and was one, at the time, one of the three last slaveholding countries in the Western world. (The other two were the USA, in some districts, and the Empire of Brazil, which didn't free their slaves until the 1880s.)
I reiterate, neither side was really the "good guy" in that conflict. Both the Union government and the Confederate government could be considered to be oppressive.
Obviously still indoctrinated by public schools which are a product of the Union North. The president of the Confederacy adopted an abused black child and while he was being tried by the North for demanding freedom for his people. He made sure that his adopted son's education was paid for in advance no one forced him to do this. Also several Confederates who were intermarried with blacks left the country after the war and set up a colony in Brazil. The leader of this group was married to a Black woman and they had several children.
The Confederates refused to fight a gorilla war and the placement of landmines considering their defensive position it would have been a better tactic. Yet Sherman and the North had no problems with genocide, slash and burn of the south forcing thousands upon uncounted thousands of Southern Blacks and Whites to starve to death or expose them to deadly illnesses. The commandant of a Southern prisoner of war facility which wouldn't have been necessary if the Union hadn't stopped prisoner exchanges. Sent all captured children back home even without and exchange for their safety, typically these were drummer boys. The Union made no such concession for Confederate boys but in fact tortured Confederate prisoners. Even Union prisoners testified at the trial of the Confederate commandant that he was a fair and just individual attempting to do the best he could in the situation. The situation being that even the civilian population was starving. No charges were ever brought against the sadistic Union commandants even though their abuses were well documented. http://www.timesexaminer.com/content/view/1055/1/ (http://www.timesexaminer.com/content/view/1055/1/)
A fairly good essay on the Civil War http://www.san.beck.org/LincolnCivilWar.html (http://www.san.beck.org/LincolnCivilWar.html) It is very difficult subject to research not because things didn't happen but because the victors write the history books. Even so many of the facts have been uncovered.
-
Obviously still indoctrinated by public schools which are a product of the Union North. The president of the Confederacy adopted an abused black child and while he was being tried by the North for demanding freedom for his people. He made sure that his adopted son's education was paid for in advance no one forced him to do this. Also several Confederates who were intermarried with blacks left the country after the war and set up a colony in Brazil. The leader of this group was married to a Black woman and they had several children.
Yes, all of that being after the war. And "freedom"? More like freedom to keep his profits. Jefferson Davis was a planter and a lawyer and, from all histories I've read of him, less than an astute politician.
The Confederates refused to fight a gorilla war and the placement of landmines considering their defensive position it would have been a better tactic. Yet Sherman and the North had no problems with genocide, slash and burn of the south forcing thousands upon uncounted thousands of Southern Blacks and Whites to starve to death or expose them to deadly illnesses. The commandant of a Southern prisoner of war facility which wouldn't have been necessary if the Union hadn't stopped prisoner exchanges. Sent all captured children back home even without and exchange for their safety, typically these were drummer boys. The Union made no such concession for Confederate boys but in fact tortured Confederate prisoners. Even Union prisoners testified at the trial of the Confederate commandant that he was a fair and just individual attempting to do the best he could in the situation. The situation being that even the civilian population was starving. No charges were ever brought against the sadistic Union commandants even though their abuses were well documented. http://www.timesexaminer.com/content/view/1055/1/
So what? You fight a war to win it. You fight a civil war as harsh as you can.
-
Hell, my allegience isn't even to the state. It's to the nation.
Then that makes you a Fascist douchehole.
-
Southerners didn't want to live with free Blacks either.
Categorically untrue. There were Black and Mulatto Slaveowners as well as White and Mulatto Slaves. The Peculiar Institution wasn't about race. It was about Caste. Read about Mary Chestnut Boykin and you'll be surprised.
-
Whether a previous claim is cited or not, Lincoln did write in a letter to his buddy Horace Greely (the socialist newspaper guy) that
if he could keep his nation together without freeing a single slave, he would. If your google-fu can't find *that* reference, there's not
a whole lot I can do for ya (directed to anyone who believes that the war was fought over slavery).
I don't think either government would have been anywhere near perfect, though. I just like the idea of being able to opt out without having to fight a war over it. Hell, was it worth over 600,000 deaths to keep his little empire together? I don't think so.
-
Obviously still indoctrinated by public schools which are a product of the Union North. The president of the Confederacy adopted an abused black child and while he was being tried by the North for demanding freedom for his people. He made sure that his adopted son's education was paid for in advance no one forced him to do this. Also several Confederates who were intermarried with blacks left the country after the war and set up a colony in Brazil. The leader of this group was married to a Black woman and they had several children.
Yes, all of that being after the war. And "freedom"? More like freedom to keep his profits. Jefferson Davis was a planter and a lawyer and, from all histories I've read of him, less than an astute politician.
The Confederates refused to fight a gorilla war and the placement of landmines considering their defensive position it would have been a better tactic. Yet Sherman and the North had no problems with genocide, slash and burn of the south forcing thousands upon uncounted thousands of Southern Blacks and Whites to starve to death or expose them to deadly illnesses. The commandant of a Southern prisoner of war facility which wouldn't have been necessary if the Union hadn't stopped prisoner exchanges. Sent all captured children back home even without and exchange for their safety, typically these were drummer boys. The Union made no such concession for Confederate boys but in fact tortured Confederate prisoners. Even Union prisoners testified at the trial of the Confederate commandant that he was a fair and just individual attempting to do the best he could in the situation. The situation being that even the civilian population was starving. No charges were ever brought against the sadistic Union commandants even though their abuses were well documented. http://www.timesexaminer.com/content/view/1055/1/
So what? You fight a war to win it. You fight a civil war as harsh as you can.
Yes, it was a war for freedom just as much as the American Revolution was a war for freedom. If you are unaware slavery was an institution before and after the Revolutionary war. It was a war of Federalist vs States Rights Advocates. The Federalist wanted a centralized power elite to govern the nation. More populated area or richer areas would influence government to take from the less populated and less wealthy areas.
The Southerners and Davis wanting to keep their profits? It was more like they didn't feel that it was justified to tax the south at 35% to protect the profits of Northern Industrialist.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435577/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435577/posts)
Well let me assure y’all if you have been taught such history, it is time you learned the truth about Jefferson Davis! First of all, yes, Davis did own slaves. He was quite different from many slave owners though. He educated his slaves, allowed them to have their own court system, to earn money, to marry. In fact, his deeply held belief was one-day slavery would thankfully end. He felt it the duty of the White Southerner to prepare the slaves for freedom. Unlike Lincoln who considered Blacks inherently inferior, and saw shipping them out of America as a solution, Davis saw a day when the races would be equal. Got that? Equal! He was possibly the most progressive thinker of his day in regards to slavery and the conditions of the races.
There is even more to Davis’s character that must be told though. He is the only, American President ever to adopt a Black child into his family! What is that? You ask. In 1864, his wife Varina Davis saw a young slave being beaten by his abusive owner. She stopped her carriage, saved the child and soon he was part of the Davis family. Jim Limber, the boy who became the greatest evidence of Davis’s compassion and love for all Southerners has, of course been whitewashed from history. Frankly a Black slave being adopted by the evil Confederate President does not fit the script politically correct historians want to teach us.
As for not fighting to win. Southerners operated under an notion of chivalry. They refused to compromise some principles like not killing women and children. Not using enemy prisoners as slave labor or human shields. The concept of all out warfare held no moral problems for Northern forces and commanders.
-
Doesn't change the fact that the average Southerner aspired to own slaves . . .
Wow. Messed up. Maybe this shouldn't surprise me, but still, wow.
-
Hell, was it worth over 600,000 deaths to keep his little empire together? I don't think so.
It wasn't "his little empire". It was, and is, the United States of America, and he was elected president for the purpose of defeating the traitors who had torn apart the United States of America. Which he did quite handily.
-
With your line of reasoning...just replace "North" with "Husband" and "South" with "Wife"...then see if your logic is seen as rational by anyone not delusional...
Once the South signed the Constitution, it was part of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All. If the South wanted to be part of a different nation, then it shouldn't have signed. But when it signed and 70 years later tried to secede, then what it was doing was breaking apart the indivisible nation of the USA, which is treason.
What the hell does something an 19th Century National Socialist wrote as a pledge of allegiance to the flag have to do with right of states to secede? The pledge of allegiance was written after the War of Northern Aggression. And there wasn't liberty and justice for all.
Yes there was. And he wasn't a national socialist, he was a Christian socialist. There's a big difference there. The Pledge of Allegience has everything to do with secession, because it enshrines the fact that the nation is one and indivisible, not divisible into whatever parts that secessionists want it to be divisible into.
75% of southern's did not own slaves, they worked their own farms. Southerner's were forced to pay 35% tariffs while Northern industrialist paid considerably less in taxes. Southerner's wouldn't have fought for slavery because by the time the war broke out only the wealthy minority owned any slaves. The Northern states were over represented in government and used that majority to force, through unfair taxes, southern citizens to pay northern debts.
Okay fine, I admit that the taxes were unfair. But secession/treason is never the answer. Sorry.
The Constitution includes a clause which is the consent of the governed.
Yes it most certainly does. And that consent takes place when the the Constitution is placed in front of the state delegates and they decide to either ratify it or not ratify it. If they choose to not ratify it, then they can go on their merry way. If they choose to ratify it, then whatever state they represent becomes a permanent part of the nation.
This means when the consent is withdrawn they are free to leave.
No they aren't. Their freedom to leave occurs when the delegates which lawfully represent the state in question are sitting in front of the Constitution and deciding whether to ratify it or not ratify it. If they choose not to ratify it, then they don't become part of the nation. But once they ratify it the state that they represent becomes a permanent part of the nation.
Many of the Anti-Federalist would have never signed the US Constitution if it did not include an escape clause. http://mises.org/story/3427 (http://mises.org/story/3427) The Inalienable Right of Secession. Really good article about the legal grounds on which secession can be established. Sorry Luke no mention of it being treason.
It doesn't include an escape clause, but it does include an escape provision. That escape provision is for the delegates of the territories that are not states yet to not ratify the Constitution. No state is, was, or should be, forced to ratify the Constitution. But once a state has ratified, it has ratified, and it is in for good. What you're saying about antifederalists either makes no sense, or forces me to conclude that they were very confused people. Because there isn't a nation on this earth where any region of that nation can leave whenever it pleases and nobody will try to stop them. That just doesn't exist in the real world.
-
Yes, it was a war for freedom just as much as the American Revolution was a war for freedom. If you are unaware slavery was an institution before and after the Revolutionary war. It was a war of Federalist vs States Rights Advocates. The Federalist wanted a centralized power elite to govern the nation. More populated area or richer areas would influence government to take from the less populated and less wealthy areas.
Don't give me this "States' Rights" crap. Remember what George Wallace said, that "States' Rights" means exactly the same as segregation? What kind of people do you think supported him? Yeah . . .
And of course more populated and richer areas influence government. That's sort of the way it's always been. If the CSA's main point wasn't actually the right to keep slaves, I wouldn't feel the way I do about it. The economy of the CSA was about plantation farming. Plantations were farmed by slaves. The rich people in the CSA - you guessed it - owned slaves to farm their plantations. And after the war Blacks were kept as second-class citizens in the ex-Confederate States. And guess who influenced the government of the CSA? The rich people!
As for not fighting to win. Southerners operated under an notion of chivalry. They refused to compromise some principles like not killing women and children. Not using enemy prisoners as slave labor or human shields. The concept of all out warfare held no moral problems for Northern forces and commanders.
Yeah, guess which side won? The very concept of war is built around atrocity. It's not all beer and skittles.
-
Hell, was it worth over 600,000 deaths to keep his little empire together? I don't think so.
It wasn't "his little empire". It was, and is, the United States of America, and he was elected president for the purpose of defeating the traitors who had torn apart the United States of America. Which he did quite handily.
Handily? Hundreds of thousands dead, the place torn all to hell? For what... so everyone could live fat, dumb, and happy under the same rectangle of colorful cloth? Dude, I don't wanna know what's in your Kool-aid.
As for secession and treason never being the answer, I'd bet you think Hitler must have been in the right, or Stalin. I mean, they were in power, so any sort of rebellion against them would be, by your apparent definition, Wrong.
-
Hell, was it worth over 600,000 deaths to keep his little empire together? I don't think so.
It wasn't "his little empire". It was, and is, the United States of America, and he was elected president for the purpose of defeating the traitors who had torn apart the United States of America. Which he did quite handily.
Handily? Hundreds of thousands dead, the place torn all to hell? For what... so everyone could live fat, dumb, and happy under the same rectangle of colorful cloth? Dude, I don't wanna know what's in your Kool-aid.
As for secession and treason never being the answer, I'd bet you think Hitler must have been in the right, or Stalin. I mean, they were in power, so any sort of rebellion against them would be, by your apparent definition, Wrong.
the Lukster's killer-kool-aid is some really nasty evil stuff...
Luke is the type of person that would actually require refusing and repelling and destroying and eliminating...
Sad, but true...
-
He gonna get the government he desires, and he'll get it good and hard. Eventually, he will see the light, for his sake, I hope it's before he breathes his last. The notion that dudes who were alive over 200+ years ago can, in any way, bind me to their contract is absurd. He can't deal, so he just asserts, demands, dismisses, rinse, repeat. *shakes head*
-
He gonna get the government he desires, and he'll get it good and hard. Eventually, he will see the light, for his sake, I hope it's before he breathes his last. The notion that dudes who were alive over 200+ years ago can, in any way, bind me to their contract is absurd. He can't deal, so he just asserts, demands, dismisses, rinse, repeat. *shakes head*
when asshats like the Lukester come around...
pull, point, and press...
repeat as necessary...
enjoy!
-
Yes, it was a war for freedom just as much as the American Revolution was a war for freedom. If you are unaware slavery was an institution before and after the Revolutionary war. It was a war of Federalist vs States Rights Advocates. The Federalist wanted a centralized power elite to govern the nation. More populated area or richer areas would influence government to take from the less populated and less wealthy areas.
Don't give me this "States' Rights" crap. Remember what George Wallace said, that "States' Rights" means exactly the same as segregation? What kind of people do you think supported him? Yeah . . .
Maybe this will help you wrap your head around the concept. It was a war of Federalist vs. Decentralized Locally Controlled Government. The later form of government is what is in the Constitution. The concept is local people should be involved in making choices for their communities without the heavy hand and influence of other areas which may use their superior numbers to invoke the tyranny of the majority. Or something the founders called Mob Rule.
And even though Rich Industrialist benefited from the 35% tariffs which bankrupted and impoverish many southerners motivating them to want to leave the union. It also benefited Northern citizens in general because they were able to shift their tax burden onto other territories, territories which didn't have enough votes to protect itself from unjust lopsided taxes.
And Luke pick up a book sometime. Your arguments are so wrong. Why bother writing in the US constitution under the 10 th amendment that it is a voluntary union if it only applied up until the Constitution was signed? And again many states own constitution made it clear that they retained their right to leave the union if they voted to do so. It was a major deal breaker to enter into a binding constitution without the right at some future date to leave the union should it prove to be unworkable.
"That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do" (emphasis in original).
(Note that the term "state" used here in the Declaration, is clearly used synonymously with the term "nation" for the purposes of this document; as such, the United States had no more claim in binding South Carolina or Virginia, than it had in binding England or France, and the term "United States" literally meant "United Nations.")http://www.secessionist.us/secessionist_no6.htm (http://www.secessionist.us/secessionist_no6.htm)
-
the Lukester doesn't do well with reason and rational logic...
hmmm....
-
Yes, it was a war for freedom just as much as the American Revolution was a war for freedom.
So... how much was that exactly?
-
Not much at all.
-
Yes, it was a war for freedom just as much as the American Revolution was a war for freedom. If you are unaware slavery was an institution before and after the Revolutionary war. It was a war of Federalist vs States Rights Advocates. The Federalist wanted a centralized power elite to govern the nation. More populated area or richer areas would influence government to take from the less populated and less wealthy areas.
Don't give me this "States' Rights" crap. Remember what George Wallace said, that "States' Rights" means exactly the same as segregation? What kind of people do you think supported him? Yeah . . .
Maybe this will help you wrap your head around the concept. It was a war of Federalist vs. Decentralized Locally Controlled Government. The later form of government is what is in the Constitution. The concept is local people should be involved in making choices for their communities without the heavy hand and influence of other areas which may use their superior numbers to invoke the tyranny of the majority. Or something the founders called Mob Rule.
And even though Rich Industrialist benefited from the 35% tariffs which bankrupted and impoverish many southerners motivating them to want to leave the union. It also benefited Northern citizens in general because they were able to shift their tax burden onto other territories, territories which didn't have enough votes to protect itself from unjust lopsided taxes.
Right.
Freedom how, btw? Certainly not freedom for the Negro slaves, which is essentially why the states broke apart.
Economy, bullshit. One of the backbones of the Southern economy was Negro slavery, which was outright stated by the Confederate vice-president as the cornerstone of the CSA, and was set in the Confederate constutition as one of the reasons why there was secession.
It's not right to own another person.
-
One of the backbones of the Southern economy was Negro slavery
Again, Slavery was based on Caste, not Race. There were plenty of slaves whose skin colour was as white as snow, who didn't have much in the way of Negro ethnicity. Just as there were Negro Slaveowners.
set in the Confederate constutition as one of the reasons why there was secession
Bullshit.
Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights
1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
-
One of the backbones of the Southern economy was Negro slavery
Again, Slavery was based on Caste, not Race. There were plenty of slaves whose skin colour was as white as snow, who didn't have much in the way of Negro ethnicity. Just as there were Negro Slaveowners.
set in the Confederate constutition as one of the reasons why there was secession
Bullshit.
Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights
1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
No, slavery was based on race. If you were half-black or a mulatto, you were considered all black by most of the Confederate States. Those same states that had laws on the books against black people reading and writing, or forced the North to participate in Fugitive Slave Laws . . .
Also, slavery within the Confederate States was encouraged by the Confederate Constitution. Importation of slaves from outside the Confederacy would be detrimental to the internal slave trade.
-
Since you apparently missed it the first time...
Luke, what exactly made it a noble and heroic act for the American colonies to secede from the British crown over a 4% tax rate, while it was wrong for the Southern states to secede over a 35% tariff that was impoverishing them?
It was essentially the same political act. The only difference was the governments involved in the conflicts. And don't tell me the difference was slavery, either - slavery was not even brought up as a causus belli except by one of the seceding states, and it was not even made an issue by the north until 4 years after the war had started.
-
Since you apparently missed it the first time...
Luke, what exactly made it a noble and heroic act for the American colonies to secede from the British crown over a 4% tax rate, while it was wrong for the Southern states to secede over a 35% tariff that was impoverishing them?
It was essentially the same political act. The only difference was the governments involved in the conflicts. And don't tell me the difference was slavery, either - slavery was not even brought up as a causus belli except by one of the seceding states, and it was not even made an issue by the north until 4 years after the war had started.
Odd, it seemed to be thought of as a casus belli by most people at the time, whether they admitted to it or not . . . Slavery actually was a fundamental difference between the North and the South.
That being said, "states' rights" are as useless to me as "federal rights." Individual rights are the ones that matter.
Also, slavery was brought up by a lot of people, including the Confederate Vice President, as one of the things the Confederacy was built on . . .the "cornerstone" as it was . . .
-
No, slavery was based on race. If you were half-black or a mulatto, you were considered all black by most of the Confederate States. Those same states that had laws on the books against black people reading and writing, or forced the North to participate in Fugitive Slave Laws . . .
::sighs::
You are without a doubt, ignorant.
Like the patriarchs of old our men live all in one house with their wives and their concubines, and the mulattoes one sees in every family exactly resemble the white children--and every lady tells you who is the father of all the mulatto children in everybody's household, but those in her own she seems to think drop from the clouds, or pretends so to think.
--Mary Chesnut, March 1861
Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [of 64,000 Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but also in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie knives, dirks, etc. ... and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army
-- Dr. Lewis Steiner Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission, Fredrick, Maryland 1862
-
Slavery actually was a fundamental difference between the North and the South.
No, it wasn't. There were Northern states that had slaves, and the Constitution (as interpreted by the SCOTUS) protected slaveholders by upholding anti-manumission laws and forcing state governments to apprehend and extradite escaped slaves.
BTW I'm not in favor of "states rights" either, and I'm no fan of the Confederacy. I'm just in favor of having more and smaller territorial governments than fewer and larger ones, given that choice.
-
Since you apparently missed it the first time...
Luke, what exactly made it a noble and heroic act for the American colonies to secede from the British crown over a 4% tax rate, while it was wrong for the Southern states to secede over a 35% tariff that was impoverishing them?
It was essentially the same political act. The only difference was the governments involved in the conflicts. And don't tell me the difference was slavery, either - slavery was not even brought up as a causus belli except by one of the seceding states, and it was not even made an issue by the north until 4 years after the war had started.
A colony of a nation is not the same thing as a nation itself. Although the 13 Colonies were under the rule of Britain, they were not part of Britain in the same way that England, Scotland, and Wales are part of Britain. On the other hand, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, etc., are part of America in a way that the Northern Mariana Islands, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc., are simply not.
Now in the charters for the 13 original colonies, the people who were setting up the colonies did promise loyalty to Great Britain, but it was loyalty as a colony of Great Britain, not loyalty as in becoming one of the Kingdoms of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of Wales). So because they became colonies rather than Kingdoms, they still had the right to secede later on.
The same thing applies for today's US overseas territories that are not States. Because they are not States, they are not a permanent part of the nation, and thus reserve the right to secede later on, as both Palau and the Philippines have done. But if and when they ratify the Constitution and are approved by the Congress, they will become States, and thus gain all the rights that go along with being States, but will no longer be able to secede.
Now what the confederates tried to do is they tried to take States and break them off of the Union through secession anyway. That is not legal secession. That is treason.
-
I don't think you know what the word 'nation' means Luke.
-
Since you apparently missed it the first time...
Luke, what exactly made it a noble and heroic act for the American colonies to secede from the British crown over a 4% tax rate, while it was wrong for the Southern states to secede over a 35% tariff that was impoverishing them?
It was essentially the same political act. The only difference was the governments involved in the conflicts. And don't tell me the difference was slavery, either - slavery was not even brought up as a causus belli except by one of the seceding states, and it was not even made an issue by the north until 4 years after the war had started.
A colony of a nation is not the same thing as a nation itself. Although the 13 Colonies were under the rule of Britain, they were not part of Britain in the same way that England, Scotland, and Wales are part of Britain. On the other hand, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, etc., are part of America in a way that the Northern Mariana Islands, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc., are simply not.
Now in the charters for the 13 original colonies, the people who were setting up the colonies did promise loyalty to Great Britain, but it was loyalty as a colony of Great Britain, not loyalty as in becoming one of the Kingdoms of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of Wales). So because they became colonies rather than Kingdoms, they still had the right to secede later on.
The same thing applies for today's US overseas territories that are not States. Because they are not States, they are not a permanent part of the nation, and thus reserve the right to secede later on, as both Palau and the Philippines have done. But if and when they ratify the Constitution and are approved by the Congress, they will become States, and thus gain all the rights that go along with being States, but will no longer be able to secede.
Now what the confederates tried to do is they tried to take States and break them off of the Union through secession anyway. That is not legal secession. That is treason.
I think you just pulled a lot of shit out of your ass right there.
-
I was going to say something like "Luke must have failed American history", but more likely they just didn't teach pre-Revolution history at whatever government indoctrination center he attended. I know they didn't at mine. But anyway, if he had known a damn thing about pre-revolution American history, he would know that the British crown set up the colonies, not the colonists; that the crown created a central government over all the colonies in the 1750 and considered that nation a part of his realm, including a provincial government the same as any English county would have had; and that every last one of the founding fathers knew they were engaging in an act of treason when they seceded.
But we can't blame him for being a total ignoramus. He's just repeating what his government school teachers, his government approved textbooks, and government employed intellectuals told him about the government.
-
http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/davis_davis_slavery.phtml (http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/davis_davis_slavery.phtml)
Most of Jefferson Davis' public references to slavery were associated with the rights of the states and people under the 10th Amendment. He seldom addressed slavery in and of itself except as a constitutional issue.
He held private beliefs that slavery would end in a reasonable time, as it was ending in most parts of the world. One of his big concerns was the "property" aspect and just compensation to the owners for those emancipated.
He had further concerns with the release of millions into a society with little or no means to provide their own shelter, food, clothing, medical and elder care.
For the reasons above, and more, he advocated and supported Manumission, a process whereby a current slave could be awarded a share project from which he could earn money. This money would be held in escrow until an agreed amount could be paid for Free Man status.
While history has not greatly extolled the results of Manumission or gradual emancipation, it was quite widely adopted, and the numbers of Free Men were growing as a result. In fact, there were more black Free Men in the South than the North at the outbreak of hositilities (due largely to northern state black codes and their tendency to "sell them South"). In European nations and colonies, slavery was abolished with gradual emancipation without any war whatsoever, allowing for owner compensation and the education of the people to become freemen.
Northern Slaves were not freed until well after the Civil War. So much for the war being over slavery.
Again Grant and Sherman both owned slaves. Lee and Jackson didn't own any slaves. The south wasn't a wash in only plantations and slaves. 75% of the free Southern population owned no slaves. Many were homesteaders and farmed their own land without any slaves. Slaves were a luxury near the start of the War of Northern Aggression. This was due to the invention of many new farming technologies which made labor much more productive. Jefferson Davis established schools for his slaves in the anticipation that slavery as an institution was ending. Many other plantation owners did the same thing but because in some places it was still illegal they did so quietly. Otherwise you would have to believe that newly freed adult slaves learned to read with no prior instruction.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/williams1.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/williams1.html)
General Jackson might even be described as a civil-rights leader. Yes, that’s right, a civil-rights leader. In the nineteenth century, prior to the War of Federal Aggression, Virginia law prohibited whites from teaching blacks to read and write. Though Stonewall Jackson was known as an upstanding and law-abiding citizen in Lexington, he routinely broke this law every Sunday.
Though the law was not strictly enforced, Jackson quietly practiced civil disobedience by having an organized Sunday school class every Sunday afternoon, teaching black children to read, and teaching them the way of salvation. There are still churches active today that were founded by blacks reached with the Gospel through Jackson's efforts. Jackson taught the Sunday school class for blacks while he served as a deacon in Lexington’s Presbyterian Church. It was in the autumn of 1855 that Jackson, with the permission of his pastor, Dr. William S. White, began the class in a building near the main sanctuary. Every Sabbath afternoon shortly before 3:00 pm, the church bell would toll letting everyone know it was time to worship the Creator of all men. Jackson quickly gained the admiration and respect of blacks in the surrounding area as his zeal was apparent, and he took this solemn responsibility seriously. Attendance often numbered more than one hundred
-
The point still stands, however, that there were laws on the books in the various Confederate States against blacks reading and writing, against blacks holding land, etc.
As for "War of Northern Aggression"? Bullshit, the CSA started the war by firing the first shots.
Besides, in the popular mind, the war *was* about slavery . . .
-
The point still stands, however, that there were laws on the books in the various Confederate States against blacks reading and writing, against blacks holding land, etc.
As for "War of Northern Aggression"? Bullshit, the CSA started the war by firing the first shots.
Besides, in the popular mind, the war *was* about slavery . . .
The popular mind is wrong as the winners write the history books and lied about their true motives. BTW Norther wealth was based on immigrant child labor in horrific hazardous work environments. Children who were not afforded any sort of education.
The Federalist were trespassing on Southern Sovereign territory and refused to leave. They were blockading city. What were the Southerns suppose to do invite them over to tea and BBQ. Aggression in the form of the blockade was the first act of war on the South.
-
The point still stands, however, that there were laws on the books in the various Confederate States against blacks reading and writing, against blacks holding land, etc.
As for "War of Northern Aggression"? Bullshit, the CSA started the war by firing the first shots.
Besides, in the popular mind, the war *was* about slavery . . .
The popular mind is wrong as the winners write the history books and lied about their true motives. BTW Norther wealth was based on immigrant child labor in horrific hazardous work environments. Children who were not afforded any sort of education.
The Federalist were trespassing on Southern Sovereign territory and refused to leave. They were blockading city. What were the Southerns suppose to do invite them over to tea and BBQ. Aggression in the form of the blockade was the first act of war on the South.
Yeah, didn't that blockade happen only after the war began? If we're going to play this "Constitution" game, the lands the Federal government had were constitutionally the Federal government's, not the individual States.
-
The point still stands, however, that there were laws on the books in the various Confederate States against blacks reading and writing, against blacks holding land, etc.
As for "War of Northern Aggression"? Bullshit, the CSA started the war by firing the first shots.
Besides, in the popular mind, the war *was* about slavery . . .
The popular mind is wrong as the winners write the history books and lied about their true motives. BTW Norther wealth was based on immigrant child labor in horrific hazardous work environments. Children who were not afforded any sort of education.
The Federalist were trespassing on Southern Sovereign territory and refused to leave. They were blockading city. What were the Southerns suppose to do invite them over to tea and BBQ. Aggression in the form of the blockade was the first act of war on the South.
Yeah, didn't that blockade happen only after the war began? If we're going to play this "Constitution" game, the lands the Federal government had were constitutionally the Federal government's, not the individual States.
Queen of the Harpies, I just wanted to say that although you and I disagree on many things, I am very glad that you haven't bought into the mumbo-jumbo revisionist history of the Civil War that a lot of people who are part of the Free State movement and the liberty movement have been throwing around, and that you are actively trying to set them straight on the matter.
-
Yeah, didn't that blockade happen only after the war began?
No. Police actions on the part of the Federal government against the South began in the 1850s. The fort Sumter attack was a response to the act of invasion committed by the US when they fortified it. And it wasn't the only act of invasion either; there were troops marching right through Virginia before then, arresting Southern officials without warrants. And by the way, Lincoln himself referred to it as an invasion. He was downright giddy about it.
-
The point still stands, however, that there were laws on the books in the various Confederate States against blacks reading and writing, against blacks holding land, etc.
As for "War of Northern Aggression"? Bullshit, the CSA started the war by firing the first shots.
Besides, in the popular mind, the war *was* about slavery . . .
The popular mind is wrong as the winners write the history books and lied about their true motives. BTW Norther wealth was based on immigrant child labor in horrific hazardous work environments. Children who were not afforded any sort of education.
The Federalist were trespassing on Southern Sovereign territory and refused to leave. They were blockading city. What were the Southerns suppose to do invite them over to tea and BBQ. Aggression in the form of the blockade was the first act of war on the South.
Yeah, didn't that blockade happen only after the war began? If we're going to play this "Constitution" game, the lands the Federal government had were constitutionally the Federal government's, not the individual States.
Queen of the Harpies, I just wanted to say that although you and I disagree on many things, I am very glad that you haven't bought into the mumbo-jumbo revisionist history of the Civil War that a lot of people who are part of the Free State movement and the liberty movement have been throwing around, and that you are actively trying to set them straight on the matter.
Thanks.
Just to be clear, I'm not a fan of any government. At heart I'm an anarcho-libertarian.
History is history and there is no reason to think of it as any other than it was.
-
The point still stands, however, that there were laws on the books in the various Confederate States against blacks reading and writing, against blacks holding land, etc.
I call bullshit. References please. If blacks were incapable of owning land, why the hell were there Black Slaveowners?
-
The point still stands, however, that there were laws on the books in the various Confederate States against blacks reading and writing, against blacks holding land, etc.
As for "War of Northern Aggression"? Bullshit, the CSA started the war by firing the first shots.
Besides, in the popular mind, the war *was* about slavery . . .
The popular mind is wrong as the winners write the history books and lied about their true motives. BTW Norther wealth was based on immigrant child labor in horrific hazardous work environments. Children who were not afforded any sort of education.
The Federalist were trespassing on Southern Sovereign territory and refused to leave. They were blockading city. What were the Southerns suppose to do invite them over to tea and BBQ. Aggression in the form of the blockade was the first act of war on the South.
Yeah, didn't that blockade happen only after the war began? If we're going to play this "Constitution" game, the lands the Federal government had were constitutionally the Federal government's, not the individual States.
Queen of the Harpies, I just wanted to say that although you and I disagree on many things, I am very glad that you haven't bought into the mumbo-jumbo revisionist history of the Civil War that a lot of people who are part of the Free State movement and the liberty movement have been throwing around, and that you are actively trying to set them straight on the matter.
Thanks.
Just to be clear, I'm not a fan of any government. At heart I'm an anarcho-libertarian.
History is history and there is no reason to think of it as any other than it was.
You don't know "how it was." You. Do . Not. KNOW!
-
Yeah, didn't that blockade happen only after the war began?
No. Police actions on the part of the Federal government against the South began in the 1850s. The fort Sumter attack was a response to the act of invasion committed by the US when they fortified it. And it wasn't the only act of invasion either; there were troops marching right through Virginia before then, arresting Southern officials without warrants. And by the way, Lincoln himself referred to it as an invasion. He was downright giddy about it.
Police actions on the part of the Federal government against the South did indeed begin in the 1850's. And for good reason. It was blatantly obvious that certain Southern state officials were cooking up plans to secede, and like I said in the beginning, if you try to secede and/or are in the process of planning to secede and you're a state official or any other citizen of a US state for that matter, then you lose all your rights under the Constitution because by illegally removing your state from the jurisdiction of the Constitution, you yourself thereby lose all rights secured under said Constitution. Which includes the right against warrantless arrest. You are biting the hand that gave you those rights. So therefore if you bite that hand then you lose those rights.
Oh, and Fort Sumter was the federal government's fort, not the fort of any southern state, notwithstanding its location in the South. Therefore the federal government reserved the right to fortify that fort with any or all of its soldiers and/or materiel, at any time.
-
Luke, despite my large disagreement with you, I found what you just posted to be interesting.
What if a state, like Texas for example, seceded and retained the United States Constitution as its governing document. Say this "United States of Texas" seceded and kept the Constitution but formed a new Supreme Court, Senate, and House of Representatives, how would you feel about that? Say they did all that and offered a free trade and mutual defense alliance with the US government?
-
Good paper on Blacks in the Confederacy: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm
-
Good paper on Blacks in the Confederacy: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm
Excellent Article.
I think one of the reasons for the war was Northern Racism and a false sense that southerns didn't work because they had slaves or some other nonsense. In the South the races were mixing at a very rapid rate. The Whites that moved into the south had already mixed with Indian populations. This is how many Cherokee avoided deportation, they married white people. In New Orleans there was an entire culture around mixed race population. This didn't happen in the North with it's black codes which wouldn't allow free blacks to settle in many northern cities. The Northern elites planed to have the newly freed blacks deported back to Africa. The people who brought Lincoln to power were much more racist than antebellum southerners. I mean look at what the Union Army did after they exacted genocide on the South. They took their genocidal mindset out west and visited it on American Indian Tribes. They learned from the war destroy the food supply to weaken people. Then charge in an kill every man, woman and child that was left.
Luke maybe you should actually read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence before you pretend to represent their meaning. The Constitution doesn't grant people rights, people are born with rights period. The founding fathers made it clear in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...all men are... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." They can also be called Natural Rights of Humans or Natural Law. If governments grant the rights then the people are not free they are subjects not citizens. The key is government is instituted to protect those rights which people already have at birth. Now it can be argued with the patriot act rights are arbitrary at the whim of the thugs that call themselves the Government.
Is it treason when the government breaks it's contract with the people? When the government shifts from protecting rights to granting rights?
Also, what of the Lakota Nation? They didn't sign any stinking constitution? They were an independent nation with a treaty which the USA government broke as they stole land and killed off the Lakota People. Shouldn't people in the Lakota territory be granted the right to restore sovereignty which was stolen by means of a false contract?
-
There's absolutely no reason to believe that the North was less racist than the South. General Grant's "General Orders No. 11" banned all Jews and fired them from the Treasury and allowed the Northern Army to confiscate their property and passports. Robert E. Lee gave Jews the Sabbath off for prayer. Northern Black soldiers were payed less than Southern White soldiers. Southern Black soldiers were payed the same as Southern White soldiers.
Those two simple contrasts right there show that the South was LESS discriminatory than the North. Although the South did allow slavery and that's the biggest reason why its hard to accept them as the "righteous" side in the war even though some Northern localities allowed slavery as well.
-
I don't think this troll is really out to edumacate his'self
-
Police actions on the part of the Federal government against the South did indeed begin in the 1850's. And for good reason. It was blatantly obvious that certain Southern state officials were cooking up plans to secede, and like I said in the beginning, if you try to secede and/or are in the process of planning to secede and you're a state official or any other citizen of a US state for that matter, then you lose all your rights under the Constitution because by illegally removing your state from the jurisdiction of the Constitution, you yourself thereby lose all rights secured under said Constitution.
Oh, that's interesting. True, in fact, but interesting because the first secession movement against the US government began under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. So... Thomas Jefferson lost all his rights. Thomas Jefferson was a traitor, deserving of death, right? Interesting.
You are biting the hand that gave you those rights. So therefore if you bite that hand then you lose those rights.
Bullshit. The government doesn't give ANYONE rights. We simply HAVE rights. WE ARE BORN WITH THEM.
You have no understanding of rights, freedom or justice. You're nothing but a state-worshiping quisling.
-
Police actions on the part of the Federal government against the South did indeed begin in the 1850's. And for good reason. It was blatantly obvious that certain Southern state officials were cooking up plans to secede, and like I said in the beginning, if you try to secede and/or are in the process of planning to secede and you're a state official or any other citizen of a US state for that matter, then you lose all your rights under the Constitution because by illegally removing your state from the jurisdiction of the Constitution, you yourself thereby lose all rights secured under said Constitution.
Oh, that's interesting. True, in fact, but interesting because the first secession movement against the US government began under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. So... Thomas Jefferson lost all his rights. Thomas Jefferson was a traitor, deserving of death, right? Interesting.
You are biting the hand that gave you those rights. So therefore if you bite that hand then you lose those rights.
Bullshit. The government doesn't give ANYONE rights. We simply HAVE rights. WE ARE BORN WITH THEM.
You have no understanding of rights, freedom or justice. You're nothing but a state-worshiping quisling.
Lukester would look great with some tar, feathers, and hemp rope...
-
Police actions on the part of the Federal government against the South did indeed begin in the 1850's. And for good reason. It was blatantly obvious that certain Southern state officials were cooking up plans to secede, and like I said in the beginning, if you try to secede and/or are in the process of planning to secede and you're a state official or any other citizen of a US state for that matter, then you lose all your rights under the Constitution because by illegally removing your state from the jurisdiction of the Constitution, you yourself thereby lose all rights secured under said Constitution.
Oh, that's interesting. True, in fact, but interesting because the first secession movement against the US government began under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. So... Thomas Jefferson lost all his rights. Thomas Jefferson was a traitor, deserving of death, right? Interesting.
You are biting the hand that gave you those rights. So therefore if you bite that hand then you lose those rights.
Bullshit. The government doesn't give ANYONE rights. We simply HAVE rights. WE ARE BORN WITH THEM.
You have no understanding of rights, freedom or justice. You're nothing but a state-worshiping quisling.
Lukester would look great with some tar, feathers, and hemp rope...
NHA10, I'm just wondering if you've always been the way you are since birth, or whether you became the way you are because the government did something really nasty to you. And if the latter, what that nasty thing was.
Or maybe you became the way you are when you first read Rand's Atlas Shrugged. You seem to be very obsessed with it, and it's a known fact that that book has made all sorts of people do some really weird things. In fact, there's a Murray Rothbard article about the Ayn Rand Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html) that started up after she wrote that book, and about all the weird things they used to do in the 60's and the 70's. Maybe you're just the one last holdout from the Ayn Rand Cult, so maybe that's why you're acting all weird and spouting all sorts of random stuff from Atlas Shrugged.
-
Police actions on the part of the Federal government against the South did indeed begin in the 1850's. And for good reason. It was blatantly obvious that certain Southern state officials were cooking up plans to secede, and like I said in the beginning, if you try to secede and/or are in the process of planning to secede and you're a state official or any other citizen of a US state for that matter, then you lose all your rights under the Constitution because by illegally removing your state from the jurisdiction of the Constitution, you yourself thereby lose all rights secured under said Constitution.
Oh, that's interesting. True, in fact, but interesting because the first secession movement against the US government began under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. So... Thomas Jefferson lost all his rights. Thomas Jefferson was a traitor, deserving of death, right? Interesting.
You are biting the hand that gave you those rights. So therefore if you bite that hand then you lose those rights.
Bullshit. The government doesn't give ANYONE rights. We simply HAVE rights. WE ARE BORN WITH THEM.
You have no understanding of rights, freedom or justice. You're nothing but a state-worshiping quisling.
Lukester would look great with some tar, feathers, and hemp rope...
NHA10, I'm just wondering if you've always been the way you are since birth, or whether you became the way you are because the government did something really nasty to you. And if the latter, what that nasty thing was.
Or maybe you became the way you are when you first read Rand's Atlas Shrugged. You seem to be very obsessed with it, and it's a known fact that that book has made all sorts of people do some really weird things. In fact, there's a Murray Rothbard article about the Ayn Rand Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html) that started up after she wrote that book, and about all the weird things they used to do in the 60's and the 70's. Maybe you're just the one last holdout from the Ayn Rand Cult, so maybe that's why you're acting all weird and spouting all sorts of random stuff from Atlas Shrugged.
been fightin' for Freedom and Liberty since I clawed my way out of the birth canal...
-
The state is doing really nasty things to other people everyday, all over the world, Luke. I can favor legalizing drugs even though the only ones I take are legal, because I care about freedom in principle and that others may treat their ills (or get fucked up) as they see fit, not just myself. I can oppose war and mass murder and depleted uranium munitions even if that stuff never comes to my doorstep or affects my family members, because I care about the Non Aggression PRINCIPLE, and other people's right to life. Remember Pastor Niemeyer's poem? Just because you're not a trade unionist or a Jew or a gypsy doesn't mean you can't speak up for their rights. In fact, you really should. But what do you know about rights? You think they are a gift from the benevolent demigods in D.C. whom you worship.
-
The state is doing really nasty things to other people everyday, all over the world, Luke. I can favor legalizing drugs even though the only ones I take are legal, because I care about freedom in principle and that others may treat their ills (or get fucked up) as they see fit, not just myself. I can oppose war and mass murder and depleted uranium munitions even if that stuff never comes to my doorstep or affects my family members, because I care about the Non Aggression PRINCIPLE, and other people's right to life. Remember Pastor Niemeyer's poem? Just because you're not a trade unionist or a Jew or a gypsy doesn't mean you can't speak up for their rights. In fact, you really should. But what do you know about rights? You think they are a gift from the benevolent demigods in D.C. whom you worship.
if we're really good they won't walk in shit before they make us lick their boots
-
if we're really good they won't walk in shit before they make us lick their boots
Unlikely.
-
There are a bunch of people in the "liberty movement" and the Free State Movement and in the FTL community who keep saying that the South had a right to secede in 1861. This is complete and utter hogwash. There is no right to secede, and if you secede you are a traitor, and if you advocate secession you are a seditionist.
Did the inhabitants of America have the right to secede from Britian? The Declaration of Independence was just as treasonous by your logic.
-
There are a bunch of people in the "liberty movement" and the Free State Movement and in the FTL community who keep saying that the South had a right to secede in 1861. This is complete and utter hogwash. There is no right to secede, and if you secede you are a traitor, and if you advocate secession you are a seditionist.
Did the inhabitants of America have the right to secede from Britian? The Declaration of Independence was just as treasonous by your logic.
Not only that but, as I pointed out, the signers of the DoI knew they were committing treason, and they were proud of it.
-
if we're really good they won't walk in shit before they make us lick their boots
Unlikely.
of course...even if their boots are relatively clean...
sooner or later you'll be licking their assholes...
enjoy!
-
if we're really good they won't walk in shit before they make us lick their boots
Unlikely.
of course...even if their boots are relatively clean...
sooner or later you'll be licking their assholes...
enjoy!
you say that like asslicking is a bad thing
-
Police actions on the part of the Federal government against the South did indeed begin in the 1850's. And for good reason. It was blatantly obvious that certain Southern state officials were cooking up plans to secede, and like I said in the beginning, if you try to secede and/or are in the process of planning to secede and you're a state official or any other citizen of a US state for that matter, then you lose all your rights under the Constitution because by illegally removing your state from the jurisdiction of the Constitution, you yourself thereby lose all rights secured under said Constitution.
Oh, that's interesting. True, in fact, but interesting because the first secession movement against the US government began under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. So... Thomas Jefferson lost all his rights. Thomas Jefferson was a traitor, deserving of death, right? Interesting.
You are biting the hand that gave you those rights. So therefore if you bite that hand then you lose those rights.
Bullshit. The government doesn't give ANYONE rights. We simply HAVE rights. WE ARE BORN WITH THEM.
You have no understanding of rights, freedom or justice. You're nothing but a state-worshiping quisling.
Lukester would look great with some tar, feathers, and hemp rope...
NHA10, I'm just wondering if you've always been the way you are since birth, or whether you became the way you are because the government did something really nasty to you. And if the latter, what that nasty thing was.
Or maybe you became the way you are when you first read Rand's Atlas Shrugged. You seem to be very obsessed with it, and it's a known fact that that book has made all sorts of people do some really weird things. In fact, there's a Murray Rothbard article about the Ayn Rand Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html) that started up after she wrote that book, and about all the weird things they used to do in the 60's and the 70's. Maybe you're just the one last holdout from the Ayn Rand Cult, so maybe that's why you're acting all weird and spouting all sorts of random stuff from Atlas Shrugged.
been fightin' for Freedom and Liberty since I clawed my way out of the birth canal...
I'm not talking about fighting for freedom and liberty per se here. I'm talking about all the extreme stuff that you do and advocate. Like all this "repel attack destroy" stuff, and all this "eliminate the mobocracy looter minions" stuff. I don't think that stuff started right away when you were a baby. You may have had libertarian leanings when you were little, but something happened in your life to cause you to take those leanings to a violent extreme. And what I conjecture is that reading Atlas Shrugged is what did that, given that it's already been known to have caused otherwise rational people to act very strange, and given that you constantly spout off pieces of terminology from it, such as "looters", and given that you refer to it as the "owner's manual for the universe".
-
Police actions on the part of the Federal government against the South did indeed begin in the 1850's. And for good reason. It was blatantly obvious that certain Southern state officials were cooking up plans to secede, and like I said in the beginning, if you try to secede and/or are in the process of planning to secede and you're a state official or any other citizen of a US state for that matter, then you lose all your rights under the Constitution because by illegally removing your state from the jurisdiction of the Constitution, you yourself thereby lose all rights secured under said Constitution.
Oh, that's interesting. True, in fact, but interesting because the first secession movement against the US government began under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. So... Thomas Jefferson lost all his rights. Thomas Jefferson was a traitor, deserving of death, right? Interesting.
You are biting the hand that gave you those rights. So therefore if you bite that hand then you lose those rights.
Bullshit. The government doesn't give ANYONE rights. We simply HAVE rights. WE ARE BORN WITH THEM.
You have no understanding of rights, freedom or justice. You're nothing but a state-worshiping quisling.
Lukester would look great with some tar, feathers, and hemp rope...
NHA10, I'm just wondering if you've always been the way you are since birth, or whether you became the way you are because the government did something really nasty to you. And if the latter, what that nasty thing was.
Or maybe you became the way you are when you first read Rand's Atlas Shrugged. You seem to be very obsessed with it, and it's a known fact that that book has made all sorts of people do some really weird things. In fact, there's a Murray Rothbard article about the Ayn Rand Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html) that started up after she wrote that book, and about all the weird things they used to do in the 60's and the 70's. Maybe you're just the one last holdout from the Ayn Rand Cult, so maybe that's why you're acting all weird and spouting all sorts of random stuff from Atlas Shrugged.
been fightin' for Freedom and Liberty since I clawed my way out of the birth canal...
I'm not talking about fighting for freedom and liberty per se here. I'm talking about all the extreme stuff that you do and advocate. Like all this "repel attack destroy" stuff, and all this "eliminate the mobocracy looter minions" stuff. I don't think that stuff started right away when you were a baby. You may have had libertarian leanings when you were little, but something happened in your life to cause you to take those leanings to a violent extreme. And what I conjecture is that reading Atlas Shrugged is what did that, given that it's already been known to have caused otherwise rational people to act very strange, and given that you constantly spout off pieces of terminology from it, such as "looters", and given that you refer to it as the "owner's manual for the universe".
No that's not what did it to him. Plenty of rational people have read that book, my mother said when she was in college it was required reading. You don't see tons of people running around apeshit like Rob.
-
Police actions on the part of the Federal government against the South did indeed begin in the 1850's. And for good reason. It was blatantly obvious that certain Southern state officials were cooking up plans to secede, and like I said in the beginning, if you try to secede and/or are in the process of planning to secede and you're a state official or any other citizen of a US state for that matter, then you lose all your rights under the Constitution because by illegally removing your state from the jurisdiction of the Constitution, you yourself thereby lose all rights secured under said Constitution.
Oh, that's interesting. True, in fact, but interesting because the first secession movement against the US government began under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. So... Thomas Jefferson lost all his rights. Thomas Jefferson was a traitor, deserving of death, right? Interesting.
You are biting the hand that gave you those rights. So therefore if you bite that hand then you lose those rights.
Bullshit. The government doesn't give ANYONE rights. We simply HAVE rights. WE ARE BORN WITH THEM.
You have no understanding of rights, freedom or justice. You're nothing but a state-worshiping quisling.
Lukester would look great with some tar, feathers, and hemp rope...
NHA10, I'm just wondering if you've always been the way you are since birth, or whether you became the way you are because the government did something really nasty to you. And if the latter, what that nasty thing was.
Or maybe you became the way you are when you first read Rand's Atlas Shrugged. You seem to be very obsessed with it, and it's a known fact that that book has made all sorts of people do some really weird things. In fact, there's a Murray Rothbard article about the Ayn Rand Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html) that started up after she wrote that book, and about all the weird things they used to do in the 60's and the 70's. Maybe you're just the one last holdout from the Ayn Rand Cult, so maybe that's why you're acting all weird and spouting all sorts of random stuff from Atlas Shrugged.
been fightin' for Freedom and Liberty since I clawed my way out of the birth canal...
I'm not talking about fighting for freedom and liberty per se here. I'm talking about all the extreme stuff that you do and advocate. Like all this "repel attack destroy" stuff, and all this "eliminate the mobocracy looter minions" stuff. I don't think that stuff started right away when you were a baby. You may have had libertarian leanings when you were little, but something happened in your life to cause you to take those leanings to a violent extreme. And what I conjecture is that reading Atlas Shrugged is what did that, given that it's already been known to have caused otherwise rational people to act very strange, and given that you constantly spout off pieces of terminology from it, such as "looters", and given that you refer to it as the "owner's manual for the universe".
No that's not what did it to him. Plenty of rational people have read that book, my mother said when she was in college it was required reading. You don't see tons of people running around apeshit like Rob.
I never said that every person who reads it goes crazy. But some people who read it do go crazy. In fact, there's an article that I just mentioned by Murray Rothbard about the Cult of Ayn Rand (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html) that started up right after she wrote that book and lasted into the early 70's, and about all the wierdo, extremo things they used to do.
So because he keeps repeating phrases from it over and over again while talking about killing people and other extreme stuff, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that that played a part in why he is the way he is today.
-
Police actions on the part of the Federal government against the South did indeed begin in the 1850's. And for good reason. It was blatantly obvious that certain Southern state officials were cooking up plans to secede, and like I said in the beginning, if you try to secede and/or are in the process of planning to secede and you're a state official or any other citizen of a US state for that matter, then you lose all your rights under the Constitution because by illegally removing your state from the jurisdiction of the Constitution, you yourself thereby lose all rights secured under said Constitution.
Oh, that's interesting. True, in fact, but interesting because the first secession movement against the US government began under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. So... Thomas Jefferson lost all his rights. Thomas Jefferson was a traitor, deserving of death, right? Interesting.
You are biting the hand that gave you those rights. So therefore if you bite that hand then you lose those rights.
Bullshit. The government doesn't give ANYONE rights. We simply HAVE rights. WE ARE BORN WITH THEM.
You have no understanding of rights, freedom or justice. You're nothing but a state-worshiping quisling.
Lukester would look great with some tar, feathers, and hemp rope...
NHA10, I'm just wondering if you've always been the way you are since birth, or whether you became the way you are because the government did something really nasty to you. And if the latter, what that nasty thing was.
Or maybe you became the way you are when you first read Rand's Atlas Shrugged. You seem to be very obsessed with it, and it's a known fact that that book has made all sorts of people do some really weird things. In fact, there's a Murray Rothbard article about the Ayn Rand Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html) that started up after she wrote that book, and about all the weird things they used to do in the 60's and the 70's. Maybe you're just the one last holdout from the Ayn Rand Cult, so maybe that's why you're acting all weird and spouting all sorts of random stuff from Atlas Shrugged.
been fightin' for Freedom and Liberty since I clawed my way out of the birth canal...
I'm not talking about fighting for freedom and liberty per se here. I'm talking about all the extreme stuff that you do and advocate. Like all this "repel attack destroy" stuff, and all this "eliminate the mobocracy looter minions" stuff. I don't think that stuff started right away when you were a baby. You may have had libertarian leanings when you were little, but something happened in your life to cause you to take those leanings to a violent extreme. And what I conjecture is that reading Atlas Shrugged is what did that, given that it's already been known to have caused otherwise rational people to act very strange, and given that you constantly spout off pieces of terminology from it, such as "looters", and given that you refer to it as the "owner's manual for the universe".
No that's not what did it to him. Plenty of rational people have read that book, my mother said when she was in college it was required reading. You don't see tons of people running around apeshit like Rob.
I never said that every person who reads it goes crazy. But some people who read it do go crazy. In fact, there's an article that I just mentioned by Murray Rothbard about the Cult of Ayn Rand (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html) that started up right after she wrote that book and lasted into the early 70's, and about all the wierdo, extremo things they used to do.
So because he keeps repeating phrases from it over and over again while talking about killing people and other extreme stuff, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that that played a part in why he is the way he is today.
cause don't tread on me is so hard to understand or comply with...
what part of "everyone leaves everyone else alone" don't they understand?
-
Luke, despite my large disagreement with you, I found what you just posted to be interesting.
What if a state, like Texas for example, seceded and retained the United States Constitution as its governing document. Say this "United States of Texas" seceded and kept the Constitution but formed a new Supreme Court, Senate, and House of Representatives, how would you feel about that? Say they did all that and offered a free trade and mutual defense alliance with the US government?
Oh, this was an interesting question that I was planning on answering before, but forgot.
Anyways....
In your example, Texas secedes from the US, but keeps the Constitution. Umm, there's no way to do that. Seceding, by definition, means removing yourself from the authority of the Constitution. There's no way to remove yourself from the authority of the Constitution and keep the authority of the Constitution at the same time. That's logically impossible. I think what you mean is what if Texas created a new document which is nearly identical to the Constitution, and then seceded, and governed itself by that. Well that's a different document, then, not the Constitution.
So it's still treason for Texas or any other state or group of states to secede under any circumstances, with one exception: If 3/4 of the states come together to create a convention, as outlined in the Constitution, and they throw out the Constitution and dissolve the Union, then that is legal. Or if 2/3 of the Senate and the House of Representatives create an amendment to the Constitution nullifying the rest of the Constitution and dissolving the Union, and it is ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, then that is legal. Any other method of secession or dissolving any part of the Union is treason.
-
Luke, despite my large disagreement with you, I found what you just posted to be interesting.
What if a state, like Texas for example, seceded and retained the United States Constitution as its governing document. Say this "United States of Texas" seceded and kept the Constitution but formed a new Supreme Court, Senate, and House of Representatives, how would you feel about that? Say they did all that and offered a free trade and mutual defense alliance with the US government?
Oh, this was an interesting question that I was planning on answering before, but forgot.
Anyways....
In your example, Texas secedes from the US, but keeps the Constitution. Umm, there's no way to do that. Seceding, by definition, means removing yourself from the authority of the Constitution. There's no way to remove yourself from the authority of the Constitution and keep the authority of the Constitution at the same time. That's logically impossible. I think what you mean is what if Texas created a new document which is nearly identical to the Constitution, and then seceded, and governed itself by that. Well that's a different document, then, not the Constitution.
So it's still treason for Texas or any other state or group of states to secede under any circumstances, with one exception: If 3/4 of the states come together to create a convention, as outlined in the Constitution, and they throw out the Constitution and dissolve the Union, then that is legal. Or if 2/3 of the Senate and the House of Representatives create an amendment to the Constitution nullifying the rest of the Constitution and dissolving the Union, and it is ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, then that is legal. Any other method of secession or dissolving any part of the Union is treason.
Yeah that's what I thought, you're full of shit.
-
Luke, despite my large disagreement with you, I found what you just posted to be interesting.
What if a state, like Texas for example, seceded and retained the United States Constitution as its governing document. Say this "United States of Texas" seceded and kept the Constitution but formed a new Supreme Court, Senate, and House of Representatives, how would you feel about that? Say they did all that and offered a free trade and mutual defense alliance with the US government?
Oh, this was an interesting question that I was planning on answering before, but forgot.
Anyways....
In your example, Texas secedes from the US, but keeps the Constitution. Umm, there's no way to do that. Seceding, by definition, means removing yourself from the authority of the Constitution. There's no way to remove yourself from the authority of the Constitution and keep the authority of the Constitution at the same time. That's logically impossible. I think what you mean is what if Texas created a new document which is nearly identical to the Constitution, and then seceded, and governed itself by that. Well that's a different document, then, not the Constitution.
So it's still treason for Texas or any other state or group of states to secede under any circumstances, with one exception: If 3/4 of the states come together to create a convention, as outlined in the Constitution, and they throw out the Constitution and dissolve the Union, then that is legal. Or if 2/3 of the Senate and the House of Representatives create an amendment to the Constitution nullifying the rest of the Constitution and dissolving the Union, and it is ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, then that is legal. Any other method of secession or dissolving any part of the Union is treason.
Yeah that's what I thought, you're full of shit.
Hey, I answered your question, didn't I?
-
In your example, Texas secedes from the US, but keeps the Constitution. Umm, there's no way to do that. Seceding, by definition, means removing yourself from the authority of the Constitution. There's no way to remove yourself from the authority of the Constitution and keep the authority of the Constitution at the same time. That's logically impossible. I think what you mean is what if Texas created a new document which is nearly identical to the Constitution, and then seceded, and governed itself by that. Well that's a different document, then, not the Constitution.
:roll:
So it's still treason for Texas or any other state or group of states to secede under any circumstances, with one exception: If 3/4 of the states come together to create a convention, as outlined in the Constitution, and they throw out the Constitution and dissolve the Union, then that is legal. Or if 2/3 of the Senate and the House of Representatives create an amendment to the Constitution nullifying the rest of the Constitution and dissolving the Union, and it is ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, then that is legal. Any other method of secession or dissolving any part of the Union is treason.
I'm sorry, but you're a fucknut.
-
In your example, Texas secedes from the US, but keeps the Constitution. Umm, there's no way to do that. Seceding, by definition, means removing yourself from the authority of the Constitution. There's no way to remove yourself from the authority of the Constitution and keep the authority of the Constitution at the same time. That's logically impossible. I think what you mean is what if Texas created a new document which is nearly identical to the Constitution, and then seceded, and governed itself by that. Well that's a different document, then, not the Constitution.
:roll:
So it's still treason for Texas or any other state or group of states to secede under any circumstances, with one exception: If 3/4 of the states come together to create a convention, as outlined in the Constitution, and they throw out the Constitution and dissolve the Union, then that is legal. Or if 2/3 of the Senate and the House of Representatives create an amendment to the Constitution nullifying the rest of the Constitution and dissolving the Union, and it is ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, then that is legal. Any other method of secession or dissolving any part of the Union is treason.
I'm sorry, but you're a fucknut.
was there really ever any doubt?
-
California having different pot laws than the Federal government is obviously treason too.
-
California having different pot laws than the Federal government is obviously treason too.
firing squads for the pot smokers!?!
oh shi-
-
Luke Smith,
You're comments are partially false. Proven to be false at that. Yes slavery was a huge issue. But what they were fighting for was not "slavery" but over "property". Slaves were considered property, a Constitutional right given. Of course the discussion gets more serious when human beings are involved, but in the eyes of these people, they were still property. Lets also remember, slavery dates back to when our nation started. Washington, Franklin, Adams, and many more great leaders owned slaves... by the 1860's it was a tread that was just common. Slaves were prisoners from Africa who were being exiled, bought, and imported to the US, Cuba, England, and other regions along the Atlantic Ocean. Though there were many false corruptions in the slave trade, just like any other business, the slaves were criminals in the African culture who were deported and used for work, just as they were when imprisoned by their own people.
What many also fail to consider when they debate about the Civil War is the context of the event occurred. First, the states of North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas did not succeed with the other 7 states until 2 months after. These four states did not want to secede until Lincoln announced plans to raise the Union army to invade VA and NC. For this very reason, Robert E. Lee declined Lincoln's offer to lead the Union army. Lee was from VA and refused to invade his home land. (Basically, these four states did not fight because slavery was an issue, but to defend their lands).
ALSO, in these four states, Union loyalty was at it highest, slavery was pretty much not even present and highly rare (as low as 16% of the population were slave owners). Most people believe Lincoln's plans to invade was made out of being paranoid of secession from these states, they failed to comply with the Union nor the Confederates, so force was going to be used to force them to comply (though martial law gives president the right, it is also Constitutional for these states to defend themselves).
ALSO, the state of Maryland would have seceded but Lincoln quickly used martial law to come in and control Maryland, the same was done in Kentucky briefly (Kentucky actually had high Confederate ties and was briefly considered a state of the Confederacy).
ALSO, the US Government had no constitutional rights to enforce such laws that stated slavery to be eliminated. Slaves were considered property, and the Constitution stated the right to own property. The laws had no meaning because of no Constitutional value.
SPEAKING OF... the Constitution stated the right to defend against enemies "foreign and domestic"...these states only found themselves practicing their Constitutional rights (especially the last four that seceded).
ALSO, what most people do not understand is Lincoln had purposed bills which would have made slavery legal. If the fire on Fort Sumter had never taken place when it did, it is believed the bill would have been voted on and possibly passed. There is proof of this.
ALSO, much proof shows that one of Lincoln's "solutions" to the "slave problem" was to take all blacks and ship them to a island owned by the government to provide a solution to the "problem" (if you don't grasp that concept, just imagine if that was tried today).
ALSO, what people don't realize that most blacks who became free in the late 1700's and 1800's were found unsatisfied with their "freedom". They were highly discriminated against regardless of their rights to freedom. We always hear the horrible accounts of slaves being treated badly, but no one expresses the accounts of slaves being happy under slavery because they were actually taken care of, given food, work, and a place to sleep. Black who were freed (and yes there were free blacks in the South), were expected to provide for their own just as freed whites were suppose to. People think discrimination was not present in the North because the Union's victory led to their freedom, however, most Union people just fought to be loyal to their country, not because they cared about slavery. Discrimination didn't just become present in the 1900's, it was present then. But in the North and the South, discrimination was very much present, therefore blacks who were free often were poor and left without jobs. LETS NOT FORGET...Blacks even served in the Confederate Military VOLUNTARILY!
ALSO, since the start of our nation, every single state has had sections or entire states petitioning for secession. It was not just a problem in the 1860's but has been since the start of our nation, even more recently, counties of states have petitioned to break off and start their own governments. Even the state you live in.
I am a HUGE Civil War enthusiast, and there are so many misconceptions about the Civil War, people don't understand that Slavery was just a percentage of the reasoning...slavery had been debated for 100 years before the Civil War... it was about freedom, heritage, rights...
Just imagine if our government and president enforced laws that were unconstitiutional (and actually our government does every day) but your state refused to obey so our president used the military to attack your state and they destroyed your land, your home, killed your friends, ruined places you had memories in... how would you feel?
-
necro-ed
-
The truth about the Civil War is that the Northern Yankees hated black people. They hated black people so much that they invaded the Southern States to kill 'em all. Yankees, as is well known, breed like rabbits, and Northern cities were quickly becoming over populated, so a secondary cause of the War was the Northerners' need for "more living space". The South, being filled with honorable Southrons, naturally fought the invading Yankees to protect the black people as well as their own property. Severely outnumbered, the South nevertheless fought to her last ounce of strength against the ravenous murdering Yankees. When the smoke cleared, the South's finest lay dead on the battlefield, and the ravenous murdering Yankees then went on a rampage against defenseless civilians, both black and white. Then, the Yankees, being for the moment sated in their blood-lust, began to rewrite the accounts of the true causes of the Civil War, putting in a lot of lies about how blacks were slaves and what-not, and forcing children to learn such preposterous flapdoodle, until it is accepted as actual history today.
True story.
-
o shit did pjames actually post a nuanced and balanced view of a controversial historical issue
-
Herp derp derpa derp herpa derpa derp derp derp! Derpa herpa, herpa herp herp derp, derp derpa herp!!!!
Don't feed the troll.