The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Chris_ on February 04, 2009, 08:02:02 AM
-
Bill would require paid Confederate holiday in SC
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - A black state senator is pushing a bill that would require South Carolina cities and counties to give their workers a paid day off for Confederate Memorial Day or lose millions in state funds.
Democratic Sen. Robert Ford's bill won initial approval from a Senate subcommittee Tuesday. It would force county and municipal governments to follow the schedule of holidays used by the state, which gives workers 12 paid days off, including May 10 to honor Confederate war dead. Mississippi and Alabama also recognize Confederate Memorial Day.
Years ago, Ford said, he pushed a bill to make both that day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day paid holidays. He considered it an effort to help people understand the history of both the civil rights movement and the Confederacy in a state where the Orders of Secession are engraved in marble in the Statehouse lobby, portraits of Confederate generals look down on legislators in their chambers and the Confederate flag flies outside.
*snip*
In a state steeped in a segregationist past, "there's no love in this state between black and white basically," he said. That's not apparent at the Statehouse, where black and white legislators get along, "but if you go out there in real South Carolina, it's hatred and I think we can bring our people together."
Lonnie Randolph, president of the state conference of NAACP branches, objected to that reasoning. :whatever:
"Here Senator Ford is talking about the importance of race relations by forcing recognition of people who did everything they could to destroy another race - particularly those that look like I do," Randolph said. "You can't make dishonor honorable. It's impossible."
Ron Dorgay, a Sons of Confederate Veterans member from Elgin, said race relations have moved far from hatred but he hopes Ford's bill brings more understanding of the state's past.
MORE (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090204/D964E6FO0.html)
DUmmie heads will assplode when they see this. :-)
-
I can see his reasoning in making it a state holiday, but I don't think cities and counties should be forced to give the paid day off.
-
Meanwhile in the North, the daughters of the anti-American Revolution submitted a petition to honor General Benedict Arnold with a paid state holiday............
:whatever:
-
Meanwhile in the North, the daughters of the anti-American Revolution submitted a petition to honor General Benedict Arnold with a paid state holiday............
:whatever:
How in the hell are the two even remotely comparable?
-
How in the hell are the two even remotely comparable?
Everything the American Revolution tried to accomplished was almost destroyed by an opportunist traitor who pledged his loyalty to another country.
Everything the American Revolution accomplished was almost destroyed by a few states who aligned with other countries to destroy our Constitution and Union.
You view the confederacy far different than I do apparently.
-
I see it even worse. It was a criminaly stupid enterprise that would have stoped republican government forever had it succeeded.
-
do y'all not get off for Lee-Jackson-King day like we do in Va ?
(Thats Robert E. and Stonewall for you yankees).
-
:50pages: :popcorn:
-
Everything the American Revolution tried to accomplished was almost destroyed by an opportunist traitor who pledged his loyalty to another country.
Everything the American Revolution accomplished was almost destroyed by a few states who aligned with other countries to destroy our Constitution and Union.
You view the confederacy far different than I do apparently.
That's a bit of a "broad brush" you're using there...been reading the yankee history books?
Everything the American Revolution accomplished will be destroyed in a few months by The One if he gets what he wants.
-
Everything the American Revolution tried to accomplished was almost destroyed by an opportunist traitor who pledged his loyalty to another country.
Everything the American Revolution accomplished was almost destroyed by a few states who aligned with other countries to destroy our Constitution and Union.
You view the confederacy far different than I do apparently.
The confederacy wasn't TRYING to destroy the United States NOR was it trying to destroy the US Constitution. We were a UNION of states. A few decided to dissolve their union. It was perfectly legal.
....and I'm about ready to secede from moonbat states once again. If you're living in one, so be it.
-
The confederacy wasn't TRYING to destroy the United States NOR was it trying to destroy the US Constitution. We were a UNION of states. A few decided to dissolve their union.
While Russian ships sat in our ports....... waiting.......
We should have a holiday to celebrate the Confederacy's complete failure, or wait - my bad, we already do. Lincoln's birthday.
:-)
-
Lemme guess, you think the war was about slavery, right? ...and you think Lincoln was right to invade a sovereign nation, right? What part of "Union" do you not understand? We didn't found this country as "America". We founded it as the "United States of America", of which that union could be dissolved at any time by the majority of the people in the state.
Am I to assume you think we should have just bent over and taken it from the English as well? Or was that just? Am I also to assume that you don't think the state, prior to joining said union, would have left any avenue to leave once the union wasn't in it's best interest?
There's a reason "The War of Northern Aggression" is a better fit. You could have kept your precious ****ing union. The South wanted no more part of it and I'm starting to get to that point now.
-
Lemme guess, you think the war was about slavery, right? ...and you think Lincoln was right to invade a sovereign nation, right? What part of "Union" do you not understand? We didn't found this country as "America". We founded it as the "United States of America", of which that union could be dissolved at any time by the majority of the people in the state.
Am I to assume you think we should have just bent over and taken it from the English as well? Or was that just? Am I also to assume that you don't think the state, prior to joining said union, would have left any avenue to leave once the union wasn't in it's best interest?
There's a reason "The War of Northern Aggression" is a better fit. You could have kept your precious ****ing union. The South wanted no more part of it and I'm starting to get to that point now.
From zero to "It was all the North's fault" in 60 seconds.
No one saw that coming.
;)
-
From zero to "It was all the North's fault" in 60 seconds.
No one saw that coming.
;)
Geez, gator. You need to relax.
-
Lemme guess, you think the war was about slavery, right? ...and you think Lincoln was right to invade a sovereign nation, right? What part of "Union" do you not understand? We didn't found this country as "America". We founded it as the "United States of America", of which that union could be dissolved at any time by the majority of the people in the state.
Am I to assume you think we should have just bent over and taken it from the English as well? Or was that just? Am I also to assume that you don't think the state, prior to joining said union, would have left any avenue to leave once the union wasn't in it's best interest?
There's a reason "The War of Northern Aggression" is a better fit. You could have kept your precious ******* union. The South wanted no more part of it and I'm starting to get to that point now.
No, it was about profits...... from slavery. :-)
I am going to venture to guess that we disagree on pretty much every single facet of this issue, and have really don't want to go round and round on a topic that has been beaten to death.
-
No, it was about profits...... from slavery. :-)
I am going to venture to guess that we disagree on pretty much every single facet of this issue, and have really don't want to go round and round on a topic that has been beaten to death.
:orly:
...and where do the profits from the northern slave-holding states fit into your equation?
-
:orly:
...and where do the profits from the northern slave-holding states fit into your equation?
Reparations? :fuelfire:
-
The engine of the South's economy was slaves. Without them, the South's economy fails. You can yada yada yada until the damn cows come home about states rights superseding federal government, but at the end of the day it was all about money, and the ill-conceive actions of the confederacy put our country at grave risk and vulnerability.
Russian ships in the ports of both coasts watching like vultures for the North to fall. Britian and France licking their chops over the endless possibilities surrounding America splitting into two countries. We were so dangerously close to losing everything, it angers me just thinking about it.
We are at far ends of the table on this argument. I really think we should just let sleeping dogs sleep.
:cheersmate:
-
The engine of the South's economy was slaves. Without them, the South's economy fails. You can yada yada yada until the damn cows come home about states rights superseding federal government, but at the end of the day it was all about money, and the ill-conceive actions of the confederacy put our country at grave risk and vulnerability.
And? The North had NO moral ground on that issue. As for how we made our money, that was none of the federal government's concern. You're using today's ****ed up federal oppression to argue your point. It doesn't work. Not if you know anything about history or how this country was "supposed" to be founded.
Russian ships in the ports of both coasts watching like vultures for the North to fall. Britian and France licking their chops over the endless possibilities surrounding America splitting into two countries. We were so dangerously close to losing everything, it angers me just thinking about it.
Russian ships on BOTH coasts? Ok, I'm gonna call bullshit until you show me a link. Vitus Bering didn't discover the continent of NA until the middle of 1700. ...but they're just all the sudden going to be in California and all up and down the eastern seaboard by 1861?
As for Britain and France, I'm pretty sure Britain wanted no more part of the United States after getting their asses handed to'em and I'm fairly sure France took a lesson from that as well. [/quote]
The secession is legal. Maybe instead of offering conjecture, you can provide me with an educated reason as to why you think it wasn't. As far as I'm concerned, the North did to the South exactly what the ****ing Brits did to the colonies.
-
BTW again, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, all northern states and ALL slave-holding states.
-
Russian ships on BOTH coasts? Ok, I'm gonna call bullshit until you show me a link. Vitus Bering didn't discover the continent of NA until the middle of 1700. ...but they're just all the sudden going to be in California and all up and down the eastern seaboard by 1861?
As for Britain and France, I'm pretty sure Britain wanted no more part of the United States after getting their asses handed to'em and I'm fairly sure France took a lesson from that as well.
The secession is legal. Maybe instead of offering conjecture, you can provide me with an educated reason as to why you think it wasn't. As far as I'm concerned, the North did to the South exactly what the ******* Brits did to the colonies.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4442/is_200707/ai_n19432176
I think you can guess how I think about Russia coming in 'peace' to support the North.
They came here for our warm water ports, and to be close to Europe in case they needed to wage war over Poland. However, should the North fall, and oops would you look at that -- all dressed for battle and no where to go. :whatever:
The British Empire was known for its diplomacy wasn't it? Imperialism such an overrated term used to describe their history. Britain supported the South initially because? Napoleon, also a man of considerable restraint.....
The outcome of the Civil War resulted in a strengthening of U.S. foreign power and influence, as the definitive Union defeat of the Confederacy firmly demonstrated the strength of the United States Government and restored its legitimacy to handle the sectional tensions that had complicated U.S. external relations in the years before the Civil War. The renewed strength of the U.S. Government led to the defeat of French intervention in Mexico, and hastened the confederation of Canada in 1867. Union victory also ensured continuing support for the international abolishment of racial slavery.
As the Confederacy collapsed, U.S. leaders were able to shift resources to resisting French intervention in Mexico and to deploy troops along the Texas-Mexico border. U.S. pressure, combined with Mexican resentment and military success against Emperor Maximilian ultimately compelled French Emperor Napoleon III to end his imperial venture in Mexico.
In the north, fears of a resurgent United States and calls by some U.S. politicians for the annexation of British North American territory allowed Canadian politicians to overcome their own sectional differences, while also spurring British parliamentary leaders to urge a stronger central government in British North America, especially after Irish-born Civil War veterans launched several unsuccessful raids into Canada. This resulted in the British North America Act of 1867, which united Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Subsequently, in 1870, Canadian Prime Minister John MacDonald successfully convinced the British Government to cede the lands of the Hudson's Bay Company to Canada, crushing the hopes of U.S. expansionists who hoped to acquire those lands for the United States. Although it took considerable negotiation, the U.S. Government was also able to obtain restitution for claims stemming from the attacks on merchant shipping by British-built Confederate warships such as the Alabama.
The renewed international image of the United States also helped Secretary of State William Seward in his attempts to acquire additional territory in the postwar period. In 1867, Seward succeeded in purchasing Alaska from the Russian Government. Seward also sought to acquire territories in the Caribbean, and to negotiate permission to build the Panama Canal. The postwar period also saw attempts by U.S. political leaders, including Seward, to resettle freed slaves abroad in either Mexico or Brazil, but the governments of those countries dissuaded Seward from these efforts. However, Brazil, where slavery remained legal until 1888, did become a magnet for disaffected Confederates angered by the end of slavery in the United States. Between 3,000 and 20,000 former Confederates resettled in Brazil, although a considerable number returned to the United States. However, William Lidgerwood, the U.S. Chargé d'Affaires in Brazil, recommended that passports be denied for those who had renounced U.S. citizenship. By doing so, Lidgerwood created a class of stateless people, because some former Confederates had renounced their Brazilian citizenship in order to return to the United States. Although many former Confederates were eventually able to return, some remained in Brazil and continued to advocate the proslavery cause.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cw/106556.htm
As for the legality -- the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederacy for damn good reasons. Had they stayed in place we would look like South America, major problems because they can't support themselves. Unworkable where absolutely nothing would have gotten done. The states ratified the Constitution and as such bound themselves to it and the Republic. Leaving not an option -- it wasn't a club. We are a great country because we are a Republic. We are everything we are today because we are a Republic. Period. End of story.
-
As for the border states and that slave thing, yeah they weren't stupid enough to join the confederacy were they?
-
The secession is legal.
Because? You reading confederate history books?
-
Because? You reading confederate history books?
:whatever:
Tell me, where in the US Constitution was is specifically written that a state, who's majority wanted to dissolve the union with the fed, was prohibited? You do realize the Constitution was a limitation on the federal government, right? You do understand what a "union" is, right? You have read the 10th amendment, right?
Also, and I don't know why you keep dodging this, why in the HELL would a state enter into a union, of which it had NO ability to leave, after what had JUST happened with England? Tell me you're not that obtuse.
-
:whatever:
Tell me, where in the US Constitution was is specifically written that a state, who's majority wanted to dissolve the union with the fed, was prohibited? You do realize the Constitution was a limitation on the federal government, right? You do understand what a "union" is, right? You have read the 10th amendment, right?
Also, and I don't know why you keep dodging this, why in the HELL would a state enter into a union, of which it had NO ability to leave, after what had JUST happened with England? Tell me you're not that obtuse.
That's not really an argument. Entering into the union was contractual -- the USC deals with the relationship between the People and the Government.
To try to use the 10th Amendment as a penumbra to essentially void the contract the individual states made to join the union is disingenuous at best.
If States could just come and go as they pleased then what would be the point of the Country? It would just be a loose confederation -- which may be what was desired by the South but would not be a very effective way to run a country.
And had they succeeded, the South would probably be like Bangladesh. There was not industry and the crops have been grown elsewhere --- at greater efficiency. And the entire world would have refused to trade with them due to the slavery thing. It would have been terrible and today you would be a recipient of CCF instead of the creator of the emerginf best Conservative thinkplace on the web.
-
And had they succeeded, the South would probably be like Bangladesh. There was not industry and the crops have been grown elsewhere --- at greater efficiency. And the entire world would have refused to trade with them due to the slavery thing. It would have been terrible and today you would be a recipient of CCF instead of the creator of the emerginf best Conservative thinkplace on the web.
Yeah, I'm sure England thought the same thing about the colonies once they won the revolution. Guess that shows you how much speculation and conjecture matters.
BTW, if they wouldn't trade with the South, due to slavery, why would they trade with the slave-holding North? Also, we didn't have anything to offer? Why is it that we were the #1 exporter of cotton? As for "it could grow elsewhere", um, where? Vermont? Germany? Sweden maybe?
...and the 10th Amendment is THE amendment to argue the point. The states did what the people wanted. You know, those rights reserved. No state voluntarily entered into the union without an avenue of exit.
-
The consolidation of the States into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it. --General Robert E Lee
-
Yeah, I'm sure England thought the same thing about the colonies once they won the revolution. Guess that shows you how much speculation and conjecture matters.
False dichotomy. The States CHOSE to join the Union, not the other way around. You should quit shopping that argument -- it is a loser.
BTW, if they wouldn't trade with the South, due to slavery, why would they trade with the slave-holding North? Also, we didn't have anything to offer? Why is it that we were the #1 exporter of cotton? As for "it could grow elsewhere", um, where? Vermont? Germany? Sweden maybe?
California, for example, has grown every crop produced in the entire nation. It wasn't part of the Union during the Civil War but there were plenty of places in the Southwest that could grow those crops. Cotton, corn, wheat, you name it -- there were lots of places in the expansion territories that could grow them. As far as your very thin "but the North had slave states" ongoing argument, that was about to cease.
...and the 10th Amendment is THE amendment to argue the point. The states did what the people wanted. You know, those rights reserved. No state voluntarily entered into the union without an avenue of exit.
You will not find a more fervent defender of the 9th and 10th Amendments than I. There was no "exit clause" on entry into the Union, nor does the 10th provide one.
-
False dichotomy. The States CHOSE to join the Union, not the other way around. You should quit shopping that argument -- it is a loser.
California, for example, has grown every crop produced in the entire nation. It wasn't part of the Union during the Civil War but there were plenty of places in the Southwest that could grow those crops. Cotton, corn, wheat, you name it -- there were lots of places in the expansion territories that could grow them. As far as your very thin "but the North had slave states" ongoing argument, that was about to cease.
You will not find a more fervent defender of the 9th and 10th Amendments than I. There was no "exit clause" on entry into the Union, nor does the 10th provide one.
They CHOSE to join the union but there was NOTHING saying they couldn't leave, with a majority of the people in the state wanting to leave. That was how the country was founded. Strong state governments and limited federal power. As for the exit clause, again, the US Constitution wasn't a list of limitations placed on the states or the people, but on the federal government. YOU show me where it's stated that states COULDN'T leave.
....waiting.......
-
Matter of fact, hell, show me ANY document saying they couldn't dissolve their union with the fed.
-
I wish I could take credit for these, but I just found them on another forum.
The 10th amendment - while certainly the most direct argument supporting the right reserved to the states individually to secede - is not the only one, and not the only constitutional argument for theat case.
1) West Virginia After Virginia left the union: counties in the Western part of Virginia petitioned for, and were granted, statehood in the Union.
Article 4, Section 3 , Clause 1 of the Constitution is very clear on this:
...New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Therefore, Virginia at the time of West Virginia's Admittance to the Union, could NOT have been a state of the Union. That state's secession was judged by subsequent actions of the Federal Government itself to have been valid.
2) Readmission to the Congress and the Union: Even though Texas V White was in 1869, Many states were not readmitted to the union until 1870. If Texas v White had truly nullified secession, then such a step should not have been necessary.
from, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution:
The seceding states justified their actions chilefly on the basis that the northern states were unwilling to comply with the Constitution - and thus were a threat to slavery in the South. South Carolina, following [John C.] Calhoun's teaching and example of 1832's Nullification Convention, seceded through exactly the same type of convention as had ratified the Constitution in the first place. In the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, the people had decided that the federal government was not protecting their rights, so they were reclaiming their powers from it.
also from PIG:
On the blockade of ports of the Confederacy: Under the law of nations, only a country could be blockaded, which raises the question of whether Lincoln was implicitly recognizing the Confederacy's independence. Lincoln insisted that the Confederacy was not a country, but a rebel region - so was he violating international law or recognizing Confederate independence? Neither outcome would have been very good for him, so the Supreme Court handily rescued him in 1862 by deciding that the Confederacy was a foreign country in regard to blockades, but a rebellious region in all other aspects!
Intially, many northerners conceded the validity of secession. IN fact, some abolitionists had been calling for northern secession for years. In Congress, several congressmen from northern states proposed amendments to limit the right of secession, de facto conceding that the right of secession already existed. And, logically, it had to exist, because without such a right, the American colonies/states could not have seceded from the British Empire.
The Federalists always insisted during the ratification debates - knowing that they had to in order to win approval for the Consttitution - that the states were individual parties to a federal compact. Spelling out the logic of the compact, three states - Virginia, Maryland and Rhode Island - explicity reserved (in the act of ratifying the Constitution) their right to secede from the Union.
I find it pretty interesting that the Federal government was willing to recognize the validity of secession when it suited them (West Virginia statehood) and denied the existence of any such right when it didn't suit them.
Maybe Duh Fuhrer is more like President Lincoln than any of our "historians" would care to admit.
-
A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia and New York -- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm
-
Again, I'm not anti-American. I'm pro-Constitution, and when I see my country deviating so far from the founding principles of this country's founding, .....
well....
...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...
http://www.secessionist.us/legality_of_secession.htm
-
Again, I'm not anti-American. I'm pro-Constitution, and when I see my country deviating so far from the founding principles of this country's founding, .....
well....
http://www.secessionist.us/legality_of_secession.htm
No, you are just re-fighting the War of Southern Insolence -- which your side lost.
-
I wish I could take credit for these, but I just found them on another forum.
The 10th amendment - while certainly the most direct argument supporting the right reserved to the states individually to secede - is not the only one, and not the only constitutional argument for theat case.
from, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution:
also from PIG:
I find it pretty interesting that the Federal government was willing to recognize the validity of secession when it suited them (West Virginia statehood) and denied the existence of any such right when it didn't suit them.
Maybe Duh Fuhrer is more like President Lincoln than any of our "historians" would care to admit.
Good information. Thanks.
-
No, you are just re-fighting the War of Southern Insolence -- which your side lost.
Insolence? Are you ****ing kidding me? You'd fit in well in Nazi Germany, where the people were subjects to the Fuhrer. Rest easy, you're in the right state.
-
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm
That entire document uses the same flawed premise you keep using. It fails to acknowledge that joining the union was a voluntary action and carried with it certain risks and obligations.
To allow states to enter and leave the Union on a whim undermines the idea of a union.
The separation from England was by those who did not voluntarily join the British Empire, but were spun from it.
Completely different and a perfect example of a non-sequitur.
-
Patrick Henry had predicted in the Richmond Ratification Convention of 1788 that a president would someday invade Virginia, burn down delegate's houses, declare it a military necessity and free the slaves.
-
To allow states to enter and leave the Union on a whim undermines the idea of a union.
It wasn't on a whim. It took a majority of the state's voting population.
Hey, while you're at it, why don't we just scrap the entire US Constitution? It's kinda old anyway. :whatever:
-
Insolence? Are you ****ing kidding me? You'd fit in well in Nazi Germany, where the people were subjects to the Fuhrer. Rest easy, you're in the right state.
Umm, Reb, check your meds. Because I point out the paucity of logic for the South's attempt to renege on their agreements does NOT make me (or anyone) a "Nazi." The Civil War was not about killing Jews nor worldwide conquest. It was simply about retaining that which our forefathers fought for and agreed to.
The fact that the South decided it wanted to leave the community which had protected it for over a hundred years because it saw that slavery was about to end is NOT the same as fighting against a Nazi regime.
-
BTW, I do find it funny that you're arrogant enough to think you know more about what the founders intended than what the founders actually intended and expressed in their own words. Pure arrogance.
-
It wasn't on a whim. It took a majority of the state's voting population.
Hey, while you're at it, why don't we just scrap the entire US Constitution? It's kinda old anyway. :whatever:
I propose quite the opposite -- that the Union must hew to the USC and that those entities that voluntarily attached themselves to it live up to their obligations.
Hyperbole doesn't help your arguments, Reb.
-
BTW, I do find it funny that you're arrogant enough to think you know more about what the founders intended than what the founders actually intended and expressed in their own words. Pure arrogance.
Their words are quite clear. It is you who misinterprets them to produce a meaning that supports your position.
I suppose you also disregard "Texas v. White."
-
Umm, Reb, check your meds. Because I point out the paucity of logic for the South's attempt to renege on their agreements does NOT make me (or anyone) a "Nazi." The Civil War was not about killing Jews nor worldwide conquest. It was simply about retaining that which our forefathers fought for and agreed to.
The fact that the South decided it wanted to leave the community which had protected it for over a hundred years because it saw that slavery was about to end is NOT the same as fighting against a Nazi regime.
I used the Nazi analogy because you stated something about the south being "insolent". That f'n statement is generally reserved for people going against a monarch or dictator. YOU used it towards the South for having the audacity to leave the "Imperial Federal Government". Hell, I guess we should have just given up our right to representation all together. Afterall, we wouldn't want to be insolent, now would we?
-
I propose quite the opposite -- that the Union must hew to the USC and that those entities that voluntarily attached themselves to it live up to their obligations.
Hyperbole doesn't help your arguments, Reb.
Those obligations end when the federal government starts working against the wishes of the people.
...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...
I've asked this several times....and I guess none of you have the balls to answer, after ALL the fighting against the imperial British military, why in the HELL would ANY state enter into a union, with UNION being the key word here, with NO recourse or measure to exit?
-
Their words are quite clear. It is you who misinterprets them to produce a meaning that supports your position.
I suppose you also disregard "Texas v. White."
Who the **** cares? It was ruled on 4 years after the end of the war between the states. Do you normally use current rulings to decide past cases? :whatever:
-
War of Southern Insolence????
A tad over the top don't ya think?
-
I used the Nazi analogy because you stated something about the south being "insolent". That f'n statement is generally reserved for people going against a monarch or dictator. YOU used it towards the South for having the audacity to leave the "Imperial Federal Government". Hell, I guess we should have just given up our right to representation all together. Afterall, we wouldn't want to be insolent, now would we?
Yes, it was the Southern States deciding they were more important than their agreements. They had plenty of representation, as defined in the USC. They were not singled out for special under-representation and it was by the grace of Lincoln that they were not made "Junior States" which most of the North wanted.
You owe Lincoln a great debt of gratitude.
-
Those obligations end when the federal government starts working against the wishes of the people.
I've asked this several times....and I guess none of you have the balls to answer, after ALL the fighting against the imperial British military, why in the HELL would ANY state enter into a union, with UNION being the key word here, with NO recourse or measure to exit?
That is what makes a Union. If the going get tough, it is important that the Union hold together. There is no escape clause, as much as you want to invent one.
Some decisions are irreversible. I remind you -- AGAIN -- joining the Union was voluntary.
-
Only the incredibly ignorant think that the Civil War was about slavery.
-
War of Southern Insolence????
A tad over the top don't ya think?
As opposed to the standard "War of Northern Aggression" label used by Southerners?
It was Southern Insolence that started the Civil War -- which killed proportionally more Americans than any other war in our history.
-
Only the incredibly ignorant think that the Civil War was about slavery.
It was a major factor -- to say otherwise is just revisionist.
-
Who the **** cares? It was ruled on 4 years after the end of the war between the states. Do you normally use current rulings to decide past cases? :whatever:
I'll take that as a "no."
Of course, there is no subsequent re-rendering so I am not quite sure what standard you feel should be used.
-
As opposed to the standard "War of Northern Aggression" label used by Southerners?
It was Southern Insolence that started the Civil War -- which killed proportionally more Americans than any other war in our history.
Who declared war on whom? Who was the orignal aggressor?
-
Yes, it was the Southern States deciding they were more important than their agreements. They had plenty of representation, as defined in the USC. They were not singled out for special under-representation and it was by the grace of Lincoln that they were not made "Junior States" which most of the North wanted.
You owe Lincoln a great debt of gratitude.
We don't owe Lincoln shit. We were being taxed disproportionately. I view the South as occupied territory and I think we've been gracious occupants. If it weren't for us, you'd ALWAYS be stuck with someone like Carter. Maybe it's you conservatives who live in Moonbat, U.S.A. who owe us a debt of gratitude because I can assure you, we in the South, and the Midwest? We want no part of Moonbat, U.S.A.
**** Lincoln. He turned his army on a sovereign nation to protect his revenue flow.
-
It was a major factor -- to say otherwise is just revisionist.
Actually it wasn't. But Lincoln did a great job of selling it that way.
IMO anyway.
-
That is what makes a Union. If the going get tough, it is important that the Union hold together. There is no escape clause, as much as you want to invent one.
Some decisions are irreversible. I remind you -- AGAIN -- joining the Union was voluntary.
Again....
A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia and New York -- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.
Yes, joining the union was voluntary. LEAVING the union was ALSO voluntary so long as the PEOPLE, per the 10th Amendment, elected to do so.
-
As opposed to the standard "War of Northern Aggression" label used by Southerners?
It was Southern Insolence that started the Civil War -- which killed proportionally more Americans than any other war in our history.
How was it NOT a war of Northern aggression? If you Yankee sumbitches would have just left us the **** alone, there would have BEEN no Civil War.
-
It was a major factor -- to say otherwise is just revisionist.
Yeah? And the Northern, Slave-holding states? You know, the ones that didn't see theirs freed until 1866....a full year after the war ended? You do know the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the south, right?
-
We don't owe Lincoln shit. We were being taxed disproportionately. I view the South as occupied territory and I think we've been gracious occupants. If it weren't for us, you'd ALWAYS be stuck with someone like Carter. Maybe it's you conservatives who live in Moonbat, U.S.A. who owe us a debt of gratitude because I can assure you, we in the South, and the Midwest? We want no part of Moonbat, U.S.A.
**** Lincoln. He turned his army on a sovereign nation to protect his revenue flow.
What??? OK, you have gone from revisionist to stark raving barking. The South may be a bastion of Conservatism (and I make no claim otherwise), but it was Lincoln that provided the framework to ensure it would return to its previous, pre-war status.
The confederacy was never a "sovereign nation" -- and it has proven to be to its benefit.
-
I'll take that as a "no."
Of course, there is no subsequent re-rendering so I am not quite sure what standard you feel should be used.
I assumed you were smart enough to get it, but I guess not. You don't use a ****ing case in 1869 to decide a case 8 years earlier. Texas was also a different case as they were, at one time, their own country.
-
What??? OK, you have gone from revisionist to stark raving barking. The South may be a bastion of Conservatism (and I make no claim otherwise), but it was Lincoln that provided the framework to ensure it would return to its previous, pre-war status.
The confederacy was never a "sovereign nation" -- and it has proven to be to its benefit.
Lincoln was BY FAR a conservative. He was a big government federalist, and yes, the CSA WAS a sovereign nation. What, we were supposed to ask permission?
Then stop bitching about Obama right now. He is, afterall, your ruler.
-
I assumed you were smart enough to get it, but I guess not. You don't use a ****ing case in 1869 to decide a case 8 years earlier. Texas was also a different case as they were, at one time, their own country.
But the result applies and has applied subsequently. Or are you arguing that a ruling 100 years ago that has not been overturned is not applicable now? It is you who are applying things currently.
-
Lincoln was BY FAR a conservative. He was a big government federalist, and yes, the CSA WAS a sovereign nation. What, we were supposed to ask permission?
Then stop bitching about Obama right now. He is, afterall, your ruler.
back through the loop -- the CSA was never a sovereign, the states attempted to renege on their agreements, it would have been terrible for it had it succeeded and attempting to link my knowledge of history with the new fuhrer is rather childish on your part.
-
back through the loop -- the CSA was never a sovereign, the states attempted to renege on their agreements, it would have been terrible for it had it succeeded and attempting to link my knowledge of history with the new fuhrer is rather childish on your part.
By that same argument, the 13 colonies weren't - and it could be argued, still aren't - sovereign states, as they renegged on their original agreements (their colonial charters).
-
But the result applies and has applied subsequently. Or are you arguing that a ruling 100 years ago that has not been overturned is not applicable now? It is you who are applying things currently.
Rulings don't overturn nor overrule the Constitution. Well, not in my conservative mind. Maybe your fence-sitting mind, but not mine.
-
back through the loop -- the CSA was never a sovereign, the states attempted to renege on their agreements, it would have been terrible for it had it succeeded and attempting to link my knowledge of history with the new fuhrer is rather childish on your part.
One more time Freedumb....
...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...
Yes, the CSA was sovereign as it was the government founded by the free people of the states of the CSA.
Wanna know why people will see you as losing this argument? Because we're bringing up facts. You're posting mere opinions and conjecture.
-
Rulings don't overturn nor overrule the Constitution. Well, not in my conservative mind. Maybe your fence-sitting mind, but not mine.
Ah -- so you just support rulings that support YOUR view of the USC. Why even have the SCOTUS, since we have you to interpret the USC?
-
Ah -- so you just support rulings that support YOUR view of the USC. Why even have the SCOTUS, since we have you to interpret the USC?
Do you really need the USC to tell you what the Constitution says?
THE USC has been wrong in the past. Dred Scott comes to mind.
Thank God I can read it for myself and understand what it actually means without a bunch of APPOINTED lawyers to tell me.
-
One more time Freedumb....
Yes, the CSA was sovereign as it was the government founded by the free people of the states of the CSA.
Wanna know why people will see you as losing this argument? Because we're bringing up facts. You're posting mere opinions and conjecture.
100% of your argumentation is conjecture. It is I who have posited the facts, which you have ignored. Which part of voluntary do you not understand? Which part of Union do you not understand? You attempt to apply one set of circumstances to another just doesn't fly.
Well, it is late. Feel free to post your next feeble attempt at a response and I'll check it in the morning.
Just don't try to link my understanding of history with some sort of nefarious like of the current fuhrer or his reichstag -- that isn't accurate and shows a certain DU-style desperation on your part.
-
Actually it wasn't. But Lincoln did a great job of selling it that way.
IMO anyway.
Bullshit it wasn't. Read the letters of secession lately? The second ****ing sentence of Georgia's letter clearly says it's an issue between Slave holding and non slave holding states. Mississippi? "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth." Second and third sentences. Texas and South Carolina's follows those same lines as well.
The war was not fought solely on the basis of Slavery, but it WAS a large part of the war. The States split because they didn't like the Federal Government tampering with their "right" to enslave fellow humans. They claim it was a state rights issue, but it was still about protecting revenues, which is exactly what those slaves provided.
Rebel, you contend that Lincoln "invaded" the south to protect his wallet. Well thats EXACTLY why the South split. You can get all holier then thou all you want about the states rights bullshit, but it was all about money. Them damn Yankees were taking their easy cash flow away, and they didn't like it. So they tried to mask it behind the Constitution, and split because of it. Then they attacked Federal military installations, which as far as any of us who have ever worn the uniform of our nation should be concerned, was a total act of war.
The South fired the first shots. The North just fired the last.
-
[youtube=425,350]http://youtube.com/watch?v=vCC9VHk13JY&feature=related[/youtube]
.
-
Bullshit it wasn't. Read the letters of secession lately? The second ******* sentence of Georgia's letter clearly says it's an issue between Slave holding and non slave holding states. Mississippi? "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth." Second and third sentences. Texas and South Carolina's follows those same lines as well.
The war was not fought solely on the basis of Slavery, but it WAS a large part of the war. The States split because they didn't like the Federal Government tampering with their "right" to enslave fellow humans. They claim it was a state rights issue, but it was still about protecting revenues, which is exactly what those slaves provided.
Rebel, you contend that Lincoln "invaded" the south to protect his wallet. Well thats EXACTLY why the South split. You can get all holier then thou all you want about the states rights bullshit, but it was all about money. Them damn Yankees were taking their easy cash flow away, and they didn't like it. So they tried to mask it behind the Constitution, and split because of it. Then they attacked Federal military installations, which as far as any of us who have ever worn the uniform of our nation should be concerned, was a total act of war.
The South fired the first shots. The North just fired the last.
I stand by my statement. But then again I am willing to admit you and I probably read different history books in HS.
That war ended well over a hunderd years ago and I find it rather pointless to spend a great deal of time attempting to relive it.
Just out of curiousity... You got a link to the letters of secession?
Perhaps I need to reread them. It has been a while since I took a HS history class.
-
I stand by my statement. But then again I am willing to admit you and I probably read different history books in HS.
That war ended well over a hunderd years ago and I find it rather pointless to spend a great deal of time attempting to relive it.
Just out of curiousity... You got a link to the letters of secession?
Perhaps I need to reread them. It has been a while since I took a HS history class.
Yep, here you go.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Georgia
-
This is a great site for researching CSA documents all in one spot:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp
-
So DJ, if it was about slavery, then why were there 4 slave-holding states in the north?
-
Yep, here you go.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Georgia
Thank you.
I have book marked it for review.
-
So DJ, if it was about slavery, then why were there 4 slave-holding states in the north?
I do note that you have asked that question several times today.
It has never been answered.
-
I do note that you have asked that question several times today.
It has never been answered.
I started out with 3, but the 4th, Kentucky, was a bit loose with their affiliation.
-
I started out with 3, but the 4th, Kentucky, was a bit loose with their affiliation.
The Yanks still have not responded.
-
So DJ, if it was about slavery, then why were there 4 slave-holding states in the north?
You keep bringing this up so...
1) which states?
2) were these states opposed to ending slavery at the time of the War of Southern Insolence?
I am sure you have links at the ready.
-
The Yanks still have not responded.
The "Yanks" who are, by the grace of Lincoln, your fellow countrymen, await answers to your assertions.
-
So DJ, if it was about slavery, then why were there 4 slave-holding states in the north?
:whatever:
So two sided Rebel. It was more then just slavery. As I said, slavery was one part of it. A big part, and the driving impetus, but not the whole cause.
Why did they stay?
Deleware's people voted to remain in the Union.
Kentucky was attacked by the Confederacy when they tried to remain Neutral.
The people of Missourri voted to stay in the Union.
Maryland was split on the issue, but the government chose to remain in the union with portions of it's populace supporting the Confederacy crossing the river into Virginia. On top of that, they wrote a new constitution during the war abolishing slavery within the state.
And the story of West Virginia is pretty clear.
-
:whatever:
So two sided Rebel. It was more then just slavery. As I said, slavery was one part of it. A big part, and the driving impetus, but not the whole cause.
Why did they stay?
Deleware's people voted to remain in the Union.
Kentucky was attacked by the Confederacy when they tried to remain Neutral.
The people of Missourri voted to stay in the Union.
Maryland was split on the issue, but the government chose to remain in the union with portions of it's populace supporting the Confederacy crossing the river into Virginia. On top of that, they wrote a new constitution during the war abolishing slavery within the state.
And the story of West Virginia is pretty clear.
And all of them knew that by staying in the Union they would have to give up Slavery.
That tired cliche used by Southerners really doesn't have much traction.
-
"Property rights", the right to own property was part of what it was all about......plus the fact that southern states furnished 70% to 80% of the federal revenue at the time of the civil war.....thru tariffs. Tariffs placed on southern goods both being shipped aboard and imported from aboard.
....and why us southerners are such stauch republicans today is beyond me. It was, afterall, yankee republicans (carpetbaggers) running amuck in the south depriving white men the right to vote, installing ignorant negroes in public office(when there were plenty of well educated blacks in the south to choose from) and siezing property for unpaid high property taxes during "deconstruction". They caused untold hardships on whites and blacks that caused bitterness between the races that caused a 100 years of extreme civil strife that continues even today.
-
I have yet to see any of you yahoos show me where it's specifically stated that a group of states could not secede. Conversely, I have shown you quotes and links showing that the right did, in fact, exist.
So, it comes down to this, if it was a right for a state to voluntarily leave a union that it voluntarily entered into, who was the aggressor?
Yes, the south is occupied territory.
-
...
The confederacy was never a "sovereign nation" ...
I got a couple of bridges I'd be happy to sell you. :-)
-
HEY! Since we're the defeated, oppressed people of a war of imperilism, how come we ain't getting billions in aid and lots of love and sympathy from the liberals like that being lavished on the Palestinians?
-
I have yet to see any of you yahoos show me where it's specifically stated that a group of states could not secede. Conversely, I have shown you quotes and links showing that the right did, in fact, exist.
So, it comes down to this, if it was a right for a state to voluntarily leave a union that it voluntarily entered into, who was the aggressor?
Yes, the south is occupied territory.
Tell me Rebel. Why is it the "War of Northern Agression" when it was the Confederates that opened fire? They committed acts of war against the Union. Long before Lincoln ever "invaded" the south, they attacked, seized, and put under seige installations of the United States Military.
And explain to me how it wasn't about Slavery when their letters of Secession clearly stated it was? Your smart enough to know that politicians will hide behind the constitution to further their ends, and your smart enough to know that the war really was not about State Rights, but about keeping their money.
Abolishing slavery was going to seriously hurt the Southern economy, and that is why the States seceeded. They didn't want to give up their "property" (human beings), because it was going to make them some poor broke bastards. 700,000 Americans where killed Rebel, because the South wanted to keep getting rich off the blood and tears of it's slaves.
-
DJ, it was ALL about money. They were taxing the hell out of us. Lincoln, himself was on record as saying, "I don't care what they do with their darkies, so long as they pay their taxes". Another gem was, "If I could save the union by freeing every slave, I'd do it. If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I'd do it.". Wow, doesn't sound like the great emancipator really gave a rat's ass about the slaves, did it? As for those taxes, and that money, you apparently haven't studied up on the true founding of this country. It was NEVER supposed to be about bleeding the states to grow the federal government. It was ALWAYS supposed to be a union of strong states and a federal government with very limited power. There's a reason our forefathers only gave the fed two important jobs, to provide for the common defense, and to regulate interstate commerce. They stole money from the south to make purchases to expand the "empire".
As for Ft. Sumpter, they were given ample time to vacate. It was SC property leased to the federal government. Upon secession, that lease was null and void. They didn't leave. They chose their destiny.
-
DJ, it was ALL about money. They were taxing the hell out of us. Lincoln, himself was on record as saying, "I don't care what they do with their darkies, so long as they pay their taxes". Another gem was, "If I could save the union by freeing every slave, I'd do it. If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I'd do it.". Wow, doesn't sound like the great emancipator really gave a rat's ass about the slaves, did it? As for those taxes, and that money, you apparently haven't studied up on the true founding of this country. It was NEVER supposed to be about bleeding the states to grow the federal government. It was ALWAYS supposed to be a union of strong states and a federal government with very limited power. There's a reason our forefathers only gave the fed two important jobs, to provide for the common defense, and to regulate interstate commerce. They stole money from the south to make purchases to expand the "empire".
As for Ft. Sumpter, they were given ample time to vacate. It was SC property leased to the federal government. Upon secession, that lease was null and void. They didn't leave. They chose their destiny.
Leased? Wrong. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution makes it clear how Congress obtains the use of land from the States for Federal installations. They PURCHASE the land from the State. Every Federal installation, be it US Military, Federal prison, etc... is built on land OWNED by the United States Government.
Ft. Sumter was purchased like this, just like every other Federal installation. The State of South Carolina sold that land, and the land of every other Federal installation the state seized in Charleston (as well as the seizures in the other Confederate States). So that Fort was still legally in the hands of the United States Government when the forces of South Carolina attacked it.
-
Leased? Wrong. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution makes it clear how Congress obtains the use of land from the States for Federal installations. They PURCHASE the land from the State. Every Federal installation, be it US Military, Federal prison, etc... is built on land OWNED by the United States Government.
Ft. Sumter was purchased like this, just like every other Federal installation. The State of South Carolina sold that land, and the land of every other Federal installation the state seized in Charleston (as well as the seizures in the other Confederate States). So that Fort was still legally in the hands of the United States Government when the forces of South Carolina attacked it.
Got anything to back that up, I.e. historical documents, etc.? That the land was sold?
As for Sumpter, do you honestly believe the state of SC was going to allow another nation's military installation right in the middle of one of it's major harbors?
-
Got anything to back that up, I.e. historical documents, etc.? That the land was sold?
As for Sumpter, do you honestly believe the state of SC was going to allow another nation's military installation right in the middle of one of it's major harbors?
http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm
And whether or not I "believe it", the fact is that the United States Government legally owned that land, and the State of South Carolina attacked it, and the United States Soldiers manning it's walls.
-
(unless it lay within the Public Domain)
You don't see how that could effectively be argued that Ft. Sumpter was in the public domain, rendering the sale unlawful? Have you been to Ft. Sumpter?
-
You don't see how that could effectively be argued that Ft. Sumpter was in the public domain, rendering the sale unlawful? Have you been to Ft. Sumpter?
:whatever: Read the whole damn article Rebel. The state Congress held a special session regarding the sell of Ft. Sumter. And I'm pretty sure that Charlestons lay out was quite differant in 1827.
-
A lot of things changed after secession, DJ. Do we still own properties in and around Havana that we owned prior to Castro?
-
BTW, you're arguing the point about who started the hostilities, not the legality of secession.
-
A lot of things changed after secession, DJ. Do we still own properties in and around Havana that we owned prior to Castro?
When was Cuba ever a State?
As for the legallity of secession, show me in writing where it is legal. There is nothing out there that shows it's legality. There are arguments just as strong against it as their is for it. It's one of the most argued points out there. I personally feel that if it had been an intended right of the states, they would have put it into the Constitution.
Furthermore, the States always had the option of making it clearly legal by working for a Constitutional Amendment to make it clear cut and legal for secession to occur. No such efforts where ever taken. Instead, they opted to take the path of bloodshed.
-
As for the legallity of secession, show me in writing where it is legal. There is nothing out there that shows it's legality. There are arguments just as strong against it as their is for it. It's one of the most argued points out there. I personally feel that if it had been an intended right of the states, they would have put it into the Constitution.
If that's your argument, you know dick about the US Constitution. There's nothing that says it ISN'T legal and since the US Constitution is a limitation placed on the federal government, the 10th Amendment gives us that right. There's nothing in the USC that says we can hunt, walk, breath either. Does it mean we can't? THE USC wasn't created to identify things we, as citizens, COULD do, DJ.
-
Did Texas, in consecuence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?
It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=74&invol=700
I haven't had a chance to read through the pages here I missed so I apologize if this has already been posted. This pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.
If the South wanted out, then they would have had to seek agreement from the Union.
-
Who the **** cares? It was ruled on 4 years after the end of the war between the states. Do you normally use current rulings to decide past cases? :whatever:
Ah, so it was posted. The ruling provides you with an "educated" statement for the reasons why it is illegal.
-
If that's your argument, you know dick about the US Constitution. There's nothing that says it ISN'T legal and since the US Constitution is a limitation placed on the federal government, the 10th Amendment gives us that right. There's nothing in the USC that says we can hunt, walk, breath either. Does it mean we can't? THE USC wasn't created to identify things we, as citizens, COULD do, DJ.
Wrong you are, land-o-cotton breath!
The USC specifically spells out how to change the makeup of the Union -- a Constitutional Convention would have to be convened. Old TJ always was a populist.
-
I do note that you have asked that question several times today.
It has never been answered.
It was answered -- those border states did not join the confederacy.
-
Again, that ruling was a few years after the civil war and pertained to Texas. While it does have some loose affiliation with the issue at hand, it doesn't address the issue at hand. Namely, the legality of secession. ....and sorry, I am one that does NOT think the court system is infallible. Kelo vs. New London, Ct. should prove that.
As for secession, it would have to be specifically written into the Constitution if secession were illegal as that is the document that places limitations upon the federal government. The 10th Amendment that states all rights reserved to the states and people respectively give the states, comprised of their citizens, the right to form their own government should they find that their current government is working against their best interests.
-
Wrong you are, land-o-cotton breath!
The USC specifically spells out how to change the makeup of the Union -- a Constitutional Convention would have to be convened. Old TJ always was a populist.
They weren't trying to change the entire union. ...or are you of the opinion that states had no rights? Am I to believe you don't buy into that old "strong state governments, limited federal government" argument? You'd make Hamilton proud.
-
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts…
The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations…
But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.
…
With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.
…
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.
…
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
-
The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution- that they may do this consistently with the Constitution-that the true construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional. It is true they add, that to justify this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution, but it is evident, that to give the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws. For, as by the theory, there is no appeal, the reasons alleged by the State, good or bad, must prevail. If it should be said that public opinion is a sufficient check against the abuse of this power, it may be asked why it is not deemed a sufficient guard against the passage of an unconstitutional act by Congress. There is, however, a restraint in this last case, which makes the assumed power of a State more indefensible, and which does not exist in the other. There are two appeals from an unconstitutional act passed by Congress-one to the judiciary, the other to the people and the States. There is no appeal from the State decision in theory; and the practical illustration shows that the courts are closed against an application to review it, both judges and jurors being sworn to decide in its favor. But reasoning on this subject is superfluous, when our social compact in express terms declares, that the laws of the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it, are the supreme law of the land; and for greater caution adds, “that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.†And it may be asserted, without fear of refutation, that no federative government could exist without a similar provision. Look, for a moment, to the consequence. If South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their collection in every other port, and no revenue could be collected anywhere; for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat that an unconstitutional law is no law, so long as the question of its legality is to be decided by the State itself, for every law operating injuriously upon any local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal.
If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the Eastern States, the carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those States discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced, to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace instead of victory and honor, if the States, who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure, had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that State will, unfortunately, fall the evils of reducing it to practice.
If the doctrine of a State veto upon the laws of the Union carries with it internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our constitutional history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been repudiated with indignation had it been proposed to form a feature in our Government…
I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jack01.asp
-
Wrong you are, land-o-cotton breath!
The USC specifically spells out how to change the makeup of the Union -- a Constitutional Convention would have to be convened. Old TJ always was a populist.
Your read of the US Constitution and the 10th amendment is disturbing, sir. The 10th is quite plain; the Federal government is restricted to the authorities specifically granted it within the text of the Constitution, while all rights, powers and authorities not specifically granted the Federal government by the Constitution, are reserved by the Constitution to the individual states or the individual people directly. Not mostly reserved to the states, except for the right to leave the Union (and whatever other authority the Federal government would like to have). Reserved, entirely, wholely and without exception, to the individual states.
If the whole of your argument is based upon the arguments of Texas v. White, while a ruling from SCOTUS is weighty, it is not absolute. I would simply refer to the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, as one of MANY cases where the SCOTUS was wholely wrong, and overturned for being wrong later.
-
They weren't trying to change the entire union. ...or are you of the opinion that states had no rights? Am I to believe you don't buy into that old "strong state governments, limited federal government" argument? You'd make Hamilton proud.
There is quite a continuum between Hamilton and Jefferson. And your question is a non-sequitur.
If secession isn't changing the entire union, what is? As I said, the USC had a provision for dissolution. The fact the South chose not to take advantage of it is on itself.
So you can't keep repeating "10th Amendment" and "The USC is silent on secession thus it is OK" -- the facts say otherwise.
-
In the compound republic of America.....a double security arises as to the rights of the people. The different governments, {state and federal], will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."
- James Madison, The Federalist, No. 51
Translation -- the South needed approval of the Union to secede.
-
Your read of the US Constitution and the 10th amendment is disturbing, sir. The 10th is quite plain; the Federal government is restricted to the authorities specifically granted it within the text of the Constitution, while all rights, powers and authorities not specifically granted the Federal government by the Constitution, are reserved by the Constitution to the individual states or the individual people directly. Not mostly reserved to the states, except for the right to leave the Union (and whatever other authority the Federal government would like to have). Reserved, entirely, wholely and without exception, to the individual states.
If the whole of your argument is based upon the arguments of Texas v. White, while a ruling from SCOTUS is weighty, it is not absolute. I would simply refer to the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, as one of MANY cases where the SCOTUS was wholely wrong, and overturned for being wrong later.
But there IS a provision for dissolution of the Union. My reading is spot on. Yours is a misapplication of the 10th, since the USC is far from silent on the matter.
Other than that, it is a whole different deal: The WOD is 100% unconstitutional, as is NCLB, the NEA and about 90% of what constitutes the modern federal government.
And Texas v. White has never been overturned. Especially since it was correct.
-
Your read of the US Constitution and the 10th amendment is disturbing, sir. The 10th is quite plain; the Federal government is restricted to the authorities specifically granted it within the text of the Constitution, while all rights, powers and authorities not specifically granted the Federal government by the Constitution, are reserved by the Constitution to the individual states or the individual people directly. Not mostly reserved to the states, except for the right to leave the Union (and whatever other authority the Federal government would like to have). Reserved, entirely, wholely and without exception, to the individual states.
If the whole of your argument is based upon the arguments of Texas v. White, while a ruling from SCOTUS is weighty, it is not absolute. I would simply refer to the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, as one of MANY cases where the SCOTUS was wholely wrong, and overturned for being wrong later.
I don't think his argument is that it is illegal because SCOTUS declared it such. It is the opinion of the Court which outlines in detail the reason why it is indeed illegal.
-
A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia and New York -- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.
The procedure of the articles of ratification of the Constitution in Virginia is described in depth, in original documents, in "The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution," a wonderful work in progress from the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, volume X, p.1512 and after.
The Virginia convention ended its clause-by-clause consideration of the proposed Constitution on June 23, 1788, and the next day George Wythe proposed that the Committee of the Whole ratify the document. He also recommended amendments to be considered by the new Congress, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution.
This took the form of two resolutions, prefaced by a preamble expressing the belief that all powers not granted to the government by the Constitution were retained by the people and that the government could neither cancel, abridge, restrain, nor modify the people's rights except where the Constitution gave it such power.
Patrick Henry, who led the opposition to ratification, moved that it was premature to do so and he proposed a resolution "to refer a declaration of rights, with certain amendments to the most exceptionable parts of the Constitution, for the other states in the Confederacy, for their consideration, previous to ratification." Henry also presented at the same time a declaration of rights and structural amendments.
The next day (June 25) the convention sat as a Committee of the Whole. Both Wythe's proposal and Henry's were read again, and debated at length. Early in the afternoon, the matter came to a vote. The antifederalist proposal that a declaration of rights and amendments be submitted to the other states "previous to the ratification of the new Constitution" was voted down, 88 to 80. Then the delegates voted 89 to 79 to ratify the Constitution.
[The two-vote difference is because David Patteson of Chesterfield voted with the Antifederalists on amendments, but with the Federalists on ratification.]
The convention then appointed a committee of five to prepare the form of ratification. This "engrossed" ratification was read before the convention and accepted. On June 26, the engrossed Form of Ratification was read again, signed by President Edmund Pendleton, and transmitted to the Confederation Congress. The opening reads like this:
We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes ...
http://etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm
-
I don't think his argument is that it is illegal because SCOTUS declared it such. It is the opinion of the Court which outlines in detail the reason why it is indeed illegal.
Pretty much. I could go back over that ground, but to what end? Res ipsa loquater.
-
Again, that ruling was a few years after the civil war and pertained to Texas. While it does have some loose affiliation with the issue at hand, it doesn't address the issue at hand. Namely, the legality of secession. ....and sorry, I am one that does NOT think the court system is infallible. Kelo vs. New London, Ct. should prove that.
As for secession, it would have to be specifically written into the Constitution if secession were illegal as that is the document that places limitations upon the federal government. The 10th Amendment that states all rights reserved to the states and people respectively give the states, comprised of their citizens, the right to form their own government should they find that their current government is working against their best interests.
It absolutely addressed the legality of secession -- I excerpted the opinion on that very issue above.
-
I don't think his argument is that it is illegal because SCOTUS declared it such. It is the opinion of the Court which outlines in detail the reason why it is indeed illegal.
The opinions of the court outlined in detail why 'Separate but Equal' was legal as well. Just because the Supreme Court issued an opinion, doesn't make that opinion infallible.
Just last year, the court very nearly was of the opinion that the individual doesn't have the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. By your logic, that would have been okay as well, eh?
-
In the compound republic of America.....a double security arises as to the rights of the people. The different governments, {state and federal], will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."
- James Madison, The Federalist, No. 51
Translation -- the South needed approval of the Union to secede.
....while said union was intact.
-
http://etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm
You forgot this gem:
The question was not whether such rights would exist under the new government, but whether the rights, specifically those of individuals, needed to be made explicit in a bill of rights.[7] Their being claimed in Virginia's ratification presented no obstacle to Virginia being accepted by Congress as the 10th state in the new union, because the powers claimed were consistent with the Constitution, as understood by those who drew it up and those who recommended it to the states for ratification. The right to secede claimed in the Virginia ratification has to be regarded in the same light.
That is their argument, an no it does not have to be regarded in the same light. The comments I posted from Andrew Jackson pretty much address this.
-
The opinions of the court outlined in detail why 'Separate but Equal' was legal as well. Just because the Supreme Court issued an opinion, doesn't make that opinion infallible.
But it does provide a legal framework. And, as I said, it has never been overturned. Thus, we can probably accept its argumentation as sound -- unless you have a dissenting legal opinion of some substance.
-
....while said union was intact.
You want to dissolve it, go ahead -- the USC has a provision which was not acted upon.
-
The opinions of the court outlined in detail why 'Separate but Equal' was legal as well. Just because the Supreme Court issued an opinion, doesn't make that opinion infallible.
Just last year, the court very nearly was of the opinion that the individual doesn't have the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. By your logic, that would have been okay as well, eh?
Let us forget this opinion is from SCOTUS as you are hooked on that for your argument. It is the opinion itself, which is clearly sound.
-
It absolutely addressed the legality of secession -- I excerpted the opinion on that very issue above.
.....yet you've shown me nothing in the founding documents showing that it was illegal. You showed me a court opinion that was made several years after the end of the civil war. Hell, we all have opinions. Someone has to be wrong. ....and I have the fact that it was never specifically written into the US Constitution, nor any other founding documents, on my side.
I also have the ratification of Virginia's documents expressing and reserving the right to secede. ...and that was done before they ever joined the union.
-
You want to dissolve it, go ahead -- the USC has a provision which was not acted upon.
You enter into a contract which has an out clause. You decide instead to just agree with your homies to ignore the contract.
Yeah that will hold up in court.
-
You forgot this gem:
That is their argument, an no it does not have to be regarded in the same light. The comments I posted from Andrew Jackson pretty much address this.
Those stipulations were placed in the documents before they joined the union. Yes, it does have to be regarded in the same light.
-
.....yet you've shown me nothing in the founding documents showing that it was illegal. You showed me a court opinion that was made several years after the end of the civil war. Hell, we all have opinions. Someone has to be wrong. ....and I have the fact that it was never specifically written into the US Constitution, nor any other founding documents, on my side.
I also have the ratification of Virginia's documents expressing and reserving the right to secede. ...and that was done before they ever joined the union.
I have already shown you that you are wrong about that. You can keep closing your eyes and plugging your ears and going "nya nya" but that doesn't change the very on-oint fact I have presented to you.
And if someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong, the smart money is on the Winner.
-
BTW, great quote by Lee, eh?
The consolidation of the States into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it. --General Robert E Lee
The man must have had a ****ing crystal ball.
-
Those stipulations were placed in the documents before they joined the union. Yes, it does have to be regarded in the same light.
No it doesn't, as to do so would require an amendment of the Constitution by the Union -- which Freedumb2003 has repeated about a dozen or so times in this thread. They cannot unilateraly change the Consitution/Union.
-
BTW, great quote by Lee, eh?
The man must have had a ******* crystal ball.
“Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union†so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by a revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession, Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.
Robert E. Lee, from a letter written to his son, January 23, 1861
-
Ok, so where's it located in the founding documents that secession is illegal? I've only asked about 500 times.
-
Ok, so where's it located in the founding documents that secession is illegal? I've only asked about 500 times.
:whatever:
-
“Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of out Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union†so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by a revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession, Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.
Robert E. Lee, from a letter written to his son, January 23, 1861
Great find. I think if Reb has sort of backed into a point it is that the South's great men are not really featured in American History class -- up to and including college, except for graduate level history classes.
As a result people don't realize just how brilliant people like Lee, J. Davis and others were. Like Reb, they were passionate and really felt they were doing the right thing -- maybe the only right thing -- for their people. They were also quite eloquent, as is demonstrated in some of the quotes we have seen here.
Reb, that is the fight you should be fighting IMHO -- not refighting the Civil War (I almost used my new term but decided against it...).
-
Ok, so where's it located in the founding documents that secession is illegal? I've only asked about 500 times.
I will type slowly for you:
1) The USC provides a means for dissolution
2) The Supremacy Clause establishes that as the ONLY way to leave the Union, through dissolution
3) The 10th Amendment specifically says it covers only that which has NOT been covered in the USC/BOR
See? Not that hard, when you read slowly...
Also, we have this gem from Article III of the USC:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
-
How was it treason when they were members of another sovereign nation? As for the dissolution, again, the south wasn't trying to dissolve the entire union. They were dissolving their ties with the union. The union was still intact after the southern states left.
-
I'd love to play more, but I have to study for the LSAT.
-
Sorry to dredge up this battle again, but I heard this today, and saw quite a bit of application to the argument that was never really resolved.
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions(or Resolves) were important political statements in favor of states' rights written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson (who would later become president) and James Madison in 1798, respectively. They were passed by the two states in opposition to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts. Though often mentioned as a pair in modern historical discussions, they were actually two separate documents. The Kentucky Resolutions (plural) were written by Jefferson and passed by the state legislature on November 16, 1798, with one more being passed the following year on December 3, 1799. The Virginia Resolution (singular) was written by Madison and passed by the state legislature on December 24, 1798. Jefferson and Madison collaborated on the writing of the two documents, but their authorship was not known for many years. The resolutions attacked the Sedition Acts, which extended the powers of the federal government. The resolutions declared that the Constitution was a "compact." That is, it was an agreement among the states. The federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it; should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be void. Thus it was the right of the states to decide as to the constitutionality of such laws passed by Congress.