Author Topic: A Right To Secede?  (Read 16590 times)

Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #120 on: March 09, 2014, 12:29:07 PM »
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/judge-napolitano-abraham-lincoln-was-a-tyrant-video/

One of the worst presidents ever. Total disregard for the Constitution. It would have been far cheaper to buy all the slaves and far less bloody.

Of course there is a right to secede. The 10th amendment says anything not specifically granted to the federal Gov. Belongs to the people and the states. Since session is not mentioned it must be a state right. Who would join such government where the only way out was fight your way out or die. What is this the mafia?

hat they held slaves gave them no right to invade and besides  Lincoln  only freed the slaves in the south. He didnt free those in the north

Whats next you cant leave your state?

I have to agree that there is a right to secede, but your tossed off line about buying the slaves as an alternative to the Civil War is just silly. The war was not started or prosecuted over slavery as an issue in and of itself -- it was started as a result of secession undertaken to protect the economy of the South from destruction by the federal government. Slavery as a legal institution was only one in a list of issues. I have seen little evidence to suggest that Lincoln, for one, ever held abolition in such high regard as to wage war against his own countrymen for its sake.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Offline penrod

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Gender: Male
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #121 on: March 09, 2014, 01:34:34 PM »
I have to agree that there is a right to secede, but your tossed off line about buying the slaves as an alternative to the Civil War is just silly. The war was not started or prosecuted over slavery as an issue in and of itself -- it was started as a result of secession undertaken to protect the economy of the South from destruction by the federal government. Slavery as a legal institution was only one in a list of issues. I have seen little evidence to suggest that Lincoln, for one, ever held abolition in such high regard as to wage war against his own countrymen for its sake.

That was but one issue I was addressing. My point is ending slavery was not what he fought for. It was power for the Federal Government.

They could have settled the slavery issue by doing what I suggested. Im not saying that would have prevented the war but it certainly would have been worth the try.

  Lincoln was a racist as well and wanted to ship them all off to a land of their own as he believed them to be a inferior race

I know it was about nullification and unfair tariffs. You wont get much of an argument from me there.

Offline Kaz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
  • Gender: Male
  • Individual
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #122 on: April 11, 2014, 10:30:59 AM »
They could have settled the slavery issue by doing what I suggested.

No they couldn't.  The issue was not that plantation owners wanted to be compensated for their slaves, it was that they believed they needed the slaves to continue their way of life.

Would Ford sell you all their assembly line equipment if they could not replace the equipment?  They'd be out of business.

Obviously the South needed another solution, but the idea that buying the slaves would have worked makes no sense.
Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries

Michael Aulfrey:  I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers

Offline penrod

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Gender: Male
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #123 on: April 11, 2014, 11:19:28 AM »
No they couldn't.  The issue was not that plantation owners wanted to be compensated for their slaves, it was that they believed they needed the slaves to continue their way of life.

Would Ford sell you all their assembly line equipment if they could not replace the equipment?  They'd be out of business.

Obviously the South needed another solution, but the idea that buying the slaves would have worked makes no sense.

With the money they received they cold have hired workers  Plus they would save by not having to house and feed the help. Slavery wont work in a democratic capitalist society. It was going out of fashion in every western nation at this time. It would have in the South as well without a war.

Offline Kaz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
  • Gender: Male
  • Individual
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #124 on: April 11, 2014, 11:25:11 AM »
With the money they received they cold have hired workers  Plus they would save by not having to house and feed the help. Slavery wont work in a democratic capitalist society. It was going out of fashion in every western nation at this time. It would have in the South as well without a war.

That they fought a war shows it was a ways off from going out of fashion in the South.  And buying their slaves once does not logically make sense that then they could turn around and hire workers on an ongoing basis.  If they wanted to go that direction, they could already have been doing it.

Obviously they should have given up the slaves and found another way to make the numbers work.  I'm just pointing out with how they thought at the time, that wasn't going to happen.  Only a war was going to make it happen.
Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries

Michael Aulfrey:  I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers

Offline penrod

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Gender: Male
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #125 on: April 17, 2014, 08:19:36 AM »
That they fought a war shows it was a ways off from going out of fashion in the South.  And buying their slaves once does not logically make sense that then they could turn around and hire workers on an ongoing basis.  If they wanted to go that direction, they could already have been doing it.

Obviously they should have given up the slaves and found another way to make the numbers work.  I'm just pointing out with how they thought at the time, that wasn't going to happen.  Only a war was going to make it happen.
They fought a war because they were invaded

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #126 on: July 26, 2014, 08:57:01 PM »
One of the worst presidents ever. Total disregard for the Constitution.

Meanwhile, anyone who is not a Constitutional lawyer judges Lincoln by the consequences of his actions, and not his nominal obedience to a legal document in a time of national crisis. 

Quote
It would have been far cheaper to buy all the slaves and far less bloody.


You obviously don't understand the mentality of southerners of the period.  They adamantly defended slavery not only out of economic necessity, but also an ideological hatred of blacks.  Even southerners who had never owned slaves nor profited from the industry fervently opposed ratification of the 13th amendment.  The South would not have taken such a bribe, even if we accept your completely unsupported assertion that Lincoln had cash flowing from his anus.

Quote
Of course there is a right to secede.

And where does this right end?  Could a village of 200 vote to secede from the Union?  How about a family of four?  Better yet, what about the slaves that the Confederacy kept in abject misery; couldn't they have seceded from the Confederacy?  Were the Southerners not preventing them from doing so?  If they were denying other groups (with far more serious grievances, mind you) the right to secede, why should we sympathize with their own efforts?  Do you even realize how hypocritical that is?

Quote
The 10th amendment says anything not specifically granted to the federal Gov. Belongs to the people and the states. Since session is not mentioned it must be a state right.

Well, someone would have flunked law school.  By this idiotic logic, the States should have the right to torture its citizens, since torture is not granted to the federal government.

Quote
hat they held slaves gave them no right to invade

Bullshit.  The South forfeited any claims to sovereignty by refusing to acknowledge the sovereignty of its own oppressed, and any claims to moral high ground by perpetuating an institution infinitely more heinous than anything you could accuse the North of.  Ignoring the fact, of course, that the South started the war.

Quote
and besides  Lincoln  only freed the slaves in the south. He didnt free those in the north

Red herring.  What does this have to do with anything?

Quote
Whats next you cant leave your state?

According to your beloved Confederacy, not if you're black.  Interesting that you're so upset over Lincoln for having "no respect for the Constitution", but you don't mind the fact that your venerated southerners perpetuated the most evil institution in the history of humankind.  You need to check your priorities, mate.

 

Powered by EzPortal