Text only | Text with Images

Conservative Political Forum

General Category => The Constitution => Topic started by: Trip on August 01, 2013, 11:04:13 PM

Title: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 01, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
Do the Sovereign States have any right to secede from the Union?

Introduction:

Without doubt the subject of Secession results in strong opinions, with the Civil War itself being a strong (and violent)  claim that there is no right to secede. Many cite the post-war case of Texas v White as the final word that Secession is not possible, however this was not exactly any sort of legitimate exercise of our constitutional government and jurisprudence.

It seems The Declaration of Independence itself is emphatic on the matter by asserting, not once, but twice, the right and duty of the people to overthrow a tyrannous government:


However it should be pointed out that the Declaration also emphasizes that this right to institute a new government is only for significant cause:


The only power afforded the federal government in the Constitution, in this regard, is Article 1, Section 8 , to suppress insurrection.  However "insurrection" actually presupposes that the federal government itself is operating within the terms of the Constitution, and legitimate government.

"insurrection" involves resistance to legitimate government and is not necessarily to be applied to the states themselves, as States are legitimate and even sovereign government,  but rather insurrection applies to the general populace in a state of insurrection in conflict with the legitimate governance and the Constitution.

The Constitution is founded on the principle that the states are sovereign entities, and only by the compact among the several States do those sovereign states bring the fiction of the federal government into existence, under express limited terms. The states did not forfeit there sovereignty overall, and only ceded certain authority under specific enumerated issues.

My own position is that the claim that the states have no right to secede is contrary to every principle of this country.

At what point do our grievances go beyond "light and transient causes"?

Do those grievances become significant when the government usurps ownership of citizen's bodies to dictate their care and maintenance, without any enumerated power to do so? Do they become insignificant when the government believes it can infringe the right to keep and bear arms by means of only a Presidential Directive?  Do they become no longer insignificant when the federal government deliberately maintains open borders, and then forces a mass amnesty upon the citizenry?

Given that the right to bear arms is not "a grant" made by the Second Amendment itself, but rather only a "bill" or "listing of particulars in that Bill of Rights, can such an unalienable right even be removed by any amendment to the Constitution?  Or does the government have the authority to limit the Freedom of the Press by limiting what is "a journalist" to those who are paid, and those who work full-time as a journalist?

All of these, and more, are important questions in this Republic, and the issue of whether states have the authority to secede from the Union.





Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 01, 2013, 11:08:37 PM
The Civil War
&
Texas vs White


Texas vs White was a U.S. Supreme Court case about the sale of bonds by the duly elected Texas State Legislature during the Civil War.

The U.S Treasury gave notice that it would not honor any bonds sold by the state unless they had the signature of a pre-war governor Sam Houston, but this notice occurred after the sale, but before that sale was registered. This Treasury notice was in no way a legitimate authority of the federal government to do, much less the Treasury, secession or not. The divestiture of those bonds was a state issue, and fully covered under state rights, having no federal authority governing it. The Texas legislature would have been fully lawful in selling the bonds in the manner it did were not the state in secession, thereby making the Courts verdict nothing but circular logic and a foregone conclusion.


The suit was brought by the post-war Texas government, which was nothing but a puppet government appointed by the federal government under the Military Reconstruction Act (MRA). The MRA involved the creation of five military districts in the South, each commanded by a general, which would serve as the acting government for the region. Texas was in the Fifth Military District under Gen. Philip Henry Sheridan, who replaced duly-elected Texas governor James W. Throckmorton with Elisha Marshall Pease, who only recently had founded the state's (Radical) Republican party - a banana republic puppet.

Under Radical Reconstruction, for readmission to the Union under the congressional plan, each unreconstructed state was required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and elect by universal manhood suffrage. No, no conflict here, demanding universal sufferage (for men) but demanding they cast a vote for an Amendment to give the appearance of Constitutionality. Furthermore, each state had to write a constitution acceptable to the Congress. Well, I think we just threw out the idea of state sovereignty, not by judgment, not by amendment, but by force. Yet this country was in no way founded under the principle of "might makes right".

Under Lincoln's vision, each state was considered to never have left the Union, but this is not what transpired under Radical Reconstruction. Under Radical Reconstruction, each state was treated as a conquered territory, having no sovereignty at all, and having the terms of its existence dictated. Yet this position was not convenient for the judgment in Texas vs White, which reversed the reconstruction position, back to the position of Lincoln, but did so with a puppet government appointed by the military, suing private individuals for return of bonds without compensation, and being adjudged by the federal government itself, yet pretending that Texas was a sovereign state for benefit of the suit!

Texas vs White was essentially a kangaroo court in league with a puppet government, and acting entirely extra-constititutionally, outside the bounds of the Constitution, and in disregard of its most fundamental tenets, and far more in conflict with the Constitution than those seceding states ever could have been.

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 01, 2013, 11:19:20 PM
What was the Founder's View Regarding Secession?

Many who deny the right of secession have made a similar claim to that below:


The above claims are false and inaccurate, particularly about Virginia and New York's ratifications of the Constitution, as well as the union being "perpetual" in so far as dissoluble, by the Articles of Confederation.

The only reference of any "perpetual" union, was in the Articles of Confederation, and that was to indicate that the union was intended to be formed as a permanent institution, and not temporary as a response to war with Britain. There is no indication anywhere in the AOC, nor the Constitution, that individual states are prohibited from withdrawal from the union. It does not exist, and is only the more contemporary fabrication of a tyrannous federal government.

VIRGINIA

Virginia engaged its convention to ratify the Constitution with a clause by clause anyalysis of that compact. The convention then appointed a committee of five to prepare the form of ratification. On June 26, 1788m, the Form of Ratification was read again, signed by President Edmund Pendleton, and transmitted to the Confederation Congress. The opening indicates:




The bolded portion, above, is the clear declaration of Virginia's right to secede at its will, given cause, and recognition of the fact that sovereignty resides with Virgina, nothing but a restatement of the terms of the Constitution, thereby Virgnia imposing no sort of conditions on Virginia's ratification.

Virgina's committee of five that wrote the ratification consisted of Edmund Randolph, George Nicholas, James Madison, John Marshall, and Francis Corbin -- all of whom were Federalists, with Madison and Randolph obviously being members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Virginia's ratification was accepted without comment, caveat, or exception, and this is reasonable given that the statements were only a reiteration of the terms inherent to the Constitution itself. In fact the right to secession under breach of its terms by the federal government, is inherent to the Constitution.

NEW YORK

Meanwhile New York opened the ratification convention with an initiative led by Anti-federalist John Lansing Jr. moving that a resolution be adopted giving New York the right to secede from the Union if certain amendments were not adopted within a certain number of years.

Alexander Hamilton, anticipating such a proposal, had written to James Madison several days earlier and posed the question to him. Madison replied, indicating that Congress would not consider such a conditional ratification to be valid.

However, Madison, to whom the initial quote, above, was evidently referring to by the irrelevant inaccuracy "author of the Constitution", was only responding in his capacity as a retired delegate to the Congress of the Confederation from Virginia (not New York), with Madison's term ending on Nov 1, 1783. At that point Madison had already supported Virginia's right to secede in their ratification statement! Madison's comment to Hamilton was only indicting that such a conditional ratification was invalid, and not that secession itself was invalid! Even then Madison's statement had no authority to it, given his lack of political office.

Madison's letter only indicated that ratification statements could not involve "conditions" of future amendments to the Constitution, and such statements would only be rejected. Other conditions listed as presumed in the preamble to the Virginia ratification, in addition to the right to secede, include the inability of the federal government to interfere in free exercise of religion and the press -- were agreed by all, and not rejected by the federal government. Therefore the right to secede can only be viewed in the same light as these other statements.

"Perpetual Union" ... Indissoluble

The claim that, "The Union is not legally dissoluble" is not anywhere indicated in the Articles of Confederation, nor more importantly, in the Constitution itself. The only reference to the union as "perpetual", addresses the fact that the union was not merely a temporary formation solely to resolve the war with Britain, and does not indicate the compulsion of any state to remain therein, not "legally" or otherwise. This is supported by Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which indicates, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." There is no power indicated anywhere in the AOC that prohibits any state from leaving that union.

It should be recognized that any state seceding from the union is not attempti9ng to "dissolve" the union, legally or otherwise, but rather only severing its own membership therein.

CONCLUSION:

George Washington's "Farewell Address" involved a prayer for the country:


The phrase "may be" is not a recognition of any sort of compulsion in regard to the perpetuity of the union, and is tied to the fact that the "free Constitution" must be maintained by the "work of your hands", thereby making any longevity of the voluntary union the result of adherence to the Constitution's terms, and not any sort of compulsory membership in that union.

The Supreme Court has ruled that all states admitted to the Union are admitted on the same footing, with no state having lesser authority and rights. In Pollard's Lessee, the Supreme Court ruled that, "no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights." As a function of that ruling the Court also indicated that each and every state that joined subsequent to the Revolution, has the same rights as the original states. No state could have rights recognized that are not shared equally with other states.

Given the fact that Virginia did stipulate, and was accepted into the union, declaring its right to secession, then each and every state must have that unilateral authority as well, without exception.

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 02, 2013, 02:06:03 AM
Pollard's Lessee v Hagan (1845)

The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly affirmed the sovereignty of states, whether they are brought into the union initially, or after the fact.

The Court case Pollard's Lessee involved conflicting claims by the United States and Alabama to ownership of certain partially inundated lands on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico in Alabama.

The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of these lands. Rather than an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States.

As the original 13 States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an equal footing with the original States.

The Court resolved:


Notice the first cited paragraph involves not only a recognition of Alabama's sovereignty, but as with "unalienable" rights, that state sovereignty is also unalienable, and cannot by changed even by agreement ("compact") by the state itself! This is undiminished by the fact that Alabama was originally a territory, entirely subject to congressional control.

"No compact that might be made between [any state] and the United States could diminish these rights", .... which would include ability to secede from the union.

In regard to the claim that "most states don't have such a  provision" to secede from the union similar to Virginia, as a function of the Pollard's Lessee holding, the Court also indicated that each and every state that joined subsequent to the Revolution, has the same rights as the original states.... and that No state could have rights recognized that are not shared equally with other states.

Therefore, given the fact that Virginia did stipulate, and was accepted into the union declaring its right to secession, then each and every state has that unilateral right as well, without exception.

*** NOTE:  The above also applies to territory within a state which the federal government may have purchased.   While the Federal government may have constitutional authority to write laws applicable to forts, and federal parks, the territory is still the Sovereign territory of each state, with the federal government's ownership of a portion thereof being only as a sort of elevated tenant.   "No Compact that might be made ... can alter these rights <State sovereignty>"

This puts new light on the federal government's act of supplying and  fortifying  Fort Sumter upon the secession of the South, with this fortification of Sumter at the mouth of Charleston bay actually itself being the original act of war, and not the South's resultant  firing upon Fort Sumter.

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kramarat on August 02, 2013, 04:33:31 AM
Very interesting read.

Based on that, I would agree that every state has the right to secede.

One major thing that Obama has accomplished, is shining a spotlight on the illegal and unconstitutional behavior of the federal government. Like most Americans, I spent most of my life believing that the supreme court always had our backs, in regard to the constitution. Boy, was I ever wrong!

While the depth of my knowledge is still limited, I actually took an interest and started reading, with the passing of the patriot act, and the formation of the DHS and TSA. I knew in my gut that the patriot act was really bad.

The more I learn, the scarier and more depressing it gets.

Constitutionally, this should be an open and shut case, but it is being ignored, and once again demonstrates how far away from the constitution the federal government has strayed...largely unchallenged. :sad:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032912-606068-new-sagebrush-rebellion-brews-in-western-states.htm (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032912-606068-new-sagebrush-rebellion-brews-in-western-states.htm)

We are living in some interesting and historically significant times. With a fully treasonous administration in place, one can only guess at what will come.

Thanks for another great thread.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 02, 2013, 10:28:43 AM
Conservative Orginalist Antonin Scalia's Response to Secession

In 2006 Antonin Scalia (http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/02/scalia-there-is-no-right-to-secede.html) responded to a letter questioning the right to State secession.  To no surprise (at least for me),  Scalia indicated "there's no right to secede".

Scalia's  response (jpg) (http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/uploaded_images/Scalia-Turkewitz-Letter-763174.jpg):


Imagine that, a "constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War"!

This letter from Scalia is not one of his more stellar responses. First, the idea that a "constitutional issue" might have been resolved by the Civil War itself, the exercise of force, is asinine and absent any sort of constitutional thought, not to mention reference.

Then to compound this error, Scalia attempts to support his reference to the Civil War results with reference to, of all the asinine things, the Pledge of Allegiance, which has no foundation in law, or founding principle, much less Constitutional rationale, only further demonstrating the fallacy of his reasoning.

The Pledge of Allegiance was only recognized in 1942, one-hundred-fifty-five years after this nation's founding, and seventy-seven years after the Civil War, and was written by Francis Bellamy, not even any sort of scholar, but a progressive Christian Socialist! One should also be aware that Bellamy did not support universal suffrage stating, "a democracy like ours cannot afford to throw itself open to the world where every man is a lawmaker, every dull-witted or fanatical immigrant admitted to our citizenship is a bane to the commonwealth." Scalia himself is demonstrating a rather dull wit in referencing the Pledge as any sort of authoritative source!

Beyond that, the reference in the Pledge of Allegiance to "one nation,  indivisible", as with the Articles of Confederation reference to "perpetual union", is the positive expression for the hoped longevity of the union. It is ridiculous, even absurd, to cite the Pledge (or the AOC) as trying to indicate that the union is compulsory.

Nowhere in Scalia's rationale is there even any pretense of Constitutional thought, which should be scary to free Americans!

Then Scalia goes on to address this hypothetical "suit" for secession against the federal government, stating that he cannot imagine who would bring this suit. This comment alone supports the idea that no state would have to sue the government, nor get the approval of other states, to secede.

Scalia then demonstrates the very same ideology that would cause a state to need to secede in the first place, by indicating that the federal government cannot be sued without its consent, which is a gross corruption that has been used by this administration, allowing law suits of various groups, in order for the administration to do what it intended to do all along <ie climate change, and environmental issues>, and then claim it has no choice! Yet Scalia's response ignores the constitutional guarantee in the 1st Amendment of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, something further resisted by the corruption of the Court with "standing".

Finally, Scalia wrote this letter in 2006, two years before Obama's election, and before Justice Roberts flipped his vote at the last minute, after having even written 70% of the opinion rejecting ObamaCare as entirely unconstitutional (Was Chief Justice John Roberts Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare?), and resulting in the de facto ownership by the federal government of individual citizens, profoundly changing the relationship between citizen and government, all without even an Amendment to the Constitution (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/how-roberts-was-blackmailed-to-support-obamacare/)! The real cause to secede did not exist in 2006.

It is very possible, perhaps even likely,  that Scalia's more-considered Constitutional opinion now is nothing like the opinion applicable to a screenplay, written in this response.   

However,  beyond that, neither Scalia's opinion, nor that of the Court as a whole, do not much matter, as the states themselves are individually sovereign and not needing government permission.

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Shooterman on August 02, 2013, 12:34:26 PM
May I suggest 'one nation, indivisible', would only be true if, as Lincoln preached, the union was created by the Continental Congress in 1774, and subsequently created the states.

It might also be suggested that not only was Bellamy a socialists, but was trying to sell flags to schools. The original pledge said 'my flag', and the original salute was very similar to the NAZI salute and was also changed in '42.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 03, 2013, 04:12:55 AM
From: Thomas Jefferson
Monticello
To:  William B. Giles
Date: December 26, 1825.


The above reference to  corrupt practices in Congress, specifically "log-rolling", is the exchanging of political favors, especially the trading of influence or votes among legislators to achieve passage of projects. 

It is clear that even Jefferson supported secession when there was no other recourse, and it was clear that Congress, and the people at large, had no intention of remedying their transgressions.   

In fact what we witness today is the intention to further those transgressions to even greater extremes, with those attempting to curtail these expansion of illegitimate government themselves being called "extremists", such as the Tea Partiers.


Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kramarat on August 03, 2013, 04:37:17 AM
Quote from: Trip on August 03, 2013, 04:12:55 AM
From: Thomas Jefferson
Monticello
To:  William B. Giles
Date: December 26, 1825.


  • I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic, and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power.   Take together the decisions of the Federal Court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and, aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to outnumber the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Are we then to stand to our arms ... ?

    No! That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left are the dissolution of our Union with them or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation. But, in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights, to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms, to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation. I would go still further and give to the federal member, by a regular amendment of the constitution, a right to make roads and canals of intercommunication between the States, providing sufficiently against corrupt practices in Congress (log-rolling, etc.) by declaring that the federal proportion of each State of the moneys so employed shall be in works within the State, or elsewhere with its consent, and with a due salvo of jurisdiction. This is the course which I think safest and best as yet.

The above reference to  corrupt practices in Congress, specifically "log-rolling", is the exchanging of political favors, especially the trading of influence or votes among legislators to achieve passage of projects. 

It is clear that even Jefferson supported secession when there was no other recourse, and it was clear that Congress, and the people at large, had no intention of remedying their transgressions.   

In fact what we witness today is the intention to further those transgressions to even greater extremes, with those attempting to curtail these expansion of illegitimate government themselves being called "extremists", such as the Tea Partiers.

Wow!

While I was lamenting my lack of constitutional knowledge, at work yesterday, I had a little epiphany...it was almost like a voice.

I realized that I am not lacking an understanding of the constitution; I've read it quite a few times. It was specifically written, so that any literate person of average intelligence could understand it. Not difficult.

It has slowly been bled by thousands upon thousands of tiny cuts, and I don't think that any one person has a full grasp of every one of those little cuts. I think what has awakened so many people fom their slumber, is that, those tiny cuts have now become slicing gashes that leave ugly open wounds. It's imposible to ignore.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 03, 2013, 04:53:58 AM
Quote from: kramarat on August 03, 2013, 04:37:17 AM
Wow!

While I was lamenting my lack of constitutional knowledge, at work yesterday, I had a little epiphany...it was almost like a voice.

I realized that I am not lacking an understanding of the constitution; I've read it quite a few times. It was specifically written, so that any literate person of average intelligence could understand it. Not difficult.

It has slowly been bled by thousands upon thousands of tiny cuts, and I don't think that any one person has a full grasp of every one of those little cuts. I think what has awakened so many people fom their slumber, is that, those tiny cuts have now become slicing gashes that leave ugly open wounds. It's imposible to ignore.

One funny thing about having a full grasp of the Constitution, is paying attention not only to what it indicates directly, but also to recognize what it does NOT indicate.

This is an important factor in recognizing so many things

It applies to my realization that the federal government, literally, has no authority to write legislation that impacts on the territory that is the several States themselves.  But one can only come to this realization by piecing together a number of the specific powers of Congress, and recognizing what's absent from them, and that those enumerated powers only and areas to legislate, do not actually involve the state territories at all.    Then extrapolate this to the things like the "regulation of interstate commerce"  and you realize that Congress is precluded and excluded from applying "interstate commerce" as some plenary power, to provide license  to engage in legislation in the states.

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kramarat on August 03, 2013, 05:12:08 AM
Quote from: Trip on August 03, 2013, 04:53:58 AM
One funny thing about having a full grasp of the Constitution, is paying attention not only to what it indicates directly, but also to recognize what it does NOT indicate.

This is an important factor in recognizing so many things

It applies to my realization that the federal government, literally, has no authority to write legislation that impacts on the territory that is the several States themselves.  But one can only come to this realization by piecing together a number of the specific powers of Congress, and recognizing what's absent from them, and that those enumerated powers only and areas to legislate, do not actually involve the state territories at all.    Then extrapolate this to the things like the "regulation of interstate commerce"  and you realize that Congress is precluded and excluded from applying "interstate commerce" as some plenary power, to provide license  to engage in legislation in the states.

I've always thought that everything that was NOT specifically written, went to the states by default.
Regardless, it's looking like more and more of a pipe dream, to think that all of this crap can be undone. Elections are being won by people that are fully dependent on the federal government; which includes the unionized federal work force. :sad:
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Solar on August 03, 2013, 06:07:31 AM
Quote from: kramarat on August 03, 2013, 04:37:17 AM
Wow!

While I was lamenting my lack of constitutional knowledge, at work yesterday, I had a little epiphany...it was almost like a voice.

I realized that I am not lacking an understanding of the constitution; I've read it quite a few times. It was specifically written, so that any literate person of average intelligence could understand it. Not difficult.

It has slowly been bled by thousands upon thousands of tiny cuts, and I don't think that any one person has a full grasp of every one of those little cuts. I think what has awakened so many people fom their slumber, is that, those tiny cuts have now become slicing gashes that leave ugly open wounds. It's imposible to ignore.
Good description, it reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Kirk finds a people worshiping the American flag, but the words they chant are so bastardized, they are hardly recognizable as to that of the pledge of allegiance.

Today, the Constitution has been so bastardized and abused, that reading it like the book it was written to be, no longer makes sense because so much is wrong with our country for not following and abusing the meaning the Constitution.

If not for the brilliance of the bill of Rights, we would probably not have an original Constitution today.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kramarat on August 03, 2013, 06:11:14 AM
Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2013, 06:07:31 AM
Good description, it reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Kirk finds a people worshiping the American flag, but the words they chant are so bastardized, they are hardly recognizable as to that of the pledge of allegiance.

Today, the Constitution has been so bastardized and abused, that reading it like the book it was written to be, no longer makes sense because so much is wrong with our country for not following and abusing the meaning the Constitution.

If not for the brilliance of the bill of Rights, we would probably not have an original Constitution today.

Man, I loved that original Star Trek series.

Remember the one where the entire society was set up like Nazi Germany?
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 03, 2013, 06:54:27 AM
Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2013, 06:07:31 AM
Good description, it reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Kirk finds a people worshiping the American flag, but the words they chant are so bastardized, they are hardly recognizable as to that of the pledge of allegiance.

Today, the Constitution has been so bastardized and abused, that reading it like the book it was written to be, no longer makes sense because so much is wrong with our country for not following and abusing the meaning the Constitution.

If not for the brilliance of the bill of Rights, we would probably not have an original Constitution today.

The "E Plebnista" episode, titled Omega Glory!

Omega Glory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGO-SldLrNA)
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Solar on August 03, 2013, 07:05:15 AM
Quote from: Trip on August 03, 2013, 06:54:27 AM
The "E Plebnista" episode, titled Omega Glory!

Omega Glory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGO-SldLrNA)
Yes, that's the one, and it was most likely why Roddenberry wrote it, as a warning, that if we don't keep and understanding of it's principles, we will fail to understand it's meaning and it just becomes words, meaningless words.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: daidalos on August 04, 2013, 04:49:50 AM
Quote from: Trip on August 01, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
Do the Sovereign States have any right to secede from the Union?

Introduction:

Without doubt the subject of Secession results in strong opinions, with the Civil War itself being a strong (and violent)  claim that there is no right to secede. Many cite the post-war case of Texas v White as the final word that Secession is not possible, however this was not exactly any sort of legitimate exercise of our constitutional government and jurisprudence.

It seems The Declaration of Independence itself is emphatic on the matter by asserting, not once, but twice, the right and duty of the people to overthrow a tyrannous government:


  • 1) "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 ... "

    2) "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

However it should be pointed out that the Declaration also emphasizes that this right to institute a new government is only for significant cause:


  • "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ... "

The only power afforded the federal government in the Constitution, in this regard, is Article 1, Section 8 , to suppress insurrection.  However "insurrection" actually presupposes that the federal government itself is operating within the terms of the Constitution, and legitimate government.

"insurrection" involves resistance to legitimate government and is not necessarily to be applied to the states themselves, as States are legitimate and even sovereign government,  but rather insurrection applies to the general populace in a state of insurrection in conflict with the legitimate governance and the Constitution.

The Constitution is founded on the principle that the states are sovereign entities, and only by the compact among the several States do those sovereign states bring the fiction of the federal government into existence, under express limited terms. The states did not forfeit there sovereignty overall, and only ceded certain authority under specific enumerated issues.

My own position is that the claim that the states have no right to secede is contrary to every principle of this country.

At what point do our grievances go beyond "light and transient causes"?

Do those grievances become significant when the government usurps ownership of citizen's bodies to dictate their care and maintenance, without any enumerated power to do so? Do they become insignificant when the government believes it can infringe the right to keep and bear arms by means of only a Presidential Directive?  Do they become no longer insignificant when the federal government deliberately maintains open borders, and then forces a mass amnesty upon the citizenry?

Given that the right to bear arms is not "a grant" made by the Second Amendment itself, but rather only a "bill" or "listing of particulars in that Bill of Rights, can such an unalienable right even be removed by any amendment to the Constitution?  Or does the government have the authority to limit the Freedom of the Press by limiting what is "a journalist" to those who are paid, and those who work full-time as a journalist?

All of these, and more, are important questions in this Republic, and the issue of whether states have the authority to secede from the Union.

The flaw in your argument trip is this. You cite as a basis for your position, in part, the Declaration of indepencence.

However that document, while an important part of our history, while being a document which expressed many of the ideals which motivated our founders to break away and form their own nation.

The Declaration of Independence has zero weight in law.

Meaning, it's not a legal document. It doesn't establish law, as for example the Constitution does.

However, that said. The Constitution itself, while establishing which conditions must exist for a territory or sovereign to join the Union as a state.

Says nothing on the subject of succession.

Since the Constitution itself, makes no enumeration of such a right.

Since the Constitution itself enumerates no authority to the Federal Government to prophibit or limit such a right.

Since the Constitution enumerates no power or authority to the Federal Government to grant such a right.

And since the Constitution itself makes no enumeration of any restriction on such a right.

It seems clear to me that, despite the precedent set by Lincoln and the resulting Civil war fall out. Which has traditionally since the time of the civil war "established" that a state cannot leave the union.

To the contrary, the tenth amendment firmly establishes that since no enumeration on the matter is made in respect to the federal governments ability to either grant or restrict such a right.

Such power/authority/right, is clearly reserved as a power/right to the States themselves, and their people's  respectively as the amendment states the following:
QuoteThe 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.


Regards,

D.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 04, 2013, 05:07:27 AM
Quote from: daidalos on August 04, 2013, 04:49:50 AM
The flaw in your argument trip is this. You cite as a basis for your position, in part, the Declaration of indepencence.

However that document, while an important part of our history, while being a document which expressed many of the ideals which motivated our founders to break away and form their own nation.

The Declaration of Independence has zero weight in law.

Meaning, it's not a legal document. It doesn't establish law, as for example the Constitution does.

However, that said. The Constitution itself, while establishing which conditions must exist for a territory or sovereign to join the Union as a state.

Says nothing on the subject of succession.


Actually there's no flaw in my argument at all.

In truth,  the U.S. Constitution itself is not any sort of "legal document". It is not statutory law at all.

In fact  the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are both on the exact same footing.

The United States Code (law) lists the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation,  the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution all as the "Organic Law" of the United States.

Organic Law is the founding principle of a country.

Incidentally, we don't need a law (statute) to declare a natural right, such as speech, assembly, the ability to keep and bear arms, or to secede from the union.   

Furthermore, the enumeration of the Bill of Rights is not actually any sort of provision of those rights by the Constitution itself, but rather only a Bill, or "listing of particulars."  Those rights cannot legitimately be altered or denied by subsequent amendments to the Constitution itself, much less laws.





Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: daidalos on August 04, 2013, 05:24:41 AM
Quote from: Trip on August 04, 2013, 05:07:27 AM

Actually there's no flaw in my argument at all.

In truth,  the U.S. Constitution itself is not any sort of "legal document". It is not statutory law at all.

In fact  the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are both on the exact same footing.

The United States Code (law) lists the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation,  the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution all as the "Organic Law" of the United States.

Organic Law is the founding principle of a country.

Incidentally, we don't need a law (statute) to declare a natural right, such as speech, assembly, the ability to keep and bear arms, or to secede from the union.   

Furthermore, the enumeration of the Bill of Rights is not actually any sort of provision of those rights by the Constitution itself, but rather only a Bill, or "listing of particulars."  Those rights cannot legitimately be altered or denied by subsequent amendments to the Constitution itself, much less laws.

No trip you are misinformed. (probably by some lib in a public school who did it too)

The Constitution and the Declaration are not on the same footing legally speaking.

The Constitution supersedes everything else, including the Declaration too.

In matters of law.

This is why the Constitution is considered to be the "highest law of the land" as a legal document.

Because it not only establishes within the law certain particulars, as a matter of law. It supersedes everything else as well.

Whereas the Declaration is considered to be well precisely what it's called.

A declaration. It's nothing more than a letter to King George containing a statement of ideals, and a list of greivances, to justify and explain the decision by the colonies to break away. (rebel)

In fact if the Declaration were also, like the Constitution, a legal document.

We in this nation would have had an end to the practice of slavery, and equal rights regardless of gender or skin color way back in the 1700's.

Rather than having to have gone through such things as suffrage, or the civil war.

Indeed, had the Declaration had any kind of legal weight at all.

The southern states would have never, ever, ever, ever, agreed to it.

After all, lets not forget that the Southern states almost didn't vote for it's passage as it is. Because of certain language in the Declaration.

Had this been a legal document establishing law, or precedent in the law, you can rest assured the Southern states would never have gone along with it, as it's written today. ;)





Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: AndyJackson on August 04, 2013, 05:24:49 AM
The problem with any single right in the constitution, is that it's completely at the whim of the president, DOJ, and SC.

If they think secession is OK, then it is.  If they think it's not.....then it's not.

Tea party White House and SC nominee.....it could happen.  Prgressives.....the constitutin may as well not exist at all.  The writings of marx, alinsky, cloward & piven are our direction at the moment.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Solar on August 04, 2013, 05:58:33 AM
I find it interesting that a group of States that fought for life and freedom from a ruling class, would willingly sign away the Right to do it all over again if necessary.
To even consider secession illegal or unconstitutional is the pinnacle of absurdity.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kramarat on August 04, 2013, 06:10:23 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 04, 2013, 05:24:49 AM
The problem with any single right in the constitution, is that it's completely at the whim of the president, DOJ, and SC.

If they think secession is OK, then it is.  If they think it's not.....then it's not.

Tea party White House and SC nominee.....it could happen.  Prgressives.....the constitutin may as well not exist at all.  The writings of marx, alinsky, cloward & piven are our direction at the moment.

I don't see it like that...not that it matters.

I see a very clear set of limitations on the federal government. If the constitution doesn't specifically say they "can" do something....it means they can't. Just my worthless opinion.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 04, 2013, 06:19:03 AM
Quote from: daidalos on August 04, 2013, 05:24:41 AM
No trip you are misinformed. (probably by some lib in a public school who did it too)

The Constitution and the Declaration are not on the same footing legally speaking.

The Constitution supersedes everything else, including the Declaration too.

In matters of law.

This is why the Constitution is considered to be the "highest law of the land" as a legal document.

Because it not only establishes within the law certain particulars, as a matter of law. It supersedes everything else as well.

Well, actually, I submit that your own public screwling, and the Libs there,  has caused you serious harm.   I didn't go to public school and don't spew falsehoods without any basis in fact.

In point of fact, the Constitution has no legal footing. It is not statutory law. As such, it has the same legal standing as the DOI.  The Constitution actually has "judicial footing', and is used to adjudge the validity of law.  And, yes, just as the Constitution, the DOI has also been cited in Supreme Court opinion.   

True, the Constitution is the "law of the land",  as recognized in the Supremacy Clause, but that's mostly a rhetorical phrasing to indicate that all law must be complaint with the Constitution. In point of fact, all of the philosophy, or principle,inherent to the Declaration of Independence is incorporated into the U.S. Constitution.

However that's not an entirely accurate perspective of the two documents relative importance to one another.     

One day (and soon) the country might end, the government might be overthrown, and what remains of the Constitution, discarded.   As such, the Constitution will have absolutely zero force and effect.   

However the same would not be true of the Declaration of Independence.   The principles outlined in the DOI of unalienable individual rights and the purpose of every form of government being to protect these rights, would still endure.  From such a perspective it could be said, (and has been), that the DOI actually 'trumps" the Constitution.


Quote from: daidalos on August 04, 2013, 05:24:41 AM
Whereas the Declaration is considered to be well precisely what it's called.

A declaration. It's nothing more than a letter to King George containing a statement of ideals, and a list of greivances, to justify and explain the decision by the colonies to break away. (rebel)


If you imagine the Declaration of Independence to be nothing more than a letter, and nothing more than a statement of ideals, and a liste of gievances, then you missed its impact being the very cornerstone of this country.

In fact the DOI is recognized as the moment where this country was began, with various official documents, not just referencing the DOI, but being dated to the signing of the Declaration of Independence:


Now would be a good time to intruduce some other apropos  words from Lincoln:

"Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught
doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence ...
let me entreat you to come back. ... Come back to the truths
that are in the Declaration of Independence."

~Abraham Lincoln

The DOI is far, far more than just a "letter", "statement of ideals", and "list of grievances".

Quote from: daidalos on August 04, 2013, 05:24:41 AM
In fact if the Declaration were also, like the Constitution, a legal document.

We in this nation would have had an end to the practice of slavery, and equal rights regardless of gender or skin color way back in the 1700's.

Rather than having to have gone through such things as suffrage, or the civil war.
This is yet again showing the heavy hand of public leftist education, underlain by an idiotic yet  common idea oft referenced by the left.  They repeatedly say something like "if we had any real rights (such as to life), then no one would be able to take those rights, or take a life (kill another)."

No, those "rights" DO NOT equate to actual, real outcome!

NO, if the DOI were like the Constitution (which it is), a legal document, then we would NOT "have had an end to slavery, and equal rights" etc etc!

I'm sorry but this is just insipid, and failing to understand a major, fundamental philosophy of this country. 

The FACT of the Matter is the Constitution, like the DOI already recognized those freedoms, and rights. 

The only reason we did not have emancipation or equal rights DICTATED  with the ratification of the Constitution (or signing of the DOI), is that this nation's Founders had the infinite wisdom to recognize that if they created a federal government with the authority to dictate emancipation, and declare equal rights,.........

.... then they would have created, at that moment, the very same dictatorial government capable of social engineering and totalitarian dictate that they fought to free themselves from under feudal British government!  Our federal government does not have this authority, for good and profound reason.

It's a shame that too few people recognize this.

The point is neither the DOI nor the Constitution have "legal weight".  They are both "organic" law, being the philosophy of this country, and having zero ability to be directly applied as statutorial law.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 04, 2013, 06:56:03 AM
Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2013, 05:58:33 AM
I find it interesting that a group of States that fought for life and freedom from a ruling class, would willingly sign away the Right to do it all over again if necessary.
To even consider secession illegal or unconstitutional is the pinnacle of absurdity.

You hit the nail on the head... the same basic point i made at the end of my previous post!

If the founders were to give the federal government the ability to dictate the terms of society, be it rights, or whatever, just as with the hypothetical of the "perpetual union", then they likewise would have been creating the very dictatorial and intrusive government they fought to free themselves from.



Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Solar on August 04, 2013, 10:30:39 AM
Quote from: Trip on August 04, 2013, 06:56:03 AM
You hit the nail on the head... the same basic point i made at the end of my previous post!

If the founders were to give the federal government the ability to dictate the terms of society, be it rights, or whatever, just as with the hypothetical of the "perpetual union", then they likewise would have been creating the very dictatorial and intrusive government they fought to free themselves from.
Yep, and I think this points out quite clearly that the Fed hs no power over the States, or it's people.

QuoteThe unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: daidalos on August 04, 2013, 11:12:43 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 04, 2013, 05:24:49 AM
The problem with any single right in the constitution, is that it's completely at the whim of the president, DOJ, and SC.

If they think secession is OK, then it is.  If they think it's not.....then it's not.

Tea party White House and SC nominee.....it could happen.  Prgressives.....the constitutin may as well not exist at all.  The writings of marx, alinsky, cloward & piven are our direction at the moment.

Um Stonewall, how did you come to that conclusion?

Quote from: Trip on August 04, 2013, 06:19:03 AM
Well, actually, I submit that your own public screwling, and the Libs there,  has caused you serious harm.   I didn't go to public school and don't spew falsehoods without any basis in fact.

In point of fact, the Constitution has no legal footing. It is not statutory law. As such, it has the same legal standing as the DOI.  The Constitution actually has "judicial footing', and is used to adjudge the validity of law.  And, yes, just as the Constitution, the DOI has also been cited in Supreme Court opinion.   

True, the Constitution is the "law of the land",  as recognized in the Supremacy Clause, but that's mostly a rhetorical phrasing to indicate that all law must be complaint with the Constitution. In point of fact, all of the philosophy, or principle,inherent to the Declaration of Independence is incorporated into the U.S. Constitution.

However that's not an entirely accurate perspective of the two documents relative importance to one another.     

One day (and soon) the country might end, the government might be overthrown, and what remains of the Constitution, discarded.   As such, the Constitution will have absolutely zero force and effect.   

However the same would not be true of the Declaration of Independence.   The principles outlined in the DOI of unalienable individual rights and the purpose of every form of government being to protect these rights, would still endure.  From such a perspective it could be said, (and has been), that the DOI actually 'trumps" the Constitution.



If you imagine the Declaration of Independence to be nothing more than a letter, and nothing more than a statement of ideals, and a liste of gievances, then you missed its impact being the very cornerstone of this country.

In fact the DOI is recognized as the moment where this country was began, with various official documents, not just referencing the DOI, but being dated to the signing of the Declaration of Independence:



  • "Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."
    - United States Constitution, Article VII

    "Given under my hand and the seal of the United States, in the city of New York, the 14th day of August, A.D. 1790, and in the fifteenth year of the Sovereignty and Independence of the United States. By the President: GEORGE WASHINGTON"
    - George Washington, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 80, August 14, 1790.

    "In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done at Philadelphia, the 22nd day of July, A.D. 1797, and of the Independence of the United States the twenty-second. By the President: JOHN ADAMS"
    - John Adams, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 249, July 22, 1797.

    "In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed, and signed the same with my hand. Done at the city of Washington, the 16th day of July, A.D. 1803, and in the twenty-eighth year of the Independence of the United States. By the President: THOMAS JEFFERSON"
    - Thomas Jefferson, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 357, July 16, 1803.

    "Given under my hand and the seal of the United States at the city of Washington, the 9th day of August, A.D. 1809, and of the Independence of the said United States the thirty-fourth. By the President: JAMES MADISON"
    - James Madison, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 473, August 9, 1809.

    "Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 28th day of April, A.D. 1818, and of the Independence of the United States the forty-second. By the President: JAMES MONROE"
    - James Monroe, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. II, p. 36, April 28, 1818.

    "Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 17th day of March, A.D. 1827, and the fifty-first year of the Independence of the United States. By the President: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS"
    - John Quincy Adams, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. II, p. 376, March 17, 1827.

    "Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 11th day of May, A.D. 1829, and the fifty-third of the Independence of the United States. By the President: ANDREW JACKSON"
    - Andrew Jackson, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. II, p. 440, May 11, 1829.

    Also, as additional evidence that the DOI is our founding document <and moment>, states in the union could not violate the principles of the Declaration of Independence:

    "The constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence."


    As seen in the Colorado, Nevada, Nebraska, and Oklahoma Enabling Acts.

    The United States Constitution must always be interpreted by the principles found in the Declaration of Independence.

    Finally, The Gettysburg Address:

    Lincoln's 1863 Gettysburg Address begins with the most famous phrase:

    "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

    That "Four score and seven", references "score", which is 20 years apiece, plus seven, totals a reference of 87 years. Eighty seven years prior to 1863 puts Lincoln's reference squarely at --- 1776 -- the date of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln was basing his entire speech on what was created by that very Declaration of Independence.


Now would be a good time to intruduce some other apropos  words from Lincoln:

"Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught
doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence ...
let me entreat you to come back. ... Come back to the truths
that are in the Declaration of Independence."

~Abraham Lincoln

The DOI is far, far more than just a "letter", "statement of ideals", and "list of grievances".
This is yet again showing the heavy hand of public leftist education, underlain by an idiotic yet  common idea oft referenced by the left.  They repeatedly say something like "if we had any real rights (such as to life), then no one would be able to take those rights, or take a life (kill another)."

No, those "rights" DO NOT equate to actual, real outcome!

NO, if the DOI were like the Constitution (which it is), a legal document, then we would NOT "have had an end to slavery, and equal rights" etc etc!

I'm sorry but this is just insipid, and failing to understand a major, fundamental philosophy of this country. 

The FACT of the Matter is the Constitution, like the DOI already recognized those freedoms, and rights. 

The only reason we did not have emancipation or equal rights DICTATED  with the ratification of the Constitution (or signing of the DOI), is that this nation's Founders had the infinite wisdom to recognize that if they created a federal government with the authority to dictate emancipation, and declare equal rights,.........

.... then they would have created, at that moment, the very same dictatorial government capable of social engineering and totalitarian dictate that they fought to free themselves from under feudal British government!  Our federal government does not have this authority, for good and profound reason.

It's a shame that too few people recognize this.

The point is neither the DOI nor the Constitution have "legal weight".  They are both "organic" law, being the philosophy of this country, and having zero ability to be directly applied as statutorial law.


Wrong again Trip.

The Constitution establishes through consent of the governed, certain laws. As well as the legal authority of both the State and the Federal Governments.

The DOI does not.

Two really good links for learning about YOUR Constitution ladies and gentlemen.

https://kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu/sslpage.aspx?pid=556 (https://kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu/sslpage.aspx?pid=556)

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2005&month=08 (http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2005&month=08)
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kramarat on August 04, 2013, 11:17:07 AM
Quote from: daidalos on August 04, 2013, 11:12:43 AM
Um Stonewall, how did you come to that conclusion?

Wrong again Trip.

The Constitution establishes through consent of the governed, certain laws. As well as the legal authority of both the State and the Federal Governments.

The DOI does not.

Two really good links for learning about YOUR Constitution ladies and gentlemen.

https://kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu/sslpage.aspx?pid=556 (https://kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu/sslpage.aspx?pid=556)

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2005&month=08 (http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2005&month=08)

Good links. I love constitutional debate. I will read and digest both of them.
Carry on gentlemen.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 04, 2013, 11:56:03 AM
Quote from: daidalos on August 04, 2013, 11:12:43 AM

Wrong again Trip.

The Constitution establishes through consent of the governed, certain laws. As well as the legal authority of both the State and the Federal Governments.

The DOI does not.

Uh, no, the Constitution quite certainly does NOT establish certain laws, and the laws themselves have nothing directly to do with "the consent of the governed"!

The Constitution ITSELF is established through that "consent of the governed," and not by any sort of direct populist consent, but through the representative consent. 

There has never been a legislature, law, or person cited for violating  a specific Article, Amendment, or Clause,  but rather the laws, actions, and conflicts are adjudged relative to the Constitution itself, at least prior to the corruption of legal precedent.   

Both the Constitution AND the DOI are the same in not having any direct expression in statutory law!


Quote from: daidalos on August 04, 2013, 11:12:43 AM

Two really good links for learning about YOUR Constitution ladies and gentlemen.

https://kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu/sslpage.aspx?pid=556 (https://kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu/sslpage.aspx?pid=556)

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2005&month=08 (http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2005&month=08)

One cannot legitimately throw out generalized references, such as to Hillsdale.edu, and imply that these somehow support their own argument to the Constitution, ignoring the fact that they are general references, and specifically do not support any such argument.    You may as well have referenced Dr Seuss, or the cumulative works of Dostoevsky and Mann for all the relevance to this specific discussion.

Beyond that, the generality of these Hillsdale references, while overall true, have some particularly troublesome references, such as the following (http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2005&month=08):


What is troublesome are these obviously prejudicial reference(s) to history without any qualification.    For instance "segregation" is referenced, but only in context of the 10th Amendment "states rights", while conspicuously ignoring the fact the federal government has no authority whatsoever to compel integration, particular not on sovereign state soil, most particularly not involving private individuals and/or private institutions,  and not even the 14th nor 15th Amendments grant any such authority. 

NOTHING anywhere in the entire U.S. Constitution grants the federal government such authority on State soil, and in fact the prohibition of that authority is a major purpose of that Constitution!

The author, Justice Stephen  Markman,  is thereby making the same grossly prejudicial judgment and error regarding constitutionality, that he is ostensibly objecting to in that very same paragraph, which is extremely shameful!  This corrupt, prejudicial argument is fully shown by the reference to "those who supported segregation in public schools", a flaw of argumentation attempting to impugn by association.    This is obviously a prejudicial reference since people did not reject desegregation solely in support of segregation, which is on par with the claim that anti-abortionists want to deny women control of their own bodies, making them second-class citizens pregnant and in the kitchen.

Justice Markman is actually conflating Supreme Court decision and status guo, with real constitutional legitimacy, which is a common corruption that lawyers of all stripes introduce.  We are no longer a Constitutional Republic as a result of just such justices.

The point is there is no such "generally growing power of the federal government"; there is only the ever-expanding illegitimacy of the federal government and corruption of the Constitution,  ya know, "YOUR" Constitution ... which you are decidedly confused about.

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 04, 2013, 12:02:32 PM
Quote from: kramarat on August 04, 2013, 11:17:07 AM
Good links. I love constitutional debate. I will read and digest both of them.
Carry on gentlemen.

Glad to hear that you enjoy constitutional debate; undeniably I do too. People need to hear these sorts of discussions in order to grow in understanding.

(In fact there are a number of issues I have been wanting to bring to Mark Levin on-air - but have held off doing so due to "timing", with "Fifty Flavors" being one of those issues; I don't think Levin would have eagerly embraced that issue in the midst of the election process.)

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 10:08:58 AM
So now you're ready to tell Levin how much you know and he doesn't........that's a winner........

....can somebody dig around to see if trip and shenny are the same person  ?
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 05, 2013, 03:56:51 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 10:08:58 AM
So now you're ready to tell Levin how much you know and he doesn't........that's a winner........

....can somebody dig around to see if trip and shenny are the same person  ?

The problem with Levin is he's a lawyer, and often time lawyers, even my own father, misconstrue supreme Court precedent with actually being a representation of constitutional intent and content, which most assuredly is not the case. And even Levin will admit that himself, or are you utterly unfamiliar with his book, "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America"? 

But the fact is I did not anywhere indicate that I was going to "tell Levin" anything.  My intention was to bring up issues with Levin for discussion.

One such issue is one you clearly do not understand, and that is the fact that 10th Amendment "states rights", more accurately "state powers",  does not involve the power to undermine or deny individual freedoms.   I suspect Levin agrees with this given his own rejection of RomneyCare indicated repeatedly on his show, as well as the repeated indication that Romney was the wrong candidate at the wrong time. 

The only reason I deliberately chose not to bring that issue up by calling into Levin before the election, is that I pretty much agreed with the Levin that Romney, for worse or fpr worse, was "our guy", and better than restoring Obama to office.   Bringing up the issue of Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment, at that time, would  only serve to undermine Romney. However now that the election is a done deal, the issue of Romney's gross corruption of "states rights" as "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" in those Republican Primary debates, is pretty much fair game -- and Levin is more apt to respond to it entirely from a constitutional perspective, rather than any sort of political perspective.

Another issue I'd like to bring up, and one which I only heard him vaguely address once, with a caller, is the fact that the individual mandate of O-care is actually a constitutionally prohibited Bill of Attainder,  but I'm quite certain you don't have a ****ing clue what that is, and wouldn't know a bill of attainder if it bit you on the ass, so I won't address that consideration here, at this time.

I think someone should "dig around" in your cranium and see if you have any firing neurons, because less neurons is more moron.



Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 04:11:36 PM
oh, how cute.....I  definitely don't know a legal term, because I'm not involved in the legal profession one iota, and am not even interested in it, lol.........and this is a big moment for you to say "hawhawhawhaw yer stewpiddd".

I tell ya, your juvenile antics and little digs are beginning to eat away at your carefully cultivated "grown up guy who rilly rilly knows a lot about a lot".

For you to suppose to tell Mark Levin anything about constitutional or legal constructs...is definitely a symptom of a fantasy-riddled teen.  The guy has only been doing it for several decades, at the highest levels of this country.

And you  ?  Internet gadfly, internet educated on the subject ?

Kinda like calling up Miggy Cabrera and telling him what's wrong with his swing.  I'm sure that's on your 'to do list' also, lol.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 04:18:42 PM
Back on topic, the "50 flavors of democracy" is probably the best description of the constitutional theory that I've read in a long, long time.

You can add that to the many highly accurate things that Romney said, like Obama's 47% LIV, or "binders" which were a staple in business for 100 years, or the Benghazi points prior to Candy's assist for Obama, and so on....that little pissants giggled at and tried to redefine as "wrong".

Well, actually they were quite successful in redefining those things as wrong, with MSM assistance, for the Obama voting base that doesn''t want to know what's right or true.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 05, 2013, 05:10:12 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 04:11:36 PM
oh, how cute.....I  definitely don't know a legal term, because I'm not involved in the legal profession one iota, and am not even interested in it, lol.........and this is a big moment for you to say "hawhawhawhaw yer stewpiddd".

I tell ya, your juvenile antics and little digs are beginning to eat away at your carefully cultivated "grown up guy who rilly rilly knows a lot about a lot".

For you to suppose to tell Mark Levin anything about constitutional or legal constructs...is definitely a symptom of a fantasy-riddled teen.  The guy has only been doing it for several decades, at the highest levels of this country.

And you  ?  Internet gadfly, internet educated on the subject ?

Kinda like calling up Miggy Cabrera and telling him what's wrong with his swing.  I'm sure that's on your 'to do list' also, lol.
'

FIrst off, since I'm quite certain you've not spent any time even proximal to a law school, Law schools don't teach you constititional theory.  They teach one the law, and how to manipulate the law.  They teach legal precedent, which is actually in gross conflict with the Constitution and its intent.  As example, no one from Law School can speak authoritatively on the meaning of "natural born citizen", because they don't teach it, and if they do reference it, it is going to be a leftist corruption.

As such, I'm quite certain that I might be able to teach Levin things that may have escaped his purview,  and certainly point to evidences of original intent, such as the idea that income from wages and trades, was deliberately included as being a "Direct Tax", even the most fundamental definition of that direct tax,  which was prohibited to the federal government, and not actually any sort of "excise",  as grossly distorted by the Supreme Court.   The evidence of this exists in the Ratification Convention notes from the state of Pennsylvania, and I'm sure elsewhere too.


Alright, slick, since you're so enlightened, why don't you start out a thread in this forum and share you legal expertise on what a "Bill of Attainder" is, and then explain how it does NOT apply to the individual mandate in health care legislation.

Oh, and those "little digs" you're whining about? They came about from your own foolish attempts at digs towards me, all while you fly your ignorance like an enormous flag.  You had them coming, and delivery won't cease until you yourself depersonalize your replies.  If you can't handle the heat, you shouldn't have cranked up the stove.



Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 05, 2013, 05:17:07 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 04:18:42 PM
Back on topic, the "50 flavors of democracy" is probably the best description of the constitutional theory that I've read in a long, long time.

You can add that to the many highly accurate things that Romney said, like Obama's 47% LIV, or "binders" which were a staple in business for 100 years, or the Benghazi points prior to Candy's assist for Obama, and so on....that little pissants giggled at and tried to redefine as "wrong".

Well, actually they were quite successful in redefining those things as wrong, with MSM assistance, for the Obama voting base that doesn''t want to know what's right or true.

Oh, Wise One,  the "Fifty Flavors" thread is over yonder, not this thread.

I have no idea what you're talking about with "LIV" or "Binders", and I'm not sure you do either, but I am certain they are not an effective argument about Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment.

You are however showing yourself to be the Poster Child of what is wrong with the Republican party, and the halfwits there that actually imagine they're any sort of Conservative.  And for that, I do thank you.



Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: walkstall on August 05, 2013, 06:27:02 PM
Quote from: Trip on August 05, 2013, 05:17:07 PM
Oh, Wise One,  the "Fifty Flavors" thread is over yonder, not this thread.

I have no idea what you're talking about with "LIV" or "Binders", and I'm not sure you do either, but I am certain they are not an effective argument about Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment.

You are however showing yourself to be the Poster Child of what is wrong with the Republican party, and the halfwits there that actually imagine they're any sort of Conservative.  And for that, I do thank you.


LIV = Low-Information Voter.   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 05, 2013, 06:37:27 PM
Quote from: Trip on August 05, 2013, 05:10:12 PM
'Alright, slick, since you're so enlightened, why don't you start out a thread in this forum and share you legal expertise on what a "Bill of Attainder" is, and then explain how it does NOT apply to the individual mandate in health care legislation.


"AndyJackson"  you can relax. I've taken you off the hook, as I had no desire to wait for what would never be forthcoming.


I've enlightened you as to what a Bill of Attainder is, and why it is such an anathema to this country and individual freedoms, doing so in the ObamaCare: Why "Tax" or "Fine" is Irrelevant (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/the-constitution/obamacare-why-%27tax%27-vs-%27finepenalty%27-is-irrelevant/) thread.

However you now can enlighten us with your vast insight as how what I wrote there might be untrue.



Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 05, 2013, 06:38:43 PM
Quote from: walkstall on August 05, 2013, 06:27:02 PM

LIV = Low-Information Voter.   :rolleyes:

Evidently he's wanting to be the Poster Child for that as well.   :wink:
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: walkstall on August 05, 2013, 06:50:52 PM
Quote from: Trip on August 05, 2013, 06:38:43 PM
Evidently he's wanting to be the Poster Child for that as well.   :wink:

Look at it this way, at least he is posting in your encyclopedia of The Constitution.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 05, 2013, 06:57:28 PM
Quote from: walkstall on August 05, 2013, 06:50:52 PM
Look at it this way, at least he is posting in your encyclopedia of The Constitution.

Posting is clearly not among his disabilities,  unfortunately finding a coherent, relevant argument seems to be a hurdle.

However, as you point out,  I do appreciate his serving as a foil.

Maybe some will come to his aid! It really is unfair being outnumbered and outgunned as he is.


Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 06:52:04 AM
Quote from: Trip on August 05, 2013, 06:57:28 PM
Posting is clearly not among his disabilities,  unfortunately finding a coherent, relevant argument seems to be a hurdle.

However, as you point out,  I do appreciate his serving as a foil.

Maybe some will come to his aid! It really is unfair being outnumbered and outgunned as he is.
lol, this is the quintessential angry teen post.

Starts with a little insult or two.

Middle section is "you are my foil".

Last piece is "I have won every time !!!" hahahahahahaha  !

You got every classic kiddie component into one post.  Excelllllennntt.

You are not what you are portraying, that much is obvious.   We had a little fella named viking here recently, who was your brother in silliness.  Your meltdown is a little slower than his, but it's coming along nicely.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 07:01:41 AM
Quote from: Trip on August 05, 2013, 06:37:27 PM

"AndyJackson"  you can relax. I've taken you off the hook, as I had no desire to wait for what would never be forthcoming.


I've enlightened you as to what a Bill of Attainder is, and why it is such an anathema to this country and individual freedoms, doing so in the ObamaCare: Why "Tax" or "Fine" is Irrelevant (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/the-constitution/obamacare-why-%27tax%27-vs-%27finepenalty%27-is-irrelevant/) thread.

However you now can enlighten us with your vast insight as how what I wrote there might be untrue.

You took me off the hook......oh, thank you thank you thank you.

Did you miss where I sincerely, actually stated that I didn't know the meaning of the phrase  ?  I've had no reason in my life to know it.  Now that it's a random thing that's crept into my consciousness, great, I've learned something  !

I have no reason to say you're wrong; don't know that, don't think that, don't care.

As you apparently continue to 'enlighten me', can you at least tell us what has armed you to bring so much knowledge to the great unwashed  ?

Are you in fact a lawyer ?  A law school graduate ?  Studied the constitution as part of a course of study  ?

I've done none of the 3  !  Though I do have an architecture degree and a couple of graduate degrees, as I try to be the best facilities guy that I can be.

My guess is that you are a highly internet-educated guy, with many hours spent on wiki and various other websites.  That's the story of most guys who post endless 500-word diatribes, and claim victory in every disagreement, with every post.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 06, 2013, 09:17:03 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 07:01:41 AM
You took me off the hook......oh, thank you thank you thank you.

Did you miss where I sincerely, actually stated that I didn't know the meaning of the phrase  ?  I've had no reason in my life to know it.  Now that it's a random thing that's crept into my consciousness, great, I've learned something  !

I have no reason to say you're wrong; don't know that, don't think that, don't care.

Naa, no reason to actually know the phrase, it's just listed at the top of Article 1, Section 9, "Limits to Congress".  One might think if they believe that Congress has hard limits, it's important to understand them.

And it's not as if Bills of Attainder are not even at the foundation of common law itself, with even every one of the States having recognized that they are tyrannous legislative acts. 

And if one knew this, they might recognize that the States, like Massachusetts, also do not have any legitimate authority to enact laws that are flagrant Bills of Attainder, as Romney did, and proudly trumpeted the attainment of individual's rights as if State tyranny were some positive authority promoted by the country and Constitution! 

Maybe you should "care", as then you might have recognized how perverse what Romney  argued in the midst of the Republican Primary debates actually was!

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 07:01:41 AM
As you apparently continue to 'enlighten me', can you at least tell us what has armed you to bring so much knowledge to the great unwashed  ?

Are you in fact a lawyer ?  A law school graduate ?  Studied the constitution as part of a course of study  ?

I've done none of the 3  !  Though I do have an architecture degree and a couple of graduate degrees, as I try to be the best facilities guy that I can be.

My guess is that you are a highly internet-educated guy, with many hours spent on wiki and various other websites.  That's the story of most guys who post endless 500-word diatribes, and claim victory in every disagreement, with every post.

What the hell is the best "facilities" guy that can be?  I have no idea what you're referencing.  Does that mean you try real hard to keep the floor clean when you're standing at the toilet?

Who I am is a pissed off Conservative American, disgusted by what is going on in this country, not  only by the Lefist Marxist Democrats, but my own Republican party, many of whom have the audacity to even call what is going on  "conservative".

I was born in Boston while my father was attending Harvard Law, a man who truly revered this country and its founding principles.   No, I'm not trying to imply that my presence there somehow mystically imbued me with some sort of innate understanding of the Law and Constitution.  In fact my level of understanding has take a great deal of work over a long period of time, and  I've been arguing with lawyers all my life.

I have undergraduate degrees in  Geology and English literature, and a minor in Geophysics, all obtained within a 4 year period by sometimes increasing my course load by 50%.  I also have a couple of graduate degrees as well. Originally I had intended to actually go to Law school, hence the English literature degree,  and was actually admitted, but chose another route.

Nonetheless, I have studied the Constitution and law intensively, and not just passively taken what I've been told by others for granted, but sought actual historical facts, and traced-out all Supreme Court references and relative writings, so as to thoroughly understand these, and by that often times recognize them as corrupt, rather than just warping these to fit my own and others preconception.   

As such, I recognize cases such as U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark to be one of the greatest obscenities done by the Court against the American people, the will of Congress, and the Constitution itself, but it is not alone in this.   In fact the thorough study of the Court has revealed a longstanding tradition of misrepresenting facts to the American people, going back to some of the earliest cases of the Court.

By this Court corruption, the adoration of the Rule of Law and fundamental principles generally generally shared by all real conservatives,  the United States Supreme Court cannot be relied on to be a remedy our problems and we must learn, and be conversant in the facts of this country ourselves.

Conservatives must learn to be socially active, and even actively engage in social defiance, along with intellectually active, despite this social defiance being contrary to their nature, or else this nation is forever lost, along with our freedoms.

I'm not pretending to be some vast, inerrant  font of knowledge trying to educate the "great unwashed" masses.  I try to bring before us what we most need to understand, and in the process I continue to educate myself.     

If you want no part of this, and have no desire to discuss it and learn it, instead dismissing it, then that's your own business, but don't simultaneously pretend what you're honoring is actually the conservation of the principles of this country.

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 09:35:33 AM
lol, actually I'm an architect involved in managing facilities ops, maintenance, repair, and new construction.  It's on you if you can only infer or grasp mopping and toilets.

So, now it's evolved to the fact that your father was a lawyer.....and this is how you suppose to lecture us.

Hey, I give you kudos for being honest and telling the truth.  Most guys who angrily lecture everybody at message boards would have immediately replied that they have a JD, Phd in law, and make $ 1000 per hour as a consultant for Fortune 500 CEO's.

Hey, it looks like you've educated yourself somewhat, and maybe you are a conservative (or maybe you're role-playing for laughs).

But your take on what's conservative and what's not is just that....your take.  I believe (and I think most conservatives do) that states' rights are the ultimate test and power of the constitution and American republic.  You apparently are suspicious of states' independence and autonomy, instead.  We'll just have to disagree.

You're just trying way too hard to convince us that anybody who disagrees with you is ignorant and totally wrong.  Sometimes that's just not the case, lol.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 06, 2013, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 09:35:33 AM
lol, actually I'm an architect involved in managing facilities ops, maintenance, repair, and new construction.  It's on you if you can only infer or grasp mopping and toilets.

So, now it's evolved to the fact that your father was a lawyer.....and this is how you suppose to lecture us.

Hey, I give you kudos for being honest and telling the truth.  Most guys who angrily lecture everybody at message boards would have immediately replied that they have a JD, Phd in law, and make $ 1000 per hour as a consultant for Fortune 500 CEO's.

Actually what I indicated was entirely the opposite from claiming I have any knowledge from my father being a  lawyer.  What I indicted is it took an enormous amount of time engaged in study, and in-depth research.  What the study of the law teaches is mental discipline, something you sorely lack.

Fortunately my being surrounded by well-trained JD's, and pursuing the mental discipline of science,  it has served me doubly-well in analysis.  And for the record, I am paid more than a 1000 dollars per hour to consult Fortune 500 companies, and the U.S. military.

WHat is conspicuous here is that you have engaged in nothing but nonstop personal address, this post included.  Nowhere have you actually  attempted to provide any sort of sourced argument in response to my numerous referenced posts.  Instead you've only engaged in ad hominem address, which is not only evidence that you have "no game", and no knowledge of the argument, but that your instinctive recourse is in line with the Leftist mode of attack, rather than any sort of reliance on fact, and knowledge.

This too is why we must condemn many in the Republican party, those driving it now. It's why Romney is no conservative at all, but you're compelled to this feeble defense of his corruption of the 10th Amendment in regard to RomneyCare, while you're utterly incapable of offering any sort of referenced argument at all.   

You're nothing but a hollow partisan ideologue, without any real grasp of the Constitution, Conservatism, or this country, and providing us nothing but bobble-headed nonsense which is actually a direct threat to our freedoms, as it invites corruptions like the U.N.'s Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, not to mention corruptions from this country's people themselves. 

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 09:35:33 AM
Hey, it looks like you've educated yourself somewhat, and maybe you are a conservative (or maybe you're role-playing for laughs).

But your take on what's conservative and what's not is just that....your take.  I believe (and I think most conservatives do) that states' rights are the ultimate test and power of the constitution and American republic.  You apparently are suspicious of states' independence and autonomy, instead.  We'll just have to disagree.

You're just trying way too hard to convince us that anybody who disagrees with you is ignorant and totally wrong.  Sometimes that's just not the case, lol.

Not only have you not educated yourself, but it's clear that others have failed at educating you as well.

Your own "take" on  conservatism,  is nowhere supported by any of this country's actual principles, and only involves a state authoritarianism that thoroughly abrogates real rights, turning "unalienable rights" into a highly alienable farce,  and is precisely why the Republican party itself cannot possibly represent any sort of salvation to the threat our freedoms now face. 

Beyond being in no way "Conservative", your ideology single-handedly  makes every person who has EVER committed their life to the defense of this country, and every life actually given in the name of freedom, a total  joke and utterly worthless, because those rights and freedoms might simply be denied by your corrupt vision of state authoritarianism, without any foreign country even having fired a single shot!   

Congratulations. .

This corrupt ideology of 10th Amendment state authoritarianism you promote, is nothing short of the "enemy within", the proverbial corrupt Trojan horse able to topple the foundations of this country, every bit as much a threat to our freedom as is Marxist Progressive fascistic dictate.

As I've stated previously, the founders never indicated that "it is infinitely preferable to have our Rights and Freedoms denied by local government, rather than federal government", and your idea that they might have done so is not only thoroughly absurd, but extremely dangerous.


Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 12:10:57 PM
haha, you actually grabbed and actually did claim the "I make more than 1000.00 per hour as a consultant" thing.  lol, that's sad.

People in this stratosphere end up on syndicated radio / TV, or in the White House.....like, um, Mark Levin  !

Not chumps who are desperately trying to get people to believe how smart and omniscient they are, on the internet.

And yes, I have made this about you.  I'm not the one claiming to be an expert, you are.  And it's clear that you have nothing to base it on.  Other than...uh, I know some lawyers and my daddy was one and I read a lot.  This is sad, too.

I just chafe at internet big mouths and know-it-alls.  Look at your nonsense, post after post, every one a never-ending magnum opus about all the wonderful things you know.  With a tinge of angry-kid-lashing-out if anybody disagrees with you.

You seem to know more than me on the topic, and that's fine.  You should have something to show for your lifetime of frantic internet research, and I'm glad it's that.

But I still have enough common sense, and life experience, to believe that I'm right WRT the states' rights issue.

So, um, deal with it.  Or pitch some more fits, lol.  Just keep it less than 2500 words, please.  People are falling asleep.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Trip on August 06, 2013, 01:28:44 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 12:10:57 PM
haha, you actually grabbed and actually did claim the "I make more than 1000.00 per hour as a consultant" thing.  lol, that's sad.

People in this stratosphere end up on syndicated radio / TV, or in the White House.....like, um, Mark Levin  !

Not chumps who are desperately trying to get people to believe how smart and omniscient they are, on the internet.

Stratosphere? You actually think that people like Levin are some sort of sanctified idols? 

The problem with people like yourself is that you spend so much time drooling down your chest, that when you actually find someone who's not, you imagine they must be a fraud because they're not idolized in some sort of "stratosphere" that you recognize.  No, actually the problem is actually those like yourself with a perpetual snail trail down the center of their shirt.

I don't give a damn what people think about me, or my intelligence. What I hope for is that there are people who are reading this exchange and recognizing the points I am making. I'm not here to impress you, nor even influence you, as you're quite clearly a lost cause and ignoramus, which is why I've identified you as the poster child for the failings of the Republican Party.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 12:10:57 PM
And yes, I have made this about you.  I'm not the one claiming to be an expert, you are.  And it's clear that you have nothing to base it on.  Other than...uh, I know some lawyers and my daddy was one and I read a lot.  This is sad, too.

You've made this about me, in a desperate flailing defense of Romney, since your first post in this Constitution forum, because that's all you've got! You don't have any grasp of the Constitution at all, and you don't have any desire to acquire such! You've only got your investment in your partisan hackery, a slick-n-slide t-shirt for your oysters,  and the label "conservative" you've dishonestly stuck to your own dumb ass.

I've not claimed to be an "expert"; I've repeatedly referenced the Founders themselves, they're the experts!   But you, you've only referenced your own dumbass, unfounded opinion! 

You call me a know-it-all, but by your own actions you're a know-nothing, because you provide nothing to source your arguments at all! In fact you've got no argument whatsoever, hence the fact you have to entirely address me on a  personal basis, the last resort of Internet blowhards.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 12:10:57 PM
You seem to know more than me on the topic, and that's fine.  You should have something to show for your lifetime of frantic internet research, and I'm glad it's that.

But I still have enough common sense, and life experience, to believe that I'm right WRT the states' rights issue.

So, um, deal with it.  Or pitch some more fits, lol.  Just keep it less than 2500 words, please.  People are falling asleep.

Any elementary school child that paid attention in class and actually considered what the Constitution indicates knows more than you!    Any foreigner that studied and took the citizen test knows more than you, from recognizing that the DOI talks about "unalienable rights", and that this actually means the states have no authority to alienate those rights!  It's a very simple, fundamental concept!

So far you have not exhibited even any benefit from that claimed common sense and life experience. And you're quite incapable of "dealing with"  the fact of your own ignorance, given your ongoing personalized rants.   You don't even have the good sense to recognize at this point that I'm the last person on here you want to engage a personalized attack, because I will, and am, showing you to be the resident partisan tool.

Take a bow, as you are in fact the poster child of what is wrong with the Republican Party.   Go hug Mitt, or some other icon, maybe you'll  feel better.


Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 02:55:09 PM
Man, I wish a had a fiver for every little juvenile insult in that post  !!  Good stuff.

Hey, I'll resign from this never-ending struggle to save the world from lack of internet research.

People are puking and having seizures at this point, reading this shit.

Have yourself a time; I shall interfere no more.

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: AndyJackson on August 09, 2013, 06:12:42 PM
"Stratosphere" is a term that's been used forever for the highly successful.  As in, make it to the top of US politics (for the good guys), get to the top of media / entertainment (for the good guys), etc.

No, it's not just something to be bitter about, from the anger of one's dark, dank den & keyboard.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Obama666 on September 24, 2013, 04:05:23 PM
Trip wrote something important on page 2.  "State power" more than "state right."

The founders and framers usually referred to the control one has over his life as rights, and the control that government has as power.  For some reason, the Tenth reads a little different.

I think once one rephrases it to "state power" to secede, the question about whether it exists answers itself.  G. Washington pointed out that "Government is force and nothing more."  Yes, force, power.  That's what government is.

Secession is an act of government and thus an act of force.  The issue turns on whether the government that secedes has the power to make it hold up.  That is, the seceding part has to win the war, if the sovereign decides not to let go.   
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: daidalos on September 26, 2013, 12:30:49 AM
Quote from: Obama666 on September 24, 2013, 04:05:23 PM
Trip wrote something important on page 2.  "State power" more than "state right."

The founders and framers usually referred to the control one has over his life as rights, and the control that government has as power.  For some reason, the Tenth reads a little different.

I think once one rephrases it to "state power" to secede, the question about whether it exists answers itself.  G. Washington pointed out that "Government is force and nothing more."  Yes, force, power.  That's what government is.

Secession is an act of government and thus an act of force.  The issue turns on whether the government that secedes has the power to make it hold up.  That is, the seceding part has to win the war, if the sovereign decides not to let go.

Lincolns war against the South was illegal and unconstitutional Lincoln himself knew it too.

But watch out here's know it all trip to tell us all differently. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Solar on September 26, 2013, 06:34:07 AM
Quote from: daidalos on September 26, 2013, 12:30:49 AM
Lincolns war against the South was illegal and unconstitutional Lincoln himself knew it too.

But watch out here's know it all trip to tell us all differently. :rolleyes:
Trips long gone, I told him to come back after the mid terms and eat his words.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Obama666 on October 01, 2013, 08:55:19 PM
Quote from: daidalos on September 26, 2013, 12:30:49 AM
Lincolns war against the South was illegal and unconstitutional Lincoln himself knew it too.
Interesting response that ignores all the points.  I wonder how the war against "the south" was any more illegal than the one "the south" had been conducting against the US for months before Lincoln was inaugurated. 
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: TowardLiberty on October 07, 2013, 07:05:45 AM
I am not really interested in what "states" do but I totally believe in the legitimacy of individual secession.

I will be working to acquire my live birth record, establish a common law trust and formally renounce all association with the state, and its social security number.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Solar on October 07, 2013, 07:51:59 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 07, 2013, 07:05:45 AM
I am not really interested in what "states" do but I totally believe in the legitimacy of individual secession.

I will be working to acquire my live birth record, establish a common law trust and formally renounce all association with the state, and its social security number.
I'll assume that includes a refusal to pay taxes a well?
I say that because the IRS obviously cares not for your personal resistance, so much so, that they'll use you as an example to others that defy them.
I've seen it countless times, arrests, prison terms and no one to help them.

Good luck, I sincerely hope you secede, or rather succeed. :biggrin:
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: TowardLiberty on October 08, 2013, 06:46:30 AM
Quote from: Solar on October 07, 2013, 07:51:59 AM
I'll assume that includes a refusal to pay taxes a well?
I say that because the IRS obviously cares not for your personal resistance, so much so, that they'll use you as an example to others that defy them.
I've seen it countless times, arrests, prison terms and no one to help them.

Good luck, I sincerely hope you secede, or rather succeed. :biggrin:

Yes, that includes being non-taxable.

When you quit the corporation (United States) you no longer have to play by their rules. You give up the benefits and privileges and get back your natural liberty.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: daidalos on October 10, 2013, 01:35:45 AM
Quote from: Obama666 on October 01, 2013, 08:55:19 PM
Interesting response that ignores all the points.  I wonder how the war against "the south" was any more illegal than the one "the south" had been conducting against the US for months before Lincoln was inaugurated.
The Confederacy didn't invade northern states. No no that one was done by Union (northern states) troops. Under Orders of the tyrant President Linclon. I'm sorry if it offends some of your liberal education indoctrination. It was a hard pill for me to swallow as well. But if you research Lincoln, read his own memoirs/diary/journal, and then compare it with what our Constitution really states, you can only come to one conclusion. Lincoln was a tyrant. Please note the period.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: daidalos on October 10, 2013, 01:38:30 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 08, 2013, 06:46:30 AM
Yes, that includes being non-taxable.

When you quit the corporation (United States) you no longer have to play by their rules. You give up the benefits and privileges and get back your natural liberty.
Want to bet? See Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas.....and what our current tyrannical Federal government does to those who refuse to play by it's rules.

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kopema on October 10, 2013, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: Solar on October 07, 2013, 07:51:59 AM
I'll assume that includes a refusal to pay taxes a well?
I say that because the IRS obviously cares not for your personal resistance, so much so, that they'll use you as an example to others that defy them.
I've seen it countless times, arrests, prison terms and no one to help them.

Hey, you can stick a letter stating your intentions to the IRS's door with a dagger if you want to.   But that's a little more extreme than what most people are doing right now.

"Refusal" is a relative term.  Everyone who pays taxes has always cheated to some extent.  That extent is changing drastically.  And with Obamacare, that's going to multiply - rapidly.

Ayn Rand was wrong.  Atlas is shrugging right now, but that's not taking the form of a handful of geniuses moving to an invisible canyon somewhere.  It's taking the form of millions of American wealth-creators belatedly figuring out that the federal government considers them its enemy.

Liberals have been staging agitprop protests for half a century now - with massive media coverage - and people barely noticed.  But this is only the second time in American history that TAXPAYERS are revolting.  No matter what the news tells you, that's actually going to be a really big deal.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Mountainshield on October 10, 2013, 12:10:22 PM
Quote from: daidalos on October 10, 2013, 01:35:45 AM
The Confederacy didn't invade northern states. No no that one was done by Union (northern states) troops. Under Orders of the tyrant President Linclon. I'm sorry if it offends some of your liberal education indoctrination. It was a hard pill for me to swallow as well. But if you research Lincoln, read his own memoirs/diary/journal, and then compare it with what our Constitution really states, you can only come to one conclusion. Lincoln was a tyrant. Please note the period.

He was a tyrant because he did not have the constitutional right to wage war on a domestic enemy? I never understood the arguments against Lincoln, the whole issue of state rights seems invalid when those states break individual rights.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: AndyJackson on October 14, 2013, 08:43:06 AM
Quote from: daidalos on October 10, 2013, 01:38:30 AM
Want to bet? See Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas.....and what our current tyrannical Federal government does to those who refuse to play by it's rules.
Yes, individuals will never get anywhere except stomped by various agency thugs.

The only hope is in large scale administrative/legal actions, like nullification, constitutional convention, legit lawsuits, gutting the IRS with legislation while we have an opening with today's IRS issues..............

The sovereign citizens and all that crap is just silly folks with idle foolishness.  They may have a principled stand.....but it's worthless in reality.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: AndyJackson on October 14, 2013, 08:46:48 AM
Though I do remain very interested in what Texas' options are.  I may not understand it right, or know the details well enough, but my understanding is that they have a unique contractual document from their incorporation into the US, that actually has exit provisions.

Anybody know the details  ?

Although under enough despotic repression, I'm sure a prior legal agreement wouldn't really matter a whole lot.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kopema on October 14, 2013, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on October 14, 2013, 08:43:06 AM
Yes, individuals will never get anywhere except stomped by various agency thugs.

The war cry of every tyrant in history has always been:  "Divide and conquer!"  There is only one "individual" right:  the right to be crushed like a bug by an all-powerful central authority.

Without the right to local self-governance, the US Constitution is an empty sham.  The Tenth Amendment consists of the 28 most important words in the Bill of Rights.  It's pretty much the only text the Progressives never bothered to "re-interpret."  Instead, they simply pretend it does not exist.  It's the practice Japanese emperors used to call:  "Killing with silence."
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Solar on October 14, 2013, 09:57:49 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on October 14, 2013, 08:46:48 AM
Though I do remain very interested in what Texas' options are.  I may not understand it right, or know the details well enough, but my understanding is that they have a unique contractual document from their incorporation into the US, that actually has exit provisions.

Anybody know the details  ?

Although under enough despotic repression, I'm sure a prior legal agreement wouldn't really matter a whole lot.
Alaska had a related convention in their agreement with the fed Gov, but the Fed later passed laws nullifying that clause.
I'm sure the same has either already happened or in the works with the socialist scum in all three branches regarding Texas.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 04:46:29 PM
Quote from: daidalos on September 26, 2013, 12:30:49 AM
Lincolns war against the South was illegal and unconstitutional Lincoln himself knew it too.

The South started the war.   :mellow:

And the Constitution mandates the government to "promote the general welfare" and "secure the blessings of liberty" - possible justification for a war to end slavery.  Remember that the southern states' secession was not on democratic consent of its people, because slaves, women and many poorer people did not have a say.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Ek Ehecatl on November 18, 2013, 03:28:28 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 04:46:29 PM
The South started the war.   :mellow:

And the Constitution mandates the government to "promote the general welfare" and "secure the blessings of liberty" - possible justification for a war to end slavery.  Remember that the southern states' secession was not on democratic consent of its people, because slaves, women and many poorer people did not have a say.
Good grief....the Southern states had formed a new government and adopted a new Constitution prior to any hostilities. Have you studied the Confederate Constitution?? It fixes several defects from the original (which are still in need of fixing).
If the North found it so compelling to "Free" the slaves they should have given "just compensation" for the property, about 4 million slaves at an average of around $1,000 dollars, or $4 billion (1860 dollars) and bought them their freedom, before they invaded the South and destroyed it.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: walkstall on November 18, 2013, 03:35:34 PM
Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 18, 2013, 03:28:28 PM
Good grief....the Southern states had formed a new government and adopted a new Constitution prior to any hostilities. Have you studied the Confederate Constitution?? It fixes several defects from the original (which are still in need of fixing).
If the North found it so compelling to "Free" the slaves they should have given "just compensation" for the property, about 4 million slaves at an average of around $1,000 dollars, or $4 billion (1860 dollars) and bought them their freedom, before they invaded the South and destroyed it.

That would have saved a lot of money and lives.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Ek Ehecatl on November 18, 2013, 03:42:07 PM
Quote from: walkstall on November 18, 2013, 03:35:34 PM
That would have saved a lot of money and lives.

Yes, and it would have been "Constitutional" to boot!
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 18, 2013, 03:46:02 PM
Ek, I'm not arguing that the North was some enlightened bastion of progressive equality - I'm saying that it was all of the aforementioned in comparison to the South, which fanatically supported (openly so, in its declarations of secession) one of the most evil institutions known to mankind.  Its violations of the rights of millions of its own people far outstrip, say, the North imposing high tariffs...boo hoo.

Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 18, 2013, 03:28:28 PM
Good grief....the Southern states had formed a new government and adopted a new Constitution prior to any hostilities.

The southern states formed a new government on what authority?  Consent of its people?  No, it did not have anything approaching universal suffrage or even universal personhood; free minorities, slaves, women and disenfranchised whites had no vote in the matter.  Consent of an arbitrary selection of rich slaveowners, sure.

Quote
Have you studied the Confederate Constitution?? It fixes several defects from the original (which are still in need of fixing).

But not the most important, the issue of slavery.  And I would point out that the small government model espoused by the confederacy quickly proved to be utterly impossible when it came to actually waging a war, to the point where Davis had to enact "big government" policies that caused splinters within his base.

Quote
If the North found it so compelling to "Free" the slaves they should have given "just compensation" for the property, about 4 million slaves at an average of around $1,000 dollars, or $4 billion (1860 dollars) and bought them their freedom, before they invaded the South and destroyed it.

Who said the North was perfect?  I'm just pointing out that the South was worse.  It had institutionalized slavery, specifically identified in its declarations of secession slavery to be "the greatest material interest of the world" and the primary cause for secession, and accused the North of such horrible evils as trying to give free blacks voting rights. 

When it comes to evil, slavery >>>>>>>>> high tariffs or government taxes.  I'm sorry, but your south held no moral high ground whatsoever.  Nor did it have any legal right to secede from a permanent union, especially not by an undemocratic process.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: TboneAgain on November 18, 2013, 04:11:10 PM
Quote from: walkstall on November 18, 2013, 03:35:34 PM
That would have saved a lot of money and lives.

Yes, sir, you are correct. But the problem with the whole idea is the fact that the issue of slavery is not what started Lincoln's war. The issue was secession, or more properly stated, the maintenance of the union. Certainly, slavery was a hot issue of the day, but the war started because the Southern states seceded, not because they had slaves. Pennsylvania remained a slave state until 1847 and slavery was still legal in Delaware and New Jersey in 1860.

It was well over a year and a half before Mr. Lincoln even got around to issuing his Emancipation Proclamation, which was little more than a political stunt. Under the circumstances, his proclamation was worth no more than the paper it was written on.

The Civil War was about money, as most wars are. It began over slavery only insofar as slaves were legal chattel property with a great deal of value.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 18, 2013, 04:49:51 PM
Quote from: walkstall on November 18, 2013, 03:35:34 PM
That would have saved a lot of money and lives.

What makes you think the south would have accepted such a deal?

1. Slavery was a long term economic investment, the slaveowners would recognize that a single large cash payment would hardly even out the economic loss.

2. Slavery was not only economical but also reflective of a racist ideology; many southerners believed that slavery was the natural state of blacks and that they were happier in such a state.  As of such, hostility to abolition extended far beyond pure economics.

3. Political publications of the time and, more prominently, the southern states' various declarations of secession indicate that many southerners had convinced themselves of a massive abolitionists conspiracy by the north to not only "take away" their "god given property rights", but also give blacks voting rights and even elected office.  Granted, the North was hardly as progressive as the reactionary south imagined, but they would certainly not take at face value an emancipation payment.  There was an emotional, paranoid atmosphere amongst the south that could not have been dispelled through sheer bribery.

4. Many southerners, the late Jefferson included, feared that freed blacks would take violent revenge on their former masters.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: walkstall on November 18, 2013, 06:59:56 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 18, 2013, 04:49:51 PM
What makes you think the south would have accepted such a deal?

What makes you think I give a shit!  As Tbone said, the issue was secession and the North losing all the revenue from the South.  I from the West and even I know that.   :lol:
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 18, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: walkstall on November 18, 2013, 06:59:56 PM
What makes you think I give a shit!  As Tbone said, the issue was secession and the North losing all the revenue from the South.  I from the West and even I know that.   :lol:

So please feel free to explain how it would have "saved a lot of money and lives" if it did not convince the South to lay down its arms.  Also feel free to explain why you were agreeing with a post arguing that the North had some sort of obligation to "compensate" slave owners for their "property".

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: TowardLiberty on November 19, 2013, 08:17:08 AM
Every individual has the right to leave whatever association or agreement he wishes to. For to prevent such would be to make him your slave.

So if every man and woman has the right to secede, individually, then they can collectively enjoy this right, no less.

And they don't need to point to a passage in the Constitution to justify it. For it is their natural right as men.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 09:13:11 AM
Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 18, 2013, 03:28:28 PM
Good grief....the Southern states had formed a new government and adopted a new Constitution prior to any hostilities. Have you studied the Confederate Constitution?? It fixes several defects from the original (which are still in need of fixing).
If the North found it so compelling to "Free" the slaves they should have given "just compensation" for the property, about 4 million slaves at an average of around $1,000 dollars, or $4 billion (1860 dollars) and bought them their freedom, before they invaded the South and destroyed it.

I can't imagine that ever happening. To begin with, slavery wasn't the primary issue in 1860. Even if it was, it was quite legal. And selling a slave for a thousand dollars, knowing that exact slave would make you $2,000 next year (and every year thereafter), is rather stupid. I don't think every slave owner in the Confederate states was that stupid.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: walkstall on November 19, 2013, 09:26:15 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 09:13:11 AM
I can't imagine that ever happening. To begin with, slavery wasn't the primary issue in 1860. Even if it was, it was quite legal. And selling a slave for a thousand dollars, knowing that exact slave would make you $2,000 next year (and every year thereafter), is rather stupid. I don't think every slave owner in the Confederate states was that stupid.

As I remember Democrats back then were not even that stupid. 
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: TowardLiberty on November 19, 2013, 10:25:39 AM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 18, 2013, 04:49:51 PM
What makes you think the south would have accepted such a deal?

1. Slavery was a long term economic investment, the slaveowners would recognize that a single large cash payment would hardly even out the economic loss.


Do we not capitalize the value of durable goods to discount those future revenue streams into a present value?

Is that not the basis for the price of a man on the slave market- his discounted future productivity?

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kopema on November 19, 2013, 10:38:10 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 09:13:11 AM
I can't imagine that ever happening. To begin with, slavery wasn't the primary issue in 1860. Even if it was, it was quite legal. And selling a slave for a thousand dollars, knowing that exact slave would make you $2,000 next year (and every year thereafter), is rather stupid. I don't think every slave owner in the Confederate states was that stupid.

I'm not about to go back and figure out sesquicentennial inflation rates, but whatever the figure it's pretty safe to assume the federal government didn't have anywhere near enough money to "buy out" slavery.  In order to get it, they'd essentially have had to go to war anyway.  The end result would have been the same, except that the taxpayers of the North would have ended up owing reparations to the South.

Contrary to liberal dogma, slavery wasn't just some evil pastime invented by the Founding Fathers.  The economy of the Southern United States was BASED on slavery, as had been that of every civilization.  The "tyranny of the soil" wasn't abolished by any moral crusade; it was made obsolete by industrial advancement.  At the rate things were going, in anther fifty years or so it would almost certainly have faded of its own accord in the South.  But Abolitionists didn't want to wait for that.  Rooting it out early required incredibly drastic measures.

As monumental as the issue of slavery was, it's still technically accurate to say the Civil War wasn't specifically "about" that.  It would be more encompassing to say that the Civil War was about the issue of "local evil." 

In retrospect, moving the USA's slavery into the South American economy worked out as well for us as moving Britain's feudalism into its colonies worked out for them.  Unfortunately, the legacy of that "fundamental transformation" never ended; it morphed into a religious crusade.  Personally, I have no problem sending federal troops into Georgia if they try to violate the Thirteenth Amendment.  But the Marxist/Progressive/Hippie/Liberal movement has extended their neverending war against "slavery" to even the most innocuous activities of individuals' daily lives.

That utterly implacable theology is coalesced into a meme which can only be expressed succinctly as: "The only way to guarantee individual rights is to cede ever more power to a monolithic central government."

The maniacal belief system of collectivism has proved to be BY FAR the most deadly and destructive force in the history of mankind.  Compared to the evil of widespread totalitarianism, even something as incredibly horrific as profiting from Africa's slave trade pales into insignificance.

Voltaire said that the perfect is the enemy of the good.  That's actually just a version of a much older sentiment, espoused by a great many philosophers in one form or another as an admonition against extremism -- ANY form of extremism; even the "good" kind which, of course, all extremists always have and always will believe their version to be.   By the same token, the tolerance of local evil has proven itself to be the only reliable enemy of universal evil, no matter how any particular individual happens to define the term "evil."
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 11:13:42 AM
Quote from: kopema on November 19, 2013, 10:38:10 AM
I'm not about to go back and figure out sesquicentennial inflation rates, but whatever the figure it's pretty safe to assume the federal government didn't have anywhere near enough money to "buy out" slavery.  In order to get it, they'd essentially have had to go to war anyway.  The end result would have been the same, except that the taxpayers of the North would have ended up owing reparations to the South.

Contrary to liberal dogma, slavery wasn't just some evil pastime invented by the Founding Fathers.  The economy of the Southern United States was BASED on slavery, as had been that of every civilization.  The "tyranny of the soil" wasn't abolished by any moral crusade; it was made obsolete by industrial advancement.  At the rate things were going, in anther fifty years or so it would almost certainly have faded of its own accord in the South.  But Abolitionists didn't want to wait for that.  Rooting it out early required incredibly drastic measures.

As monumental as the issue of slavery was, it's still technically accurate to say the Civil War wasn't specifically "about" that.  It would be more encompassing to say that the Civil War was about the issue of "local evil." 

In retrospect, moving the USA's slavery into the South American economy worked out as well for us as moving Britain's feudalism into its colonies worked out for them.  Unfortunately, the legacy of that "fundamental transformation" never ended; it morphed into a religious crusade.  Personally, I have no problem sending federal troops into Georgia if they try to violate the Thirteenth Amendment.  But the Marxist/Progressive/Hippie/Liberal movement has extended their neverending war against "slavery" to even the most innocuous activities of individuals' daily lives.

That utterly implacable theology is coalesced into a meme which can only be expressed succinctly as: "The only way to guarantee individual rights is to cede ever more power to a monolithic central government."

The maniacal belief system of collectivism has proved to be BY FAR the most deadly and destructive force in the history of mankind.  Compared to the evil of widespread totalitarianism, even something as incredibly horrific as profiting from Africa's slave trade pales into insignificance.

Voltaire said that the perfect is the enemy of the good.  That's actually just a version of a much older sentiment, espoused by a great many philosophers in one form or another as an admonition against extremism -- ANY form of extremism; even the "good" kind which, of course, all extremists always have and always will believe their version to be.   By the same token, the tolerance of local evil has proven itself to be the only reliable enemy of universal evil, no matter how any particular individual happens to define the term "evil."

Damned well said. In fact, it struck me when I read that bit about buying out all the slave owners that the U.S. Treasury simply didn't have that kind of money in those days, and couldn't get it, the dollar of the time being based on the fixed values and relatively fixed quantities of gold and silver.

Also, your sentiments about collectivism are also spot-on. It always goes back to the basics, and if you'll scroll down and read Mr. Washington's words in my sig line, therein is defined the beast with which we battle.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kopema on November 19, 2013, 11:33:14 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 11:13:42 AM
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.  -- George Washington

The fundamental purpose of a constitutional form of government is to form a strong, but LIMITED central authority, with clearly delineated powers.  The followers of the "Progressive" movement haven't merely "redefined" the Constitution; they have turned it completely upside-down and inside-out.

Force can, when used within limits, be a very good thing; but when used without limits it becomes a very bad thing.  Liberals think they can perform brain surgery with a sledge hammer.  The word "hubris" doesn't come anywhere near describing that level of mindless, all-consuming narcissistic arrogance.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 12:56:09 PM
Quote from: kopema on November 19, 2013, 11:33:14 AM
The fundamental purpose of a constitutional form of government is to form a strong, but LIMITED central authority, with clearly delineated powers.  The followers of the "Progressive" movement haven't merely "redefined" the Constitution; they have turned it completely upside-down and inside-out.

Force can, when used within limits, be a very good thing; but when used without limits it becomes a very bad thing.  Liberals think they can perform brain surgery with a sledge hammer.  The word "hubris" doesn't come anywhere near describing that level of mindless, all-consuming narcissistic arrogance.

I think what bothers me at the very core of the issue is not that lib/progs "think they can perform brain surgery with a sledge hammer." It's the fact that they think they ought to be doing anything of the kind in the first place -- surgery or sledge hammering.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 12:57:40 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 09:13:11 AM
I can't imagine that ever happening. To begin with, slavery wasn't the primary issue in 1860.

What?

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kopema on November 19, 2013, 01:12:32 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 12:56:09 PM
QuoteForce can, when used within limits, be a very good thing; but when used without limits it becomes a very bad thing.  Liberals think they can perform brain surgery with a sledge hammer.  The word "hubris" doesn't come anywhere near describing that level of mindless, all-consuming narcissistic arrogance.
I think what bothers me at the very core of the issue is not that lib/progs "think they can perform brain surgery with a sledge hammer." It's the fact that they think they ought to be doing anything of the kind in the first place -- surgery or sledge hammering.

Yeah, that's just another small part of where the "mindless, all-consuming narcissistic arrogance" stuff comes in.

Seriously, if you can think of another word that encompasses all of that I'll be more than happy to steal it from you.  In the meantime I'm going to have to just stick with the epithet "liberal," no matter incredibly cruel that sounds to the people who consider themselves the uncriticizable epitome of cultural, moral and economic evolution.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 01:25:26 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 12:57:40 PM
What?

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

The adjective says it all.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 01:39:30 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 01:25:26 PM
The adjective says it all.

What, that the South considered slaves to be material?   :rolleyes:

Georgia's declaration of secession:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. At this point you could argue that the South believed the North was against slavery for the money - THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE THE SOUTH'S PERPETUATION OF AN EVIL INSTITUTION.  Nobody is claiming that the North was perfect or uniformly abolitionist for ideological reasons. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. All of these offenses are infinitesimal in comparison to the offense of institutionalized slavery, which the South, while hardly the exclusive perpetrator, was the most consistent and fanatical.  The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

At this point I give up annotating, but you get the point.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 01:43:34 PM
^oh, on top of that feel free to read the declarations of secessions of the other states a disturbing number of you have come to romanticize.  Here's your good ol'conservative Texas:

QuoteShe was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 02:53:06 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 01:43:34 PM
^oh, on top of that feel free to read the declarations of secessions of the other states a disturbing number of you have come to romanticize.  Here's your good ol'conservative Texas:

Jesus, we've had this argument a dozen times before. My point is, states do not secede from federal unions or declare or make war on same merely for the sake of retaining dominion over a particular race of people. States DO, however, secede and declare war when their economies are threatened with ruin. A single slave that was worth $1,000 in 1860 would be worth something like $30,000 on the auction block in today's dollars. In real terms, to a plantation owner, a hardworking slave could be a source of $50,000 or more of income each year in today's dollars. A plantation owner who held title to a hundred slaves was a very rich man indeed.

Add to this the fact that slavery was ABSOLUTELY 100% PERFECTLY LEGAL in all the southern states and a few of the northern states. Some may argue that it remained so until the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect on January 1, 1863 -- after more than a year and a half of war. But since the EP was directed by the executive of the United States toward the citizens and states of the Confederate States of America, it was pretty limp, kinda like Lincoln declaring all slaves in India free -- nice gesture, but so what? The actual emancipation didn't take place until after the war, when the Thirteenth Amendment became law in December 1865, at which point slavery was finally illegal.

I've never argued that slavery wasn't an issue. Of course it was. My argument is that slavery was an issue NOT because of a desire to retain dominion over blacks per se, but because of a desire to retain dominion over the southern economy, which obviously required slaves of some sort. THAT is what drove the South to secession and, inevitably, to Lincoln's war. Slavery was not a social or racial issue worth war, but it was an economic issue worth everything the South possessed.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 03:25:43 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 02:53:06 PM
Jesus, we've had this argument a dozen times before. My point is, states do not secede from federal unions or declare or make war on same merely for the sake of retaining dominion over a particular race of people.

That was not the sole motivation but racism was hardly an afterthought in the minds of these slaveowners.  And there are plenty of examples of states risking war and wasting millions trying to oppress or exterminate demographic groups they harbor prejudices against beyond merely economics.  You know what I'm thinking about.

Quote
States DO, however, secede and declare war when their economies are threatened with ruin. A single slave that was worth $1,000 in 1860 would be worth something like $30,000 on the auction block in today's dollars. In real terms, to a plantation owner, a hardworking slave could be a source of $50,000 or more of income each year in today's dollars. A plantation owner who held title to a hundred slaves was a very rich man indeed.

This was certainly a factor.  But read more of the declarations of secession and you'll realize that southerners justified slavery on irrational racial grounds - notice that southerners labeled Lincoln's party the "black republicans" and were terrified of free blacks.  There was not only an economic fear of the end of slavery but a fear that free blacks would come over and destroy the White Man.  Booth resolved to kill Lincoln after hearing his second inaugural address where the president suggests that black soldiers should be granted suffrage.

Also look at how they treated free blacks after the war even though through their actions they simply worsened their economic condition.  Look at the Klan; the dislike of blacks extended beyond economics.  And it's quite a stretch to argue that the South only cared about the money, even though most of its soldiers were too poor to own slaves.

Quote
Add to this the fact that slavery was ABSOLUTELY 100% PERFECTLY LEGAL in all the southern states and a few of the northern states. Some may argue that it remained so until the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect on January 1, 1863 -- after more than a year and a half of war. But since the EP was directed by the executive of the United States toward the citizens and states of the Confederate States of America, it was pretty limp, kinda like Lincoln declaring all slaves in India free -- nice gesture, but so what? The actual emancipation didn't take place until after the war, when the Thirteenth Amendment became law in December 1865, at which point slavery was finally illegal.

Why are you shifting the question from the justification of the South to the purity of the North?  Nobody here believes that the North was clean of wrongdoing, but on balance the Confederacy has absolutely no right or deserving of receiving any sympathy, period.

Quote
I've never argued that slavery wasn't an issue.

Perhaps you should have worded yourself a little better then:

QuoteTo begin with, slavery wasn't the primary issue in 1860.

QuoteOf course it was. My argument is that slavery was an issue NOT because of a desire to retain dominion over blacks per se, but because of a desire to retain dominion over the southern economy, which obviously required slaves of some sort. THAT is what drove the South to secession and, inevitably, to Lincoln's war. Slavery was not a social or racial issue worth war, but it was an economic issue worth everything the South possessed.

Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kopema on November 19, 2013, 03:41:05 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 02:53:06 PM
Jesus, we've had this argument a dozen times before....  But since the EP was directed by the executive of the United States toward the citizens and states of the Confederate States of America, it was pretty limp, kinda like Lincoln declaring all slaves in India free -- nice gesture, but so what? The actual emancipation didn't take place until after the war, when the Thirteenth Amendment became law in December 1865, at which point slavery was finally illegal.

I've never argued that slavery wasn't an issue. Of course it was. My argument is that slavery was an issue NOT because of a desire to retain dominion over blacks per se, but because of a desire to retain dominion over the southern economy, which obviously required slaves of some sort. THAT is what drove the South to secession and, inevitably, to Lincoln's war. Slavery was not a social or racial issue worth war, but it was an economic issue worth everything the South possessed.

Quoteto oppress or exterminate demographic groups they harbor prejudices against beyond merely economics.  You know what I'm thinking about....

That is precisely correct. 

What you have to understand about the liberal religion is that -- rightly or wrongly -- they worship power solely for the sake of power.  And (again, rightly or wrongly) the first sentence of the first chapter of their Manifesto proclaims class warfare and racism to be the be-all and end-all of history.

In the mind of every liberal, the fact that Abraham Lincoln happened to have absolutely no Constitutional or moral authority whatsoever to do anything that he did is not merely irrelevant -- it is the theological underpinning of the sect which currently holds all of them in its thrall.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 03:46:52 PM
Quote from: kopema on November 19, 2013, 03:41:05 PM
What you have to understand about the liberal religion is that -- rightly or wrongly -- they worship power solely for the sake of power. 

Patriot Act?  NSA surveillance? 

Quote
In the mind of every liberal, the fact that Abraham Lincoln happened to have absolutely no Constitutional or moral authority

What?  To retaliate for the invasion of fort sumter?  What makes you think the South seceded legally?  They didn't even have the will of their own people, given that they had nothing resembling universal franchise. 

To declare the Emancipation Proclamation, as the post you quoted primarily addressed?   :huh:
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Ek Ehecatl on November 19, 2013, 04:14:18 PM
Hey Sci Fi, you want to debate realities of 1860 using 21st century Liberal symbols of social justice?? I know it's difficult but try to realize in 1860 slavery had existed forever, it was a necessary part of the Agricultural age, and had been for thousands of years. The South knew it was on it's way out, the Cotton Gin, and new imports being illegal had made that obvious. If left to there own liberties the South would have eventually abandoned slavery in favor of machines, more efficient and they stay in the barn in the off season, but to force the issue at the cost of several hundred years of labor, investment and selective breeding without any form of "exit strategy" is stupid.
Do a little homework on Lincolns thoughts about what to do with all the "freed" slaves.
Does Georgias statement make you proud to be a Democrat??  :cool:
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 04:22:16 PM
Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 19, 2013, 04:14:18 PM
Hey Sci Fi, you want to debate realities of 1860 using 21st century Liberal symbols of social justice??

You suggest "slavery is wrong" is exclusively a 21st century liberal symbol of social justice?

Quote
I know it's difficult but try to realize in 1860 slavery had existed forever,

Strike one against the appeal to tradition fallacy that has been employed by conservatives since time immemorial.

Quote
it was a necessary part of the Agricultural age,

Oh brother we can dedicate an entire board to debating this point, but this doesn't remotely ethically justify the South's actions.  And thus any economic hardships it experiences pales in comparison to the looming shadow of slavery.

Quoteand had been for thousands of years.

So have rape and murder.  Who cares how long it's been around?  Yes, the south will suffer many adjustment years to restructure their economy around more amiable employment methods - but that level of suffering is far inferior to that of the slaves toiling under the "greatest material interest in the world". 

QuoteThe South knew it was on it's way out, the Cotton Gin, and new imports being illegal had made that obvious. If left to there own liberties the South would have eventually abandoned slavery in favor of machines, more efficient and they stay in the barn in the off season,

Did they not loudly proclaim the exact opposite in their Constitution?  And the Cotton Gin and other inventions had the opposite effect to what was expected, increasing rather than decreasing the demand for slaves.

Not that the millions that would suffer more abuses as you wait for their masters to turn to other economic modes would much agree with your cost-benefit assessment.

Quote
but to force the issue at the cost of several hundred years of labor, investment and selective breeding without any form of "exit strategy" is stupid.

Slavery is an evil institution and I really don't care how much the South invested in an evil institution.  They deserved to lose all of it - why are you trying to sympathize with them?

Quote
Do a little homework on Lincolns thoughts about what to do with all the "freed" slaves.

Lincoln was no saint but he learned and grew over the course of his presidency, as the war and his interactionis with free blacks such as Frederick Douglass led him to eventually support black suffrage.  But I don't see how this is a very relevant point on your part, as the question here is the South's culpability, not Lincoln's character.

Quote
Does Georgias statement make you proud to be a Democrat??  :cool:

LOL, you're the one trying to sympathize with the Confederacy it joined.  Notice how confederate sympathizers are virtually always hardline right wingers?  When's the last time a "tax and spend liberal" went out and claimed that it was OK for the south to secede to protect the slaves it had invested so much money in "selective breeding"?  That disturbing shit is more than enough evidence that the democrats and republicans switched, so out with all the "lincoln was a republican" knee jerkers.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Ek Ehecatl on November 19, 2013, 04:46:49 PM
Blah blah blah..... Where are you from?? I am a Southerner, proud of it. Yes slavery is wrong, you've made your feelings clear about it, and apparently you feel the "Civil War" (The Second American Revolution) was just and the correct thing to do, no matter the cost, and those damn slave owners got what was coming to them huh?? The righteous majority defeats the "evil ones"...... Now just for the fun of it, let's move into the 21st Century. The majority, whether they will openly admit it, doesn't like gay marriage, gay's in the military or public education. So what do you think about after BO,  if that same Majority decides they don't like the Gays and decide to "invade" San Francisco, Washington DC and Greenwich Village" and free them from their bondage and reunite them with the majority. You OK with that?? Even though technically it's "legal" but many see it as immoral???
Good old Democracy versus a Representative Republic?? 

You throw around that Democracy thing far to much, exactly where in the founding docs DofI and Const. does it  say the USA is a "democracy"???
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Ek Ehecatl on November 19, 2013, 04:57:12 PM
By the way Sci fi, did you study up on the Confederate Constitution?? I can't wait to hear your deep thoughts on the subject. Study it and ignore the "slavery" parts....just for fun..... :thumbup:

Besides, it might give you a more detailed clue of what the conflict was really about.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 05:38:42 PM
Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 19, 2013, 04:46:49 PM
Blah blah blah..... Where are you from??

That should not be relevant in passing moral judgment.

QuoteI am a Southerner, proud of it.

That's no cause to automatically side with your geographical region in spite of all reason and common ethics.

QuoteYes slavery is wrong, you've made your feelings clear about it, and apparently you feel the "Civil War" (The Second American Revolution) was just and the correct thing to do, no matter the cost, and those damn slave owners got what was coming to them huh??

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.  Do you actually have any substantive rebuttal to my positions beyond an appeal to personal incredulity?

Quote
The righteous majority defeats the "evil ones"......

Why do you put quotations around "evil ones", as though slavery were not evil?

QuoteNow just for the fun of it, let's move into the 21st Century. The majority, whether they will openly admit it, doesn't like gay marriage, gay's in the military or public education. So what do you think about after BO,  if that same Majority decides they don't like the Gays and decide to "invade" San Francisco, Washington DC and Greenwich Village" and free them from their bondage and reunite them with the majority. You OK with that?? Even though technically it's "legal" but many see it as immoral???
Good old Democracy versus a Representative Republic?? 

Do you honestly believe "I don't like gays" holds the same moral weight as "I don't like slavery"?

Quote
You throw around that Democracy thing far to much, exactly where in the founding docs DofI and Const. does it  say the USA is a "democracy"???

The declaration states that all men are created equal.  Granted I can justify this assertion on more than just an argument from authority, but the point is that the south was very wrong to own slaves, and you haven't provided a single reason why I should feel sympathetic to precisely that - slave owners.  You simply try to shift the conversation to the question of the North's good will (as though I ever claimed it was saintly) to avoid the fact that you're defending a government founded to preserve the most evil institution created by man.  And all because of what?  Because you hail from the same vague geographic location? 

The southern declarations of secession repeat literally dozens of times in a single paragraph that the war was fought to preserve slavery and prevent any semblance of socio-economic parity or even recognition of personhood of blacks.  This is not my interpretation of their intentions; they made their intentions clear and were proud of it.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 05:41:02 PM
(cont.)

Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 19, 2013, 04:57:12 PM
By the way Sci fi, did you study up on the Confederate Constitution?? I can't wait to hear your deep thoughts on the subject. Study it and ignore the "slavery" parts....just for fun..... :thumbup:

Besides, it might give you a more detailed clue of what the conflict was really about.

This is like asking someone to study the mein kampf and ignore the racist and fascist parts to prove that the mein kampf wasn't racist or fascist.   :rolleyes: And why do you put quotations around "slavery"?  Do you deny that the Confederacy condoned and defended the institution?

And let me try to get this through to you: on balance, slavery outweighs any good ideas the confederacy might have had.  Let's say they wanted low taxes and tariffs and you think these were good things, great...that does not compensate for slavery.  Very, very little would compensate for slavery.  Defending the South's actions is indeed a "lost cause".
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Ek Ehecatl on November 19, 2013, 05:52:49 PM
Gosh.....I keep forgetting most lefty moonbatsget their Southern slavery mindset from the Mandingo books...  :cool: not history.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 06:41:15 PM
Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 19, 2013, 05:52:49 PM
Gosh.....I keep forgetting most lefty moonbatsget their Southern slavery mindset from the Mandingo books...  :cool: not history.

Interesting that whenever confronted with debate and counterarguments, rather than respond in kind and address the contentions, you just make vague, non-replies like the above.   :rolleyes:

Tell me this is from a "mandigo book".  It's Texas's declaration of secession.  Try counting how many times they bring up slavery, white supremacy or black suffrage:




The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slaveholding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefore, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slaveholding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions - a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color - a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slaveholding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slaveholding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons

- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kopema on November 19, 2013, 06:56:30 PM
Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 19, 2013, 04:14:18 PM
Hey Sci Fi, you want to debate realities of 1860 using 21st century Liberal symbols of social justice??

Sorry to truncate the rest of your post, but frankly it's wasted on the neohippie you're directing it toward.  Pearls before swine, and all that....  But I wish to focus on the only thing that can ever possibly matter to the people who proudly proclaim their status as "The Forty Seven Percent." 

I assume you've read the liberal Bible -- the book 1984. 

If it were even remotely possible to convince any Communist that there could potentially be a distinction between a fact and a symbol, then he wouldn't be a liberal in the first place.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 07:19:38 PM
Quote from: kopema on November 19, 2013, 06:56:30 PM
Sorry to truncate the rest of your post, but frankly it's wasted on the neohippie you're directing it toward.  Pearls before swine, and all that....  But I wish to focus on the only thing that can ever possibly matter to the people who proudly proclaim their status as "The Forty Seven Percent." 

Slavery.  Slavery.  Slavery?  Oh.  Do you actually bother to read what your conservative friends are posting before you rush to defend them?  I suggest you do so this time.  You know, like arguing that we shouldn't have ended slavery ourselves because the South invested lots of time into selectively breeding them - he literally argued that.

Quote

I assume you've read the liberal Bible -- the book 1984. 


Patriot act?   War on drugs?  Liberal bible?  :rolleyes:

Quote
If it were even remotely possible to convince any Communist that there could potentially be a distinction between a fact and a symbol, then he wouldn't be a liberal in the first place.

Uh huh, such as the brilliant tactic of never subjecting your arguments to falsifiability, by making vague generalizations in the third person?  Is this just an attempt to symbolize the conservative perception of "ideology before the facts", ingrained again and again into your skull?
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Ek Ehecatl on November 19, 2013, 08:04:53 PM
OK, I read the Texas resolution, and your point is what?? You want to have an adult conversation about history, or just spew moonbat crap???
Neo hippies, can't live with em, can't napalm the FCS........  :cool:
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Solar on November 19, 2013, 08:20:52 PM
Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 19, 2013, 04:57:12 PM
By the way Sci fi, did you study up on the Confederate Constitution?? I can't wait to hear your deep thoughts on the subject. Study it and ignore the "slavery" parts....just for fun..... :thumbup:

Besides, it might give you a more detailed clue of what the conflict was really about.
I know exactly what you're talking about, but he'll never get it.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 08:27:02 PM
Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 19, 2013, 08:04:53 PM
OK, I read the Texas resolution, and your point is what??

I'll try to put this again slowly, and I recommend you read this carefully:

Maybe you feel that the Confederacy had some good ideas.  OK, maybe you can champion those ideas to me right now.  But do not pretend that this gives the Confederacy legitimacy, nobility or even remote sympathy.  Why?  Because slavery (which, with the texas declaration of secession and that of various other confederate states, I have quite strongly established to be the principal; not sole, but principal reason for the South's secession) outweighs any good the Confederacy might have conjured by orders of magnitude.  Similarly, enslaving millions of innocent people is so far worse than, say, the North levying unfair taxes that to try to bring up the latter in defense is not even worth discussion.  And no, economic necessity does not justify enslaving entire generations of human beings.  It certainly does not denying even the concept of personhood to them.  Slavery is perhaps the most evil institution created amongst mankind, and that an entire government was explicitly founded, primarily if not solely to defend such an institution utterly destroys its moral legacy.  So maybe you can cut out the Confederacy apologism, and then we can have a more rational conversation about the economic and social implications of the Civil War, instead of your being driven by a deluded sense of some old glory of the Southern cause bullshit.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Ek Ehecatl on November 20, 2013, 09:23:57 AM
"Slavery is perhaps the most evil institution created amongst mankind, and that an entire government was explicitly founded, primarily if not solely to defend such an institution utterly destroys its moral legacy."

No boy you're wrong, Fascism/Communism/Socialism (FCS) hold that despicable place in history, almost 100 million slaughtered and still counting.
Hell of a team you chose huh??  :cool:
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 21, 2013, 12:14:15 PM
Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 20, 2013, 09:23:57 AM
No boy you're wrong, Fascism/Communism/Socialism (FCS) hold that despicable place in history, almost 100 million slaughtered and still counting.

...seriously?  So your best defense of the Confederacy is that at least they weren't as bad as Hitler and Stalin?   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kopema on November 21, 2013, 04:42:43 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 21, 2013, 12:14:15 PM
QuoteNo boy you're wrong, Fascism/Communism/Socialism (FCS) hold that despicable place in history, almost 100 million slaughtered and still counting.
...seriously?  So your best defense of the Confederacy is that at least they weren't as bad as Hitler and Stalin?   :rolleyes:

NINTY percent slavery today is far worse than TEN percent slavery a century-and-a-half ago.... 

Only in the mind of the most rabid propagandist could that incredibly trite observation magically transform into an accidental confession that anyone who criticizes Fascism or Communism is "defending" Africa's slave trade.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 21, 2013, 05:15:28 PM
Quote from: kopema on November 21, 2013, 04:42:43 PM
NINTY percent slavery today is far worse than TEN percent slavery a century-and-a-half ago.... 

What disgusting bullshit; this is like an American who got laid off from his job bitching about it to a 7 year old dying from breast cancer.  The difference factor of 9 does nothing to close the utter gap in magnitude between actual slavery and what spoiled brats such as yourself think the word means.  Slavery was awful enough that mothers would jump off ships and drown themselves and their children to avoid it; that you actually think your problems are worse would be hilarious if it weren't just pitiful.

Quote
Only in the mind of the most rabid propagandist could that incredibly trite observation magically transform into an accidental confession that anyone who criticizes Fascism or Communism is "defending" Africa's slave trade.

You haven't been reading along well.  I never said he defended the african slave trade (you do realize the slave trade had been outlawed long before the civil war, right?); I'm saying he was defending the Confederacy and failing to understand that their perpetuation of slavery outweighs any good ideas they might have come up with.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Mountainshield on November 30, 2013, 04:41:49 AM
Never thought I would agree with Sci fi Fan, slavery was/is a democratic party controlled and supported institution, though as Sci Fi Fan says the difference between 18-19th century slavery and slavery today are vast, the definition of the word as i.e "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence" is correctly attributed to the situation in which wellfare recipients being depended on the government are hold to serve their benefactors less they be punished for it as it is to the 18th century institution.

Of course one would be ludicrous to argue that 18th century slavery was less worse, but that still doesn't change the fact that the term is rightly appropriated to the democratic party of today, as it was to the democratic party of the past.

Talking about Democracy vs Republic, how exactly is it Republican to Secede from the Union because you feel an insult to your honor that someone wanted to gradually abolish slavery? And if the South was going to abolish slavery anyway, why secede?

The objection to Lincoln, because they believed he was going to trample their right as states to oppress people slaves they issued the causes for secession, no moral highground here, I have as little respect for a southern democrat as I have for a northern democrat, they both believe in their right to have people as slaves.

Nullification is a better argument for secession, but when the debate in question was objection to gradual abolishment of slavery or to formulate it differently, objection to the federal government guaranteing all individuals in all united states their freedom, it looses all moral high ground.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kopema on November 30, 2013, 06:20:44 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on November 30, 2013, 04:41:49 AM
Never thought I would agree with Sci fi Fan, slavery was/is a democratic party controlled and supported institution, though as Sci Fi Fan says the difference between 18-19th century slavery and slavery today are vast, the definition of the word as i.e "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence" is correctly attributed to the situation in which wellfare recipients being depended on the government are hold to serve their benefactors less they be punished for it as it is to the 18th century institution.

Sure:  genocide, shmenocide...  Of course no one is arguing the "moral highground" of modern totalitarianism - because it can't possibly be argued.

On the other hand history IS being argued; albeit, of course, only by our favorite moron.  The rest of us simply accept it.  Rational people always tend to do that with what we call "facts" - and then we move on with our lives.

The fact is that for the first several thousand years of recorded civilization (not counting the... well... countless millennia before that) the vast majority of humans lived in one form of slavery or another -- until the practice was (as some argue) retroactively "invented" by what later became one of the first societies on earth to ever abolish it.  It's worth noting that even super-snooty England didn't "abolish" slavery before America.  They outsourced it to their colonies.  The East India Company did things that would make an antebellum plantation owner puke his guts out - all conducted at a genteel distance from Merry Old, of course.

The only thing that made the African slave trade more horrific than any other form of good old-fashioned feudalism (Muscovitism, Fengiism, etc., etc...) was the fact that, instead of sticking with a plot of land, family members were sometimes sold separately.  And, yeah, it is more than a little ironic that the American Welfare State has done many times more to destroy families than four hundred years of slavery did.

But even that doesn't compare to the universal system of family destruction practiced by Fully Transformed countries today.

QuoteTalking about Democracy vs Republic, how exactly is it Republican to Secede from the Union because you feel an insult to your honor that someone wanted to gradually abolish slavery? And if the South was going to abolish slavery anyway, why secede?

Um, I don't think I see your point here.  It seems that what you're describing was the position of the Democrat Party.  The Republicans (including Abraham Lincoln) are the ones who very adamantly didn't want to allow the Southern States to secede.

(Incidentally, I believe you're capitalizing the words inappropriately.  Names such as "Republican Party" and "Democrats" are proper nouns, so they should be capitalized.  But things like "republican" concepts, and "democratic" principles are common nouns and should be lowercase.)
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Mountainshield on November 30, 2013, 06:38:11 AM
I think you misunderstood my post, or I was too general when stating that I agreed with the "fan" on this, the only point in which I agree with him on this topic was that slavery is a evil form of institution, the system you describe of indentured servitude is fundamentally different from slavery in which the indentured servant has rights, will be freed after a agreed upon amount of time and could not be murdered by his master.

I'm also not arguing that we should judge the 18th century by 20th or 21st century standards just as it would be flawed to judge the system of Lords and Serfs from the same perspective, but by the 19th century there has been thorough enlightement which was argued for from the Bible and Christian Theology (though militant atheists today claim otherwise lol) to show that slavery, not indentured servitude but slavery as practiced by the South and other Empires at this time was morally wrong and against the will of God. So we can hold these people that still was against abolishment of slavery in this paradigm accountable for their immoral and evil acts just as we can hold the statist and totalitarians of communist today accountable for the sins and evil they have done.

Quote from: kopema on November 30, 2013, 06:20:44 AM
Um, I don't think I see your point here.  It seems that what you're describing was the position of the Democrat Party.  The Republicans (including Abraham Lincoln) are the ones who very adamantly didn't want to allow the Southern States to secede.

And on this I would agree with Abraham Lincoln, nullification in support of oppression and witholding individuals their God given rights is morally evil. That the democrats today continue to hold both white, black and latinos as slaves is not the fault of Lincoln or Republican party, though one could argue that the Republicans didn't punish/banish the Democrat party after the civil war.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: kopema on November 30, 2013, 07:48:26 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on November 30, 2013, 06:38:11 AM
I think you misunderstood my post, or I was too general when stating that I agreed with the "fan" on this, the only point in which I agree with him on this topic was that slavery is a evil form of institution, the system you describe of indentured servitude is fundamentally different from slavery in which the indentured servant has rights, will be freed after a agreed upon amount of time and could not be murdered by his master.

I wasn't talking about indentured servitude.  I was talking about feudalism; i.e., the way pretty much everyone, in every civilized nation on earth used to live.  (Note that I didn't put the word "civilized" in quotation marks; that's because the alternative was a LOT more barbaric than mere slavery.) 

There were no contracts or time limits on feudalism; people lived their whole lives that way; as did their children, and their children's children, etc....   And there were no "rights" as we think of that term today associated with traditional generational servitude.  There were, depending on the time and locale, some historical traditions - primary among them, as I said above, the convention that serfs were usually not sold separately from their families and the land they lived on.  But that had more to do with the static nature of Europe and Asia (i.e., no new large territories to develop) than to any kind of moral code.  Lords had literally the power of life and death over their human chattle.  Masters could - and sometimes did - mutilate or murder their serfs just for the fun of it.  I'm sure the serfs weren't very happy about it, but their opinion wasn't really all that important in the grand scheme of things.

I think a lot of the stereotypes Americans have today regarding "the good old days" of serfdom were crystallized in the latter years of English Monarchy.  No "serfs' rights" movement was the cause of any of that, but rather the effect of technology, industrialization and a primitive form of outsourcing, similar to what occurred in the Northern United States.

Certainly the African slave trade was horrifically destructive to the lives and families of the stone age tribesmen who were dislocated (but then again, not all that much worse than being stone age tribesmen was to begin with.)  After that point, slavery was pretty much slavery.  Your life was as good or as bad as your master - period.  The effort to paint early American slave owners as somehow more ogreish in that regard than the thousands of generations who came before them has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with historical revisionism.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 30, 2013, 01:13:15 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on November 30, 2013, 04:41:49 AM
Never thought I would agree with Sci fi Fan, slavery was/is a democratic party controlled and supported institution, though as Sci Fi Fan says the difference between 18-19th century slavery and slavery today are vast, the definition of the word as i.e "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence" is correctly attributed to the situation in which wellfare recipients being depended on the government are hold to serve their benefactors less they be punished for it as it is to the 18th century institution.

Of course one would be ludicrous to argue that 18th century slavery was less worse, but that still doesn't change the fact that the term is rightly appropriated to the democratic party of today, as it was to the democratic party of the past.

Talking about Democracy vs Republic, how exactly is it Republican to Secede from the Union because you feel an insult to your honor that someone wanted to gradually abolish slavery? And if the South was going to abolish slavery anyway, why secede?

The objection to Lincoln, because they believed he was going to trample their right as states to oppress people slaves they issued the causes for secession, no moral highground here, I have as little respect for a southern democrat as I have for a northern democrat, they both believe in their right to have people as slaves.

Nullification is a better argument for secession, but when the debate in question was objection to gradual abolishment of slavery or to formulate it differently, objection to the federal government guaranteing all individuals in all united states their freedom, it looses all moral high ground.

You have absolutely no historical basis to link the 19th century democratic party to the modern party of the same name.  Absolutely every piece of evidence, be it the demographic and ethnic groups, the obsession with "states' rights", tradition and anti-"forcing acceptance" (sound familiar?) ideologies, the geographic location and, most damning of all, the modern confederates who self identify as conservatives makes the notion that the 19th century democrats were liberals taken about as seriously in legitimate historiography as the idea that Julius Caesar never lived.   

Maybe another damning indication that the confederacy was driven by a conservative ideology (and I really don't see how you could possibly dispute this) was the prevalence of its sympathizers and their received sympathy on these boards, whereas the very few touring, say, "democratic underground" would quickly be flamed and shut down.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Mountainshield on December 01, 2013, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: kopema on November 30, 2013, 07:48:26 AM
I wasn't talking about indentured servitude.  I was talking about feudalism; i.e., the way pretty much everyone, in every civilized nation on earth used to live.  (Note that I didn't put the word "civilized" in quotation marks; that's because the alternative was a LOT more barbaric than mere slavery.) 

There were no contracts or time limits on feudalism; people lived their whole lives that way; as did their children, and their children's children, etc....   And there were no "rights" as we think of that term today associated with traditional generational servitude.  There were, depending on the time and locale, some historical traditions - primary among them, as I said above, the convention that serfs were usually not sold separately from their families and the land they lived on.  But that had more to do with the static nature of Europe and Asia (i.e., no new large territories to develop) than to any kind of moral code.  Lords had literally the power of life and death over their human chattle.  Masters could - and sometimes did - mutilate or murder their serfs just for the fun of it.  I'm sure the serfs weren't very happy about it, but their opinion wasn't really all that important in the grand scheme of things.

I think a lot of the stereotypes Americans have today regarding "the good old days" of serfdom were crystallized in the latter years of English Monarchy.  No "serfs' rights" movement was the cause of any of that, but rather the effect of technology, industrialization and a primitive form of outsourcing, similar to what occurred in the Northern United States.

Certainly the African slave trade was horrifically destructive to the lives and families of the stone age tribesmen who were dislocated (but then again, not all that much worse than being stone age tribesmen was to begin with.)  After that point, slavery was pretty much slavery.  Your life was as good or as bad as your master - period.  The effort to paint early American slave owners as somehow more ogreish in that regard than the thousands of generations who came before them has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with historical revisionism.

This has nothing to do with painting the American slave owners as more evil than the thousand of generations before them, it has to do with these American slave owners being more evil than their contemporary citizens in the regard that they continued a institution that was in their time deemed evil and morally wrong. The North Korean tyrants today are not necessarily more evil than many of the genocidal kingdoms in mankinds history but that does not excuse them from this evil.

Ancient slavery isn't less evil than modern day slavery, but after the Christian Enlightenment we have individual liberty which is something that has never existed before in mankinds history and the american slave owners contemporaries were able to judge this institution from a new perspective especially manifested in the christian fundamentalist abolishionist groups.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on December 01, 2013, 01:22:25 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on December 01, 2013, 10:48:22 AM
but after the Christian Enlightenment

:rolleyes:

Christianity existed for nearly 2 thousand years prior and its power and influence in Europe, while still massive in absolute terms, was at its lowest to that point since Constantine, how the hell could you attribute the Enlightenment to Christianity?

Consensus non-revisionist history places the credit on science and secular humanism.  You know, because those were actually changing and growing variables. 

Later you would have the Pope writing an official document specifically repudiating democracy and human rights.   :rolleyes:

I can anticipate some counterarguments that are bound to butcher statistics in a rather painful manner (ie. "most enlightenment thinkers were Christian").
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Montesquieu on December 08, 2013, 07:28:07 PM
There is a right to secede, a right that supersedes the US Constitution, and even the UN has said that people have a right to self determine their own government.

That said, there is a profound difference between states seceding as a new country and counties seceding as new states. Should there be a reorganization of states? You bet. The urban rural divide is getting worse, with the rural parts of the country utterly left out of government. It wouldn't help our nation to breakup like the Balkan Peninsula. The two parts would be weaker than the whole and it would hurt business. Don't mistake temporarily being left out of the White House as a need to break away.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: daidalos on January 03, 2014, 10:00:42 AM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 21, 2013, 05:15:28 PM
What disgusting bullshit; this is like an American who got laid off from his job bitching about it to a 7 year old dying from breast cancer.  The difference factor of 9 does nothing to close the utter gap in magnitude between actual slavery and what spoiled brats such as yourself think the word means.  Slavery was awful enough that mothers would jump off ships and drown themselves and their children to avoid it; that you actually think your problems are worse would be hilarious if it weren't just pitiful.

You haven't been reading along well.  I never said he defended the african slave trade (you do realize the slave trade had been outlawed long before the civil war, right?); I'm saying he was defending the Confederacy and failing to understand that their perpetuation of slavery outweighs any good ideas they might have come up with.

Slavery sir, is slavery.

And it is an evil abomination, Americans threw off quite some time ago.

Americans used to believe that once, they also used to believe that slavery was something we as a nation could not tolerate, no matter the form the enslavement takes.

So much so, that we fought a very brutal and bloody civil war over it, as well as altering our highest law, our Constitution to see that slavery never again darkened American soil.

And here today come the apologists, to tell us all, that "well your slavery isn't as bad, as the slavery back then, so it's all good". :roll eyes:
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: cpicturetaker12 on January 03, 2014, 10:22:01 AM
Quote from: kramarat on August 02, 2013, 04:33:31 AM
Very interesting read.

Based on that, I would agree that every state has the right to secede.

One major thing that Obama has accomplished, is shining a spotlight on the illegal and unconstitutional behavior of the federal government. Like most Americans, I spent most of my life believing that the supreme court always had our backs, in regard to the constitution. Boy, was I ever wrong!

While the depth of my knowledge is still limited, I actually took an interest and started reading, with the passing of the patriot act, and the formation of the DHS and TSA. I knew in my gut that the patriot act was really bad.

The more I learn, the scarier and more depressing it gets.

Constitutionally, this should be an open and shut case, but it is being ignored, and once again demonstrates how far away from the constitution the federal government has strayed...largely unchallenged. :sad:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032912-606068-new-sagebrush-rebellion-brews-in-western-states.htm (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032912-606068-new-sagebrush-rebellion-brews-in-western-states.htm)

We are living in some interesting and historically significant times. With a fully treasonous administration in place, one can only guess at what will come.

Thanks for another great thread.

GO FOR IT!  Good luck.  Just let me know if it is SOUTH CAROLINA! (It and TX scream 'SECEDE' the most often).  I'll have to 'google map' an alternative AROUND I-95.  Other than that I don't give a shit!
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: daidalos on January 04, 2014, 04:54:07 PM
Secession probably is not going too happen.

Well not unless one considers the states exercising their article V right to call for, and form, a new Constitutional Convention to be secession.

Which is close to happening and is a right enumerated to the States in article V of the current Constitution.

Should that happen, should the states form and ratify a new Constitution.

Reorganizing for example how the Congress works, placing term limitations on say SCOTUS judges, restoring the States own rights to recall and even enact term limits on it's own Senators and Representatives in the Congerss, rolling back the power of the executive to issue executive orders, granting the States themselves the final say over those bills that will be enacted as law within their borders.....(just some examples of things we could see in a new Constitution) well, you can bet it will be bye bye fed as we know it today.....if it does happen.

It should be very interesting to watch Harry Reid, Obama, and Pelosi out there telling us all how their right to oppose the States and the newly ratified Constitution is correct, and how they by force of law, have the right to refuse to acknowledge that newly ratified Constitution which strips them of political power, as the law of the land.... and how Obama has the right to use the military to detain and arrest and attack the states and anyone supporting the states.

Which I am sure both Obama and Reid as well as Pelosi, would do given they refuse to acknowledge the Constitution we already have now as such.

http://www.aikenstandard.com/article/20131204/AIK0101/131209788/1004/south-carolina-virginia-call-for-convention-of-states (http://www.aikenstandard.com/article/20131204/AIK0101/131209788/1004/south-carolina-virginia-call-for-convention-of-states)
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: penrod on March 08, 2014, 02:23:07 PM
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/judge-napolitano-abraham-lincoln-was-a-tyrant-video/ (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?
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Solar on March 08, 2014, 03:14:24 PM
Quote from: penrod on March 08, 2014, 02:23:07 PM
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/judge-napolitano-abraham-lincoln-was-a-tyrant-video/ (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 had never heard that point raised before, but it's a damn good one.
Welcome to the forum Penrod.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: penrod on March 09, 2014, 10:31:05 AM
I also find it ironic that he is so loved by the Republican party when he destroyed the Republic in order to save the Union(federal government rule).
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: TboneAgain on March 09, 2014, 12:29:07 PM
Quote from: penrod on March 08, 2014, 02:23:07 PM
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/judge-napolitano-abraham-lincoln-was-a-tyrant-video/ (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.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: penrod on March 09, 2014, 01:34:34 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 09, 2014, 12:29:07 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.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Kaz on April 11, 2014, 10:30:59 AM
Quote from: penrod on March 09, 2014, 01:34:34 PMThey 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.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: penrod on April 11, 2014, 11:19:28 AM
Quote from: Kaz on April 11, 2014, 10:30:59 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.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Kaz on April 11, 2014, 11:25:11 AM
Quote from: penrod on April 11, 2014, 11:19:28 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.
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: penrod on April 17, 2014, 08:19:36 AM
Quote from: Kaz on April 11, 2014, 11:25:11 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
Title: Re: A Right To Secede?
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 26, 2014, 08:57:01 PM
Quote from: penrod on March 08, 2014, 02:23:07 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. 

QuoteIt 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.
Text only | Text with Images