generic North/south confederate thread

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Odin


Don't wine to us when the mexicans come to take thier land back.

We don't want it. You stole it, you keep it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


We don't want it. You stole it, you keep it.

Actually, there was a combination of Northern interests and Southern interests in what was Mexico's territory.

Many white Southern planter elites had an interest in expanding territory into the southwest to expand their plantation economy that was based on

.

.

.


slavery.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well, that was a few of those deep south plantation cracker types. One would have to be denser between the ears than a good ol' Hickory stump, or an Iowan, to figure you'd do much plantation work from West Texas on out.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Well, that was a few of those deep south plantation cracker types. One would have to be denser between the ears than a good ol' Hickory stump, or an Iowan, to figure you'd do much plantation work from West Texas on out.

DUH!!

Eastern Texas - not western Texas was good land for plantation economic system.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well, Texas was already yours, so for the Mexican War land theft to be motivated by slavery, one would have to be assuming there'd be a plantation type economy on out from west Texas.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The Constitution is not a contract. There are no specified remedies for non-performance of the United States, there is no on-going consideration received, and there is no obligation of the state to the United States.

And yes, one party can quit a contract by rescission.

The US is not like a partnership that can be dissolved by the unilateral action of one or more partners. There are loads of mutual consideration to other states.

Secession would only be legal if all concerned parties consented.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


The US is not like a partnership that can be dissolved by the unilateral action of one or more partners. There are loads of mutual consideration to other states.

Secession would only be legal if all concerned parties consented.

That would imply that states yielded sovereignty to other states collectively as a condition of ratification. There's a good reason the Constutition never required that.

And what "mutual consideration" to other states is in the Constitution that is not executory in nature?

And all concerned parties did consent - the seceding states. By what theory would you argue that Michigan, for example, had any standing in an isse as to whether South Carolina was part of the Union or not?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Both the Dominican Republic and the Cote d'Ivorie practice slavery in agriculture. Rather than take care of their slaves, they simply work them to death and get more (in the case of the DR, they kidnap Haitians).

Then they're not maintaining them are they? Given that the price of a slave in the south was about $300-1000 which is the equivilant of a mercedes today no slave owner could afford to do that.

[TCO]

Originally posted by skywalker


How about Canadia

How about Alberta? They have some juicy oil. And there is a land border. Would be real easy. Fun to piss the Canucks off too.

[TCO]

You have to forgive Che. He lives in Indy-media world. He is a "pop-commie". To wit, the moniker and the tendancy to hang out at the Heartland Cafe (good food). Come the Revolution, we will liquidate him and the other trendy commies. But for now, it is good to have a fellow traveler.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by TCO


How about Alberta? They have some juicy oil. And there is a land border. Would be real easy. Fun to piss the Canucks off too.

Alberta is part of the whole package

[Ned]

Does anyone know whether the issue of secession was discussed by the founding fathers?

[TCO]

donno. what about the Federalist papers?

[Ned]

And what does this passage of the Constitution imply to the argument that States lost no sovereignty and had no allegience to Union? How could a member of a State government not betray a solemn oath to support the Constitution if he or she votes to seceed?

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Bingo.

And Texas STILL retains the right.

If it did, it would be an independent country today, seeing as it seceded with the rest of the Confederacy. It was subdued by force and brought back into the Union. Your treaty with the US is null and void.

We own you!

Anyway, by 2050 the state will be majority Hispanic, so you might want to rethink any treasonous thoughts.