War of Northeern Aggression

[David Floyd]

Are you suggesting that abolishing slavery was wrong because it disenfranchised a few white farmers, David?

No, I'm suggesting abolishing slavery was wrong because:
-The South didn't want to
-The sovereign CSA didn't want to
-The 13th Amendment was forced down the throats of Southerners, who didn't get a valid, uncoerced vote on it
-The US murdered hundreds of thousands of CSA soldiers in order to do it

[David Floyd]

Floyd: What good are State's rights without a decent job? Second, what specific state rights disappeared after it was over? Would you give up your possesions, in order that you could enjoy State rights?

The 13th-15th Amendments took away most States rights, and more can be taken away at the federal government's whim.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh I get it - in chegitz-land, better off means losing States Rights and self-rule

Many poor whites were excluded from the political process after the Civil War, DF.

[*End Is Forever*]

That's like saying abolishing the Holocaust was wrong because the German government didn't want it.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Who exactly is revising the term? First I've heard of it...

Yeah, ditto that.

I sounds so politcally correct as well. Enough to make me puke. We no longer have wars, just acts of aggression. What's this world coming to when you can't even have a good old war anymore?

Acts of Aggression and Peace
The Gulf Act of Aggression
World Act of Aggression One and Two

Bah!

[David Floyd]

Many poor whites were excluded from the political process after the Civil War, DF.

I don't see how that relates, except to illustrate my point that whites were not better off.

[David Floyd]

That's like saying abolishing the Holocaust was wrong because the German government didn't want it.

Well I'm not sure Britain and France had the moral authority to declare war on Germany, nor do I think the US had the moral authority to provoke Germany.

[mactbone]

dp...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh I get it - in chegitz-land, better off means losing States Rights and self-rule.

States rights is, and has always been, anti-democratic and means of local elites screwing their local populations. State's rights is never defended except when the states are screwing their own people over. When the state does something in favor of its own people, no one complains when the Fed steps in and overturns it (as in the Medical Marijuana laws and Doctor Assisted Suicide law in Oregon).

And, dumb-sh*t, you should remember that before the War, poor whites in the South couldn't vote. Under the Reconstruction governments, they could . . . until Reconstruction was ended, and the grandfather clauses were enacted. If your grandfather couldn't vote, neither could you, and since most whites' grandfathers couldn't vote . . .

You know, it's okay to been a fanatic as long as you have your facts straight. Stop listening the neo-Confederates and the Klan, Floyd.

[*End Is Forever*]

13th Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It makes slavery illegal. What a terrible piece of legislation!

[mactbone]

Uhhh, it's called foreign policy, the Union decided that the South wasn't one, so it was domestic policy, which meant the South had as much rights as a few conspirators.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The 13th-15th Amendments took away most States rights, and more can be taken away at the federal government's whim.

Yeah, and they gave rights to the American people. What horrible, horrible, Amendments.

David, your hood is showing.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I don't see how that relates, except to illustrate my point that whites were not better off.

The elites were better off after Reconstruction ended.

I don't see how any self-respecting Libertarian can support the CSA to begin with anyway. It was hardly an institution committed to upholding libertarian ideals, regardless of the actions of the Union.

[*End Is Forever*]

Well I'm not sure Britain and France had the moral authority to declare war on Germany, nor do I think the US had the moral authority to provoke Germany.

Um, Britain and France declared war on Germany because Hitler invaded Belgium (and subsequently France, which was the obvious conclusion once they'd reached Belgium). Did Germany have the moral authority to invade Belgium? I think Britain and France had every right to declare war on Germany, especially seeing as France was in the process of being invaded.

You're digging yourself a fair size hole here, David. Be careful you don't fall into it.

[David Floyd]

States rights is, and has always been, anti-democratic and means of local elites screwing their local populations.

Whoever said I supported democracy?

And, dumb-sh*t, you should remember that before the War, poor whites in the South couldn't vote. Under the Reconstruction governments, they could . . .

As I recall States had the right to set voting requirements. I see no problem there, the US Constitution requires State governments to be republican, not democratic.

Iain,

It makes slavery illegal. What a terrible piece of legislation!

The process was terrible and the ends never justify the means.

Mac,

Uhhh, it's called foreign policy, the Union decided that the South wasn't one, so it was domestic policy, which meant the South had as much rights as a few conspirators.

So again, might makes right, eh?