Can't, on a school computer.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Which US PResidents were Horrid?: Part II
Collapse
X
-
BastardI make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ramo
Regarding your one and only argument: the secession papers said the war was about slavery, so it must've been about slavery.
The secession papers were propaganda, created principally for a legalistic reason, namely to gain European recognition and support (and to ward off an invasion). Propaganda is not where one should get information. The fact of the matter is that abolition was a phantom threat, while higher tariff duties were real, substantial threats, which almost caused a civil war 30 years earlier.
I am still not seeing ANY support for your claim. Even if you dredge something up modern revisionism will not trump the words of the men that made the decisions.
Irrelevant. You were ranting about firing the first shot, and I told you who did - federal troops.
Considering as how that DIDN'T start a war it not relevant in any case. Ft. Sumter started a war. That did nothing.
Fine, you want to talk Ft. Sumter? I wouldn't exactly call resupplying a fort while negotiating its supposed surrender particularly defensive.
Demanding a surrender isn't exactly defensive either. It was federal soil. Literly.
By seceding, they have no more voice on the fate of the Western territories, nullifying your argument.
Yes, yes, yes. The Southern leaders were hypocritical feudalistic, authoritarian bastards who deserved to die horrible, horrible deaths. You're preaching to the choir, here. But it is not what the debate is over.
I never said that. Then again they got a lot of people killed over slavery.
Comment
-
Originally posted by loinburger
As Ramo previously mentioned, the tariffs that the North wanted to impose were legal (even if they did cripple the South). Why would the South bring up tariffs in the secession documents if they were trying to come up with a legal justification for seceding?
Again, the secession documents were created as a legal justification for secession. Why, then, would the South have brought up perfectly legal actions taken by the North in its secesion documents? The previous actions taken by the North that were illegal revolved around slavery, not tariffs. The previous (and future) actions taken by the North that would have caused (and later did come to cause) the most economic harm to the South were tariffs, though.
Now if someone can show that there a was debate about mentioning tariffs and that they decided not to mention it because it wasn't relevant to their legal claims and that slavery was relevant then a point will be made. I haven't seen such a claim. Maybe it can be supported.
Though I don't see how since Lincolm made it clear he was not going to abolish slavery at the expense of the union.
Lincoln's political platform was built around high tariffs. The reason the South seceded was to avoid these high tariffs.
However, this did not constitute a legal justification for secession, while the North's previous actions with regards to slavery did provide legal justification for secession. Since the secession documents were intended to provide a legal justification for secession, they contained a great deal on slavey and not a bit on tariffs.
People today would rather think it was about taxes than except the fact that people were willing to fight and kill other Americans over slavery. Nevertheless that is exactly what the secession was done for. Slavery.
Comment
-
Hardly all I have said and it is plenty on its own anyway. You have only had the UNSUPPORTED claim it was about taxes. I have support you have nothing.
There was no way those were going to help with Europe. France and England both were against slavery and those were two countries they needed. As propaganda it helped the North immensly. Of course it wasn't mere propaganda anyway.
It was the real reasons for secession.
Tarrifs is something the other countries might have understood.
I am still not seeing ANY support for your claim. Even if you dredge something up modern revisionism will not trump the words of the men that made the decisions.
Politicians occasionally lie.
Like I said earlier, I'm at school, and therefore don't have my books with me.
How do you know?
They were only supplying food and similar items. No weapons. And the South started shooting before the ship arrived.
Demanding a surrender isn't exactly defensive either. It was federal soil. Literly.
Nonetheless, the feds said they were surrendering when they obviously had no intention of surrendering.
Nonsense. They were doing the seceding. They had allready denied states the choice. They wanted to deny more states the choice.
The fact is they pitched a fit that they FEARED they wouldn't be allowed to force more states is evidence they didn't care one bit about states rights.
I never said that.
Anyways, I gotta do my Physics homework now. Later."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Comment
-
Ethelred: The South must have considered the issue of tariffs to be quite important, considering that they specifically mention them in their constitution, which is modelled after the original Constitution except that it specifically mentions free trade as a right afforded to all states.
Section VIII
The Congress shall have power-
1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; [my emphasis] and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; [my emphasis]...<p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ramo
I have a claim supported by logic. You have a claim supported by propaganda. 'Nuff said.
Like I said, it was a legalistic appeal. It was meant to legally, not morally, justify secession to the European leadership.
They didn't like slavery, but they didn't have significant objections to the Confederacy as long as the war didn't become about slavery (which changed after the Emancipation Proclamation).
The papers mention "states' rights," for instance. You think that's a real reason for secession?
Yep, England would've perfectly understood how the North used tariffs to exploit the South, just as it had used tariffs to exploit its colonies, particularly in South Asia. If the South was looking for English sympathy, free trade wasn't exactly the best appeal.
I'll tell you a secret, but it may be a little unsettling:
Politicians occasionally lie.
Like I said earlier, I'm at school, and therefore don't have my books with me.
Going on memory, don't have my books with me..
Yep, so they could hold the fort longer.
What's a nice friendly suggestion between states?
Nonetheless, the feds said they were surrendering when they obviously had no intention of surrendering.
If they didn't get supplies they would have surrendered in a few days. The South was impatient.
The fate of the states would be determined by popular sovereignty. They had the choice, but saw adding another slave state that was not dominated by agricultural interests not worth the effort of doing something similar to what they did in Kansas.
Irrelevant. I never claimed anything about states' rights.
Yes, and the Confederate argument over secession had always been over the legality of federal actions.
And you just quoted the session documents reference to states rights.
Comment
-
Originally posted by loinburger
Ethelred: The South must have considered the issue of tariffs to be quite important, considering that they specifically mention them in their constitution, which is modelled after the original Constitution except that it specifically mentions free trade as a right afforded to all states.
Legally all they had to do was say 'we quit' from their point of view. As far as I can see they were right then as well. Since then things are different. A major war has a powerful legal precedent.
Boy would the US transportation system be a mess with that article. I think the next bigest change is the term of office for the President. One single six year term.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ethelred
Important yes. Just not important enough mention at all when they seceded.
The tarrif issue was more than enough reason legally since they felt the US had no legal hold on them anyway.
Legally all they had to do was say 'we quit' from their point of view.<p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ramo
No, you're changing whatever "argument" you previously had after I refuted it (hell, the two arguments are contradictory), into an argument that does not help your case.
I never changed my argument after you refuted it. I told you that I already knew what you said -- that there was already slavery in Cuba and Mexico, and so forth. That is like, history 101.
You thought I meant that I claimed that Southern politicians wanted to expand slavery where it did NOT exist yet.
I really claimed that Southern politicians wanted to conquer countries where slavery already existed.A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
Comment
-
Originally posted by loinburger
The Declaration of Independence makes no reference to the separation of Church and State (something which the English government impeded upon, IIRC),
but that doesn't lessen the importance of the First Amendment. The Constitution is a far more important legal document than the Declaration of Independence; the former outlines the functioning of the government, the latter was really just a propoganda tool.
You and Ramo are basicaly claiming the various documents of session weren't real grievances but a snow job to fox the foreigners. Well that just isn't true.
First the Declaration is a single document assembled by three men and primarily written by one and then approved by a single body of representitives. The session documents that I linked to are four seperate documents written by at least four different people completly independently for the four different sets of STATE voters and not for the foreigners. If it had been for foreigners they wouldn't have even mentioned slavery as no major European nation agreed with the South on that.
The tariffs that the North imposed were extremely damaging to the South, but they were not illegal. Mentioning them in the secession documents would therefore have accomplished nothing. Instead, they are expicitely dealt with in the CSA Constitution, where their treatment would accomplish something.
From their point of view that is all they had to say. Not everybody necessarily shared their point of view, so they also had the need to bring up the illegal actions taken by the North (which do not include tariffs).
Its not like they changed the tariff laws AND made slavery ilegal.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ethelred
Yes I agree the Declaration was a propaganda tool.(some think its a legal, document it isn't) It covered actual grievances though. It wasn't a stealth document that ignored the real grievance.
You and Ramo are basicaly claiming the various documents of session weren't real grievances but a snow job to fox the foreigners. Well that just isn't true.
Slavery wasn't ilegal and no one was about to abolish it. So now we are left with nothing to write about.
Which they didn't do. The actions were legal.
It was a fear of future actions that they acted on.
The tariffs had been around for a long time.
I am still going on their own words about their decisions.
I am still going off of the actual Constitutional changes enacted by the CSA government, which deal almost exclusively with tariffs.
One is a set of laws and the other is a statement about why they are leaveing another set of laws.
Its not like they changed the tariff laws AND made slavery ilegal.<p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>
Comment
-
I claim support by going on the word of the men that made the decisions.
Got some evidence to support that? I know I have evidence against it. It didn't work at all if that was the intent. That it couldn't have worked is my evidence.
However the fact that the South had rebelled to retain slavery stopped them from helping the South.
But history tells us that England, France, and Spain were courting the CSA with possible alliances until Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation.
The right was the right to keep slaves. We both know I think that was the reason.
And we allready covered how hypocritical their claims of states rights were since they wanted to force slavery on new states.
It was their fort. It was federal soil
The fate of the state is something the South wanted to force. Against states rights.
Really and then what is this?
quote:
Yes, and the Confederate argument over secession had always been over the legality of federal actions
I never changed my argument after you refuted it.
"The Southern politicians wanted to take over countries where slavery already existed, so they can establish more plantations for more profits for themselves. "
No, no change at all.
Look, you're either lying, had a pretty bad case of amnesia, or made a big typo.
I don't mind the latter case, but I wish you'd take responsibility for whatever mistakes you make instead of accusing me of not understanding and changing your statement into something it was not.
I told you that I already knew what you said -- that there was already slavery in Cuba and Mexico, and so forth. That is like, history 101."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ramo
"Before the Civil War, the Southern states wanted to aggressively expand the institution of slavery in the western territories, Nicragua, Cuba, and Mexico. ..."
"The Southern politicians wanted to take over countries where slavery already existed, so they can establish more plantations for more profits for themselves. "
No, no change at all.
Look, you're either lying, had a pretty bad case of amnesia, or made a big typo.
I don't mind the latter case, but I wish you'd take responsibility for whatever mistakes you make instead of accusing me of not understanding and changing your statement into something it was not.
Furthermore, your pretentious "I already knew that" that you write every in every other one of your posts is starting to get on my nerves. Look dude, you may have know whatever was written in response to you, but you generally either have either neglected to take that fact into consideration or have written something contradicting it.A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
Comment
Comment