Distortions of truth and history: Lee, a better friend of slaves than Lincoln

[SlowwHand]

Boris, come on buddy. Talk apples and apples.
The fact remains that there is and are States Rights.
I know you can't be arguing that point.
You're just talking different fruit.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I would shoot them on sight just like my Serbian ancestors and family did.

This of course also applies to any Croats, Bosnians, or Albanians Sava may come across. Go Serbia!!!

ps: Don't forget the Austro-Hungarian aristocracy, shooter!

Yeah, because the Hapsburgs were such a good bunch of people ... the Central Powers of WWI (Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire) were strongly against a Unified Yugoslavia. The Serbs wanted to unite the ethnic factions to compete with their evil northern neighbors.

Oooh the Croats.... sided with the Nazis, then sided with the Soviets... Wow, they were good people weren't they? Hmmmm, the Bosnians, a separatist group who wanted to usurp the authority of a Democratic Serbia (*cough* confederate states of Ameriac *cough*).... oh Wow and the Albanians.... let's just ask our Greek owners how great of a people the Albanians are ... hmmm 90% + are illiterate... enormous birthrate.... links to Al Qaeda.... and people who wanted to expand their worthless country by annexing Kosovo (which has been a historical part of Serbia for hundreds of years)..

So far my Serbian brothers and sisters have been right on. Seriously Drake, stop listening to Western propaganda and open your fricking eyes.

[Sava]

I still don't get how making the central government weaker is a good thing. I love how "States' Rights" has become the conservative excuse for the Civil War and not Slavery.

If you ask me, any conservative who is for States' Rights is a hypocrit. They are the same ones chanting "United We Stand" and "God Bless America" but deep in their hearts they want to break up this great Union.

[Q Classic]

back to lightheartedness--

lee wasn't evil. sherman was, for torching atlanta, but he did atlanta a small favor, one which now should be repeated~

burnsides was the most evil of them all, for without him, we would not today have the infernal things called "sideburns".

he's just a tad less evil than the guy who came up with the mullet.

[Boris Godunov]

Sloww, no one is disputing that States have certain authority over affairs within their domain. That doesn't have anything to do with the absurdity to which Southern apologists will try to take the "State's Rights" arguments in justifying secession.

The framer's of the Constitution certainly didn't intend for secession in that manner to be possible. Just read Washington's Farewell Address, wherein he is quite clear in the belief that once you are in, you are in.

Regardless, the manner in which the South attempted to secede was certainly illegal. Considering the manner by which states are admitted to the Union, I believe it's only logical that a reversal of that process is the only way in which a state can legitimately release itself from the Union. So they should have taken secession to Congress.

The Secession Legislatures were not legitimate, nor did they have the authority to vote themselves out of the Union, as doing so was a direct violation of the Constitutional oaths they swore upon assuming office.

They chose to illegally seize Federal property and fire on Union soldiers. They threw down the bloody guantlet, and Lincoln responded in the only way proper. He demanded they stand down. They refused. So the rebellion had to be put down (as the President is authorized to do in the Constitution).

I firmly believe Lincoln acted by what he felt was right. He believed the Federal Government was supreme to the state's. I believe Lee acted by what he felt right as well, as he held up his duty to his state as higher than that to the Federal Government. I happen to agree with Lincoln in this point of view.

[MrFun]

Boris, you are right on the money.

Besides, what sane political leaders would provide a legal means for their own government's destruction??

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Sava
Oooh the Croats.... sided with the Nazis, then sided with the Soviets... Wow, they were good people weren't they? Hmmmm, the Bosnians, a separatist group who wanted to usurp the authority of a Democratic Serbia (*cough* confederate states of Ameriac *cough*).... oh Wow and the Albanians.... let's just ask our Greek owners how great of a people the Albanians are ... hmmm 90% + are illiterate... enormous birthrate.... links to Al Qaeda.... and people who wanted to expand their worthless country by annexing Kosovo (which has been a historical part of Serbia for hundreds of years)..

Yes, I agree. Where do those illiterate savages get off thinking that they should be free from Serbian overlordship? Let's get Slobo back in power and kill them all! Greater Serbia will be achieved in our lifetime!

So far my Serbian brothers and sisters have been right on. Seriously Drake, stop listening to Western propaganda and open your fricking eyes.

Yes, all those mass graves in Bosnia are a result of Western propaganda...

Anyway, there's no need to ridicule you further. Your own idiotic comments are doing a good enough job of that, anyway. Keep up the good work, shooter!

[MrFun]

You two can start a separate thread about the Balkans and Soviet Union, if you wish.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Neither of those actualy have anything to do with states rights. Both are clearly rights given to the Federal government alone. I would have to say the any reference to states rights was purest hyperbole.

You are on drugs right? NOTHING to do with states' rights? They had EVERYTHING to do with states' rights. They are the definition of it.

Such an action would have had no legal force and been unconstitutional. Indeed slavery wasn't ended in the North untill a constitutional amendment was passed after the war. Whats amazing is that you knew that last part yet were unable to realize what it meant regarding the Emancipation Proclamation.

So by your logic, the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional and thus merely symbolizism that did nothing. I've said Lincoln wasn't a masterful politician.

Game. Set. Match. Thanks for playing, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Its in there. We went over that one before. You KNOW its in there.

Saying that Congress can suspend it is no where near the same thing as saying the President can suspend it.

So to how much of an extent was states' rights not the real issue, and merely a facade??

How much of an extent was slavery not the real issue and merely the facade .

You can't argue that it was one and not the other. No way, no how. It was both slavery and states' rights that caused the Civil War and both overlap.

The history of the United States (and why it is different from most other countries) is the history of Federalism. The law of the land is essential to US History, and one of the first things you learn about in Law School is the unique system of Federalism. It defines the US more than slavery does. Federalism was with us in the past, is with us today, and will be with us until the US collapses.

With Federalism there will ALWAYS be the states' rights issue. How much power should the states' hold vis a vis the Federal Government. EVERY issue is a subset of this main question. Slavery is a question dealing with states' rights, not the other way around.

The union itself was formed with states' rights being the main contention. Look at the Constitutional Convention. The debates all revolved around states' rights, and NOT simply because of slavery. New Jersey and New York delegates had bitter arguments over representation and neither were slave states.

[SlowwHand]

Thank Goodness for Imran.

Are there Federal Laws? Certainly.
As well as stipulations on receiving federal aid on roads and schools, etc.
The state DOES NOT have to take the federal aid, but to be eligible for the aid the state has to meet mandatory requirements.

Who sets age of consent laws? Not the federal government.
Who sets guidelines on drinking? Or marriage? Not the federal government.
Who sets drug laws? Not the federal government.

I can't speak about New York or Iowa, but let me draw reference to Texas;as well as Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, since they border Texas.
In these states, not even the STATE mandates package liquor sales.
It goes to the COUNTY to decide "wet or dry"; that meaning the CITIES in the county have the right to sell package liquor.

Nothing FEDERAL to it.






All that said, go back and read your Civics 101 again.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Thank Goodness for Imran.

Are there Federal Laws? Certainly.
As well as stipulations on receiving federal aid on roads and schools, etc.
The state DOES NOT have to take the federal aid, but to be eligible for the aid the state has to meet mandatory requirements.

What on earth does Federal aid have to do with this?

Who sets age of consent laws? Not the federal government.

If an ammendment passed mandating a national age of consent, it would be national law, and the states couldn't contradict it.

Who sets guidelines on drinking?

If and ammendment passed to prohibit alcohol, the states would have to recognize it. Remember prohibition? (I bet you do, first-hand )

Or marriage? Not the federal government.

So how is it a marriage in one state is considered fully legal and valid in another state, and a state can't refuse to treat the marriage as valid? Answer: Federal rules.

Who sets drug laws? Not the federal government.

So how is it that the Feds have been going after people in California who are acting legally under the state's laws? Oh wait...Federal drug laws override the state laws.

It goes to the COUNTY to decide "wet or dry"; that meaning the CITIES in the county have the right to sell package liquor.

See Prohibition again.

All that said, go back and read your Civics 101 again.

I suggest you bone up on Article VI of the Constitution, sirrah.

[SlowwHand]

Prohibition?
And I hate to burst your bubble on drug laws. Nevada is about to legalize 3 ounces, all on their own.
WTF, Boris. I'm talking real-time here. Present day. You know, as it is.

[David Floyd]

Ethelred,

Neither of those actualy have anything to do with states rights. Both are clearly rights given to the Federal government alone. I would have to say the any reference to states rights was purest hyperbole.

In the case of the War of 1812, yes, Congress can declare war, but states may also secede.

False. The the US did NOT have troop in CSA territory. They had troops on Federal land. As I pointed out to you before that Ft Sumter wasn't even a natural island and it wasn't actually resupplied. Indeed it had allready been blockaded by the the South which is an Act of War all by itself.

Virginia split in half over the War. Georgia siezed Ft. Pulaski in January. Another act of war. Federal forts did not become CSA property simply on the CSA's say so.

The Russian Embassy does not belong to the United States, yet the United States can force Russia to vacate the embassy, and if Russia refuses the US can force Russia to vacate it.
You will of course say that that is entirely different, I'm going to disagree totally, and this will go nowhere.

I didn't say it wasn't forced labor did I? Slavery is NOT simply forced labor nor is it temporary as conscription was. Slavery involves the actual ownership of human beings. Any attempt to blur this distinction speaks ill of your efforts in this discussion.

The 13th Amendment doesn't ban slavery. It bans involuntary servitude. But that means slavery is illegal, because it is a type of involuntary servitude. Thus, involuntary servitude and slavery are related. Conscription is, at the least, involuntary servitude, but quite frankly, everyone knows damn well what we mean when we say slavery, and arguing with semantics will get you nowhere, anyway. OK, I admit that conscription isn't exactly the same as slavery, but it IS exactly the same as involuntary servitude. Woohoo, great victory for you - now you're just supporting involuntary servitude

Still the responsibility of the people that caused the war.

That would be the United States - the CSA wanted to live in peace. The US wanted to make a land grab.

Hardly. Milosevic was intentionly killing people in a campaign of extermination.

Says you.

Sherman was trying get an awful war over. He clearly overdid it but he was not in the same class as people that have engaged in genocide.

OK, fine. By driving Russian civilians out of their homes, and in many cases killing them, Hitler was just trying to get the war over with quickly. Sure, he may have gone a little bit overboard, but that's not genocide.

Oh wait, actually that isn't genocide. Who's talking about genocide? I'm talking about war crimes, you're bringing up genocide.

Any claim to a right to secede is questionable at best.

Questionable if you can't read the 10th Amendment, I suppose.

They certainly had no right to steal US military installations. That is what was done at Ft. Sumter by force of arms and indeed was done in a number of other places before the CSA was formed.

Granted, but the US had no right to maintain military installations within the border of a sovereign country.

Wrong. He didn't have any way to do it in the North. Such an action would have had no legal force and been unconstitutional. Indeed slavery wasn't ended in the North untill a constitutional amendment was passed after the war.

That's right, he had no power to ban slavery in a state of the Union without an amendment.
But wait, by his own argument, the CSA were still states in the Union, and even though they were rebelling, the Constitution still doesn't provide for arbitrary seizures of property.
And on the other hand, the southern states legally seceded according to their 10th Amendment powers, and after secession formed a sovereign nation, meaning that Lincoln couldn't issue orders within the CSA's boundaries anyway.

So whichever way you want to look at it, the Emancipation Proclamation had no legal force.

No assumption is needed. They had to win the war to be sovereign.

Incorrect, the CSA was sovereign by virtue of the fact that independent entities that were formerly US states came together and formed a nation. Granted, they lost their sovereignty immediately following an aggressive war by the USA, but that doesn't mean they weren't sovereign.

He had the power in revolting states to do pretty much anything under martial law. The properties of rebels are automaticly forfeit.

You'll have to show me that in the Constitution. Of course, you can't because it isn't there.

Its in there. We went over that one before. You KNOW its in there. Its in the CSAs constitution as well. As for strike breaking that sucks. I don't know what legal excuse he used.

Allow me to quote Article I, Section 9:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Article I, Section 9 deals with powers denied to Congress. Hence, Congress may suspend Habeas Corpus, on two conditions. First, there has to be a rebellion or an invasion, and second, the public safety must require it.
So, there were Constitutional (but not moral) grounds for Congress to suspend habeas corpus, depending on your defintion of public safety. I would argue that even during CSA invasions (which in any case were caused by the US pushing an aggressive war against a sovereign nation) or rebellions inside the US, the public safety was never really at risk, so in that sense even Congress could not have suspended habeas corpus.
But in any case, the President may not suspend it under ANY circumstances.

Where does it even imply that they can?

The 10th Amendment doesn't only imply that a state may secede, it says that a state may secede, by virtue of the fact that the 10th specifically states that any power not granted to Congress or denied to the States is reserved to the States and people. Because secession is not denied to the States, the 10th Amendment clearly allows secession.

Missouri was still part of the US and not a rebelling state in any case.

Neither was Virginia - it wasn't a state at all.

Boris,

The framer's of the Constitution certainly didn't intend for secession in that manner to be possible. Just read Washington's Farewell Address, wherein he is quite clear in the belief that once you are in, you are in.

Boris, I had no idea you were such an Original Intentist. In that case, you should have no problem accepting the argument that since the Founders didn't intend restrictions on firearms to become law, gun control is unconstitutional.

Regardless, the manner in which the South attempted to secede was certainly illegal. Considering the manner by which states are admitted to the Union, I believe it's only logical that a reversal of that process is the only way in which a state can legitimately release itself from the Union. So they should have taken secession to Congress.

Actually that doesn't make sense at all, because a branch of the United States federal government has too much a vested interest in the matter to make a proper decision. Therefore, it must be up to the States themselves, and this is backed up by the 10th Amendment.

The Secession Legislatures were not legitimate, nor did they have the authority to vote themselves out of the Union, as doing so was a direct violation of the Constitutional oaths they swore upon assuming office.

Because neither secession nor the proper method for secession are spelled out in the Constitution, and because neither one is prohibited to the States, then both the question of secession and the method of doing so must be up to the states themselves.

They chose to illegally seize Federal property and fire on Union soldiers.

US soldiers have no right to stay within the boundaries of a foreign nation or entity, when that entity asks them to leave. Hence, just because the US owns a military base is Saudi Arabia or Kuwait doesn't mean that Saudi Arabia or Kuwait can't force the US to leave.

So the rebellion had to be put down (as the President is authorized to do in the Constitution).

There was no rebellion, because the government of one nation or entity can't rebel against the government of another.

I firmly believe Lincoln acted by what he felt was right.

So did Hitler. Good thing we don't use that standard in determining whether someone is evil or not, eh?

He believed the Federal Government was supreme to the state's.

The Supremacy Clause makes this clear, but ONLY in cases in which the federal government has an enumerated power to pass a law. They had no such power to prevent secession, while the States had a 10th Amendment right to secede.

[David Floyd]

Boris,

If an ammendment passed mandating a national age of consent, it would be national law, and the states couldn't contradict it.

OK, but this has nothing to do with States Rights. A Constitutional Amendment overrides any pre-existing law on the matter. If a certain State doesn't like it, they may of course secede in accordance with their 10th Amendment rights, but no one has ever claimed a state can nullify a Constitutional Amendment.

So how is it that the Feds have been going after people in California who are acting legally under the state's laws? Oh wait...Federal drug laws override the state laws.

Wrong, federal drug laws are unconstitutional and hold no legal power.
The federal government itself has already de facto admitted that it cannot Constitutionally pass law regarding the drinking age, so what in hell makes you think they can pass laws regarding drug use?

[SlowwHand]

jeezus, david. you really are smart after all, aren't you?