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

[David Floyd]

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by 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.

Sava, on the other hand...
It's facts, Sava. As they existed then, as they exist now.
Get over it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

Except that the Constitution explicitly says well-regulated.

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.

It doesn't make sense that a body composed of representatives from the states would have that power, when they have the power to induct states? I disagree.

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.

And it has been pointed out that secession is indeed covered under the president's rights to quell uprising and sedition, so under those grounds it is prohibited.

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.

Apples and oranges, Davey. The Constitution says that Federal property, even within a state's borders, is no longer that state's sovereign territory, it is the sovereign territory of the U.S. Government, and irrevocably so. When a state joins the Union, any territory given to the Federal government is forfeit. That's right--it is permanently the property of the U.S. Government. Even if the states seceded legally, which they didn't, that property remained U.S. property. Therefore the seizure of that property was a hostile act of aggression on U.S. sovereign territory, and the firing on Fort Sumter was a violent act of war against U.S. troops.

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

Too bad secession wasn't legal.

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

So David Floyd equates Lincoln to Hitler... funny.

[David Floyd]

Except that the Constitution explicitly says well-regulated.

Regulated meant something different back then. It didn't mean government regulation, in that context.

Further, the 2nd Amendment says the PEOPLE have a right to bear arms, and the section that says that is the primary clause of the sentence.

It doesn't make sense that a body composed of representatives from the states would have that power, when they have the power to induct states? I disagree.

Ah, but Congress can't induct a state without the consent of the state. Therefore, if a a piece of territory doesn't want to enter the US, it can't be forcefully annexed (not legally at least). This implies that the consent of the state is needed to remain in the US, as well.

And it has been pointed out that secession is indeed covered under the president's rights to quell uprising and sedition, so under those grounds it is prohibited.

The President has no rights to quell uprising and sedition. Go re-read Article II.
And the power to quell sedition is by no means mentioned in ANY part of the Constitution, although the 1st Amendment protects sedition.

And finally, secession has nothing to do with an uprising.

The Constitution says that Federal property, even within a state's borders, is no longer that state's sovereign territory, it is the sovereign territory of the U.S. Government, and irrevocably so. When a state joins the Union, any territory given to the Federal government is forfeit. That's right--it is permanently the property of the U.S. Government. Even if the states seceded legally, which they didn't, that property remained U.S. property.

Are you talking about this clause, in Article 1 Section 8?

"...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings"

Because if you are referring to this, then your summary has nothing to do with what is actually stated, and my example still holds for all intents and purposes.

Too bad secession wasn't legal.

10th Amendment.

So David Floyd equates Lincoln to Hitler...

No, I'm telling you that judging someone solely by the fact that "they did what they thought was right" is stupid.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Regulated meant something different back then. It didn't mean government regulation, in that context.

And I still don't buy that argument, but it's Off-topic.

Ah, but Congress can't induct a state without the consent of the state. Therefore, if a a piece of territory doesn't want to enter the US, it can't be forcefully annexed (not legally at least). This implies that the consent of the state is needed to remain in the US, as well.

Or, it implies the consent of congress is needed to withdraw from the Union, looking it it from the other angle.

The President has no rights to quell uprising and sedition. Go re-read Article II.
And the power to quell sedition is by no means mentioned in ANY part of the Constitution, although the 1st Amendment protects sedition.

Wouldn't you define it as an insurrection? I certainly would.

Are you talking about this clause, in Article 1 Section 8?

"...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings"

Because if you are referring to this, then your summary has nothing to do with what is actually stated, and my example still holds for all intents and purposes.

Now tell, me how is this not a direct statement that Federal property us the sovereign territory of the United States government, and not the states? You know that is not the case, as the federal government exercises full authority and control over them. If you commit a crime on federal property, you are charged under federal law, not the laws of the state surrounding that property.

U.S. troops at arsenals and at Ft. Sumter were not on foreign soil, even if you assume secession was legal, as that land had been ceded to the federal government by the state and was no longer part of the state. You know full well the same is true at U.S. embassies around the world. The land they are on is sovereign U.S. soil, not that of the country that surrounds it. If a nation attacked a U.S. Embassy within their country, it would be no different than had they attacked part of the mainland U.S. It would be an invasion of sovereign U.S. land.

So when the Southern militias attacked and seized arsenals and fired at Fort Sumter, they were either A) in violent uprising against the U.S. government, or B) violently invading U.S. territory, depending on how you view the legality of secession. Either way, they were the indisputable aggressors, not the North.

10th Amendment.

Article 6.

No, I'm telling you that judging someone solely by the fact that "they did what they thought was right" is stupid.

And I never did judge Lincoln solely on that basis, did I?

[Lincoln]

"Well regulated" as it is used in the 2nd amendment means properly trained and disiplined. It has nothing to do with being regulated by law. The "law" that provides for and "regulates" the militia is the second amendment. A study of the history behind the 2nd amendment makes it clear that the right to bear arms and have militias is directly opposed to the notion that those militias or that right must be regulated by the federal government. A state militia (or the national guard) however may fit under the definition of "militia" but only if the use of that state militia is not restricted by the federal government. In the case of a future rebellion of the states I think that perhaps because the weapons are in the hands of each state then they would probably be used to defend the states from the federal government. Private militias are also constitutional. The idea of the 2nd amendment was to give power to the people and the states as opposed to the federal government. If the federal government claims to have authority over the individual militias then the 2nd amendment is a farse. UNLESS they are used with the permission of the states and the people to fight a common enemy.

[David Floyd]

And I still don't buy that argument, but it's Off-topic.

Why not? And it isn't off topic, because it helps to establish whether or not you actually believe that original intent stuff, or if you were just using it in this one case.

Or, it implies the consent of congress is needed to withdraw from the Union, looking it it from the other angle.

I don't see why. If a state came in of its own free will, it can leave of its own free will.

Wouldn't you define it as an insurrection? I certainly would.

How is speaking against a war an insurrection?

...You know full well the same is true at U.S. embassies around the world. The land they are on is sovereign U.S. soil, not that of the country that surrounds it. If a nation attacked a U.S. Embassy within their country, it would be no different than had they attacked part of the mainland U.S. It would be an invasion of sovereign U.S. land.

This is the whole point of the argument. The nation of Germany, for example, could force, say, Italy, to vacate the Italian embassy. Yes, the embassy is Italian soil, but only for as long as Italy occupies the embassy. If Germany asks Italy to leave, they have to leave. If Italy refuses to leave, I see no reason why Germany couldn't use force to close the embassy.
And let me ask you this, just out of curiosity. If South Carolina had blockaded Ft Sumter, and refused to let supplies in, and as a consequence the US troops in the fort starved because they refused to vacate, would that be an act of war too?

Article 6.

Sorry. All the Supremacy Clause means is that (constitutional) federal laws are superior to state laws. That has nothing to do with the question of secession, because Congress can't pass a law in violation of the 10th Amendment.

And I never did judge Lincoln solely on that basis, did I?

OK, my mistake.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
If the federal government claims to have authority over the individual militias then the 2nd amendment is a farse. UNLESS they are used with the permission of the states and the people to fight a common enemy.

Article One, Section 8 again:

"15 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to discipline prescribed by Congress;"

It is certainly within the perview of Congress to use state militias. So the federal government does indeed have control over them. And notice how it's the federal government's responsibility to arm them.

Consent of the state is not needed.

[Sava]

Slowwhand, the DEA (a federal agency) enforces Federal Drug laws. All the legalization for Nevada means is that State and local authorities won't arrest people. The DEA would still have the authority as outlined by the Federal Illegal Substances Act to arrest people and charge them with Federal crimes.

I don't agree with it by any means, but that's the way the ball bounces.

Drake Tungsten, considering you know zip about the Balkans I'm not going to dignify your ignorance with another response. I made my points. Ask MarkG, paiktis, or anyone else living in the region to tell you the truth since you obviously don't believe me.

MrFun, like you've never thread-jacked before

It's already obviously that David and SLowwhand are ignorant backwoods slackjawed Texans. Boris, remember your old signature?

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake Tungsten, considering you know zip about the Balkans I'm not going to dignify your ignorance with another response. I made my points. Ask MarkG, paiktis, or anyone else living in the region to tell you the truth since you obviously don't believe me.

Very clever. You claim that I know nothing about the Balkans so that you don't have to expose your own ignorance anymore. It isn't true, but it provides you with a convenient way out. Nice work, shooter.

You're still the one who claimed that your "Serbian brothers and sisters have been right on", however. So who's the ignorant one here? Or are you still claiming that the Serbian atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo are just "Western propaganda"?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Why not? And it isn't off topic, because it helps to establish whether or not you actually believe that original intent stuff, or if you were just using it in this one case.

Original intent matters, but is very hard to discern, and you will be hard pressed to find a consistent point of view from the Founding Fathers on issues. It's a matter of opinion and who one choosed to look to for their intent.

I don't see why. If a state came in of its own free will, it can leave of its own free will.

Texas aside, most states not in the original 13 were Federal territority before becoming states. They were the recipient of millions in Federal dollars and largesse. In this light, one can view the granting of statehood and all of its benefits as also a bit of largesse from America. Then, should the state secede, it is, in effect, stealing territory that was property of the American people.

And let's not forget that in many of those states, you can't speak for the free will of the people, as only the will of white male voters was being considered, and even that was not unanimously in favor of of secession. What about the ardently Unionist areas of Alabama, Florida, N. Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, where it was dangerous to travel during the war if you were a Confederate? What about E. Tennessee, where the confederates had to occupy it by force to prevent it from following w. Virginia in sticking with the Union? All over the South refused to accept secession. What about Winn Parish, LA, or Winston County, AL, or Jones County, MS? What about their free will?

And then there's the free will and natural rights of the black populations, and the non-voting women...

How is speaking against a war an insurrection?

Insurrection is simply a rising up against established authority. The Federal Government was the established authority, superior to the state government. Firing on Ft. Sumter and seizing arsenals was indeed insurrection.

This is the whole point of the argument. The nation of Germany, for example, could force, say, Italy, to vacate the Italian embassy. Yes, the embassy is Italian soil, but only for as long as Italy occupies the embassy. If Germany asks Italy to leave, they have to leave. If Italy refuses to leave, I see no reason why Germany couldn't use force to close the embassy.

And I disagree. AFAIK, the U.S. secures the territory of embassies (and possibly bases, I don't know) via treaty/agreement with the nation it is in, and that nation agrees the land is sovereign U.S. soil. That's why people can claim asylum when they breech the U.S. embassy compound. I don't know how Italy works, but in the above scenario if it were the U.S. instead, I don't think Germany would have any legal right to demand the personal leave the embassy any more than they could demand I leave New York. Realistically, the U.S. would probably (depending on the situation) acquiesce anyway, but should it choose to refuse, it would be within it its rights to do so. Should Germany seize the Embassy by force then, it would be an act of war.

At any rate, the states willfully entered into the Union, and in doing so willfully and deliberately ceded some of their sovereign territory to the federal government, and there is no provision to make this revocable. It was part of the deal of becoming a state that such land would cease to be theirs. It was not on lease or loan, as there are seperate provisions the Federal government undertakes for leasing state land. That land was the U.S. Government's, and the South committed an act of insurrection/war when attacking it.

And let me ask you this, just out of curiosity. If South Carolina had blockaded Ft Sumter, and refused to let supplies in, and as a consequence the US troops in the fort starved because they refused to vacate, would that be an act of war too?

First, I have no idea the status of the water ways around Ft Sumter at the time of the insurrection. If the Federal government had claimed waters that gave it access to the Fort, then no. Barring that, such a blockade would have certainly been far more legal than firing on it. However, assuming the soldiers died of starvation and SC troops then entered the Fort and seized it, that would be an act of insurrection/war.

But no, I don't think blockading it would be legal, either. It is still an attack, albeit perhaps indirect, on, Federal property. And wouldn't they have to attack Federal ships attempting to break the blockade?

Sorry. All the Supremacy Clause means is that (constitutional) federal laws are superior to state laws. That has nothing to do with the question of secession, because Congress can't pass a law in violation of the 10th Amendment.

I was referring to the Oath, wherein all those guys who voted for secession had previously sworn, "bound by Oath of Affirmation," to support the Constitution. There therefore had no legal ability whatsoever to vote for secession, as it would be illegally removing themselves from that Oath. I don't accept poo-pooing of the Oath, as some do, as a mere formality that they could just toss aside.

Secession may not be illegal in all circumstances, but the manner by which the CSA did it was indeed illegal, IMO. Had the states held referendums to secede, I would find their case much stronger. Had they not illegally attacked sovereign US territory, I also would give them a little modicum of more sympathy. Had that not been essentially trying to kidnap millions of people so they could continue to keep them in bondage, and in fact expand that bondage to other realms, they would get a lot more sympathy.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
It's already obviously that David and SLowwhand are ignorant backwoods slackjawed Texans. Boris, remember your old signature?

I don't believe either David or Slowwhand are idiots, just because I disagree with their positions.

[Sava]

uhmm, yeah...

the mass graves do exist, unfortunately for you (and Western propaganda) they are populated with the bodies of able bodied men that were killed in combat. The very few that are women and children were collateral damage from conflicts in which the Serbians were not the aggressors.

Hmmmm, and how about SLobo. Has he been convicted of anything? No... Why? Because they can't prove jacksh!t because they are flat out wrong. NATO f*cked up and they want to keep the story quiet. Funny how he's kind of fallen out of the media in the last year, isn't it?

Face it, miss, you're wrong, you're misinformed, and simply have a bad case of being a sore loser.

END Threadjack

(create a new thread if you want to continue to make yourself look even dumber)

[Sava]

Boris: no comment

Ming



I'm still waiting for them to start saying that FDR was a closet fascist and hated the Jews.

[Drake Tungsten]

We don't need to continue this. I think you've said quite enough already...