States' Rights

[Al B. Sure!]

it should be noted that the reduction of state's rights did not come the passing of any law but just from practical issues... in order to accept federal funding (which is extremely enticing considering how few taxes states bring in), states would have to accept certain conditions. Southern states wanting funding to build roads and schools and what not had to de-segregate according to the federal gov't. that was how segregation ended.

just an aside to clarify some things... states have all the same powers they always had except they've traded them in for money.


thanks

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
just an aside to clarify some things... states have all the same powers they always had except they've traded them in for money.

Apparently, you haven't noticed how much legislative authority Congress reserves to itself under theories of regulating activities affecting interstate commerce.

Ashcroft decides that regardless of what a state legislature chooses for it's people, the Feds will prosecute medicinal marijuana users under Federal law, state law be damned. (Even though there's no authority for the Federal law outside an interstate commerce or foreign trade connection)

The Feds appropriate tens of billions in gasoline taxes, then tell states if they don't want to be denied those Federal funds (collected in their state) for highway maintenance and construction, the state has to comply with completely unrelated Federal directives.

Civil rights weren't enforced by unfunded mandates, they're enforced by either voluntary compliance, or by court order. In most of those cases, the Constutional authority for civil rights legislation is clearly reserved to the Federal government and applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Tell you what Speer - why don't you try learning something first, if you want to branch out beyond your normal troll threads.

[Ned]

Mr Fun, While you may not be great fan of states rights, what do you think about states that legalize things like gambling, prostitutiion, gay marriages and pot smoking? I think states can still buck a national trend on these issues and be supported by the Supreme Court. For example, California has all but legalized the use of marijuana. Yet, the federal prosecutors still try to prosecute California dopers. This raises the constitutional question of whether a federal statute illegalizing the use of marijuana is constitutional in the first place as an infringement upon states rights.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

The US just intends to conquer them, then allow them to pick a range of candidates we consider friendly enough to our interests. Do you honest-to-God think we're going to let them run for office a Shiite fundamentalist party who wants an alliance with Iran, for example?

No, but we have an excuse. Europe dropped the ball and forced us into this role. America never had a desire to interfere in global politics but the inexcusable actions of European nations gave us no choice.

Now the pissy Europeans have the nerve to criticize us. Really grinds my axe.

Going back over the last 500 years you see a long procession of European wars and imperialist conquests. Spain in South America. England all over the place. The French in North America. European colonies in Africa, Asia, Austrailia.

Just a big European party. But they never got enough power, couldn't get along. War, war, war. Finally we have WW1&2, in both cases America is dragged in.

The net result was the total destruction of the European powers as world players and America left holding the bag as the sole defender of the world against the Soviet menace.

Now that the Soviets have passed from the stage America is the only kid on the block that can stand up to the bully boys of the world and when we do, not for ourselves so much as for world stability, the Europeans have the gall to call us warmongers.

Europeans can go piss in their hats for all I care.

[TCO]

What prevented Lincoln from leaving slavery in the defeated Southern states? I have a hard time not beleiving that the fight was about slavery.

[Ned]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


No, but we have an excuse. Europe dropped the ball and forced us into this role. America never had a desire to interfere in global politics but the inexcusable actions of European nations gave us no choice.

Now the pissy Europeans have the nerve to criticize us. Really grinds my axe.

Going back over the last 500 years you see a long procession of European wars and imperialist conquests. Spain in South America. England all over the place. The French in North America. European colonies in Africa, Asia, Austrailia.

Just a big European party. But they never got enough power, couldn't get along. War, war, war. Finally we have WW1&2, in both cases America is dragged in.

The net result was the total destruction of the European powers as world players and America left holding the bag as the sole defender of the world against the Soviet menace.

Now that the Soviets have passed from the stage America is the only kid on the block that can stand up to the bully boys of the world and when we do, not for ourselves so much as for world stability, the Europeans have the gall to call us warmongers.

Europeans can go piss in their hats for all I care.

This just about sums it up, doesn't it?

Actually, though, the Europeans have placed anti-colonism, anti-imperialism and anti-rightism on an altar an bow and genuflect to it. They are suffering a severe reaction to the horrors of the two world wars caused in their view by their own colonialism, imperialism and rightism.

But of course they are right to react against their past, but not to the degree they have. Western civilization, on the whole, including colonianism, imperialism and rightism, was a good thing, not a bad thing. It certainly spread Western civilization far and wide. Their accomplishments are to be applauded.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Several things.

One was the manpower needs (plus a little politicking) that brought 180,000 blacks into Union uniforms. First, there was the abolitionist raised 1st Kansas Colored Volunteer Infantry, then the 54th Massachusetts Infantry. Partly because some states were reluctant to raise colored regiments, and because others were too political, most of the rest of the blacks in uniform were incorporated into the USCT. (Still paid less than whites, and mostly ineligible for commissioning)

It would be pretty tough to justify keeping slaves (or any rhetoric about same) while trying to recruit tens of thousands of blacks to fight for you.

Another was foreign policy - always mismanaged by the Confederacy, Lincoln outmaneuvered the CSA on the entire question of foreign recognition when he indicated that the Union was moving toward abolition.

Yet another was punishment - after the Emancipation Proclamation, which gave the southern states roughly 100 days to come back to daddy and keep their slaves, the south didn't respond real well. Allowing them to keep slaves after continued defiance would be seen as weak, and would maintain the plantation elites in positions of wealth. (Not that most didn't adapt)

Another issue was political concessions to abolitionists - as the war dragged on, Lincoln needed more from the abolitionists in his administration and in the Congress - the Blairs, Butler, Stanton, Seward.

Another was pressure from the abolitionist press, again, as the war dragged on, Lincoln's policies were more and more under question.

Had McClellan ended things in July of 1862, as he should have, there would have been far less impetus to address slavery - especially with the border states still being slave states, and abolitionist sentiment still being a minority issue.

The real transformation in slavery attitudes and the will to do something about it took place from the election periods in 1862 until the 1864 election, so they evolved over the course of the war.

[Capt Dizle]

Always impressed with volume and clarity of MTG's memory.

Here is something for GP.

" a military necessity, absolutely essential for the preservation of the Union. We must free the slaves or ourselves be subdued. The slaves were undeniably an element of strength to those who had their service, and we must decide whether that element should be with us or against us."

by Abe Lincoln to Seward and Welles prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. Quote from "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson.

[Capt Dizle]

And MTG is right in regard to England, as they had abolished slavery there was a real source of opposition to recognizing the Confederacy.

Plus, idiotic Southern policy to refuse England cotton in an effort to force recognition backfired. The shortage of cotton closed mills in England and caused much ill will. It also led English mills to find alternate sources for cotton which left the cotton wizards of the South plumb **** out of influence. Bad politics.

[MichaeltheGreat]

We had the best possible generals, (with a few exceptions) and the worst possible politicians (with almost no exceptions).

The CSA should have shipped out every damn bale of cotton, and bought up arms by the shipload before the Yankees had a chance to get their blockade in place. Could you imagine what a state of the art armed and fully equiped ANV could do under Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet?

The Yankee government would have sued for peace from the provisional capital at Augusta, Maine.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Now Mr Fun, it's your turn.

You really need to work on your anti-southern trolls, because the linguistic and logical sloppiness doesn't even make them much of a challenge.

You mention "legitimate states rights arguments" and "states right's arguments" and your relative degree of respect or whatever for them. Let's talk about "legitimate air arguments" and "air arguments" instead, shall we? Those terms make just as much sense. State's rights in the US historical perspective is not an abstract concept or philosophy. It is an absolute fact.

The states met as independent entities, and chose what powers to delegate to a limited government between themselves, and further chose that that government had no more authority than that granted by the states. The structure of the common government was agreed to by the states, and the limitations on a state's powers with respect to other states were also agreed to by the states.

The sovereignty issue is clear, and as the states were sovereign, the independent existence of their legal "rights" as sovereign states is also clear. There are no "states rights arguments." There are only states rights retained by the states, and former states rights delegated to the Federal government, or waived.

When you read primary sources of letters and newspapers from the respective periods, you will see that everytime attempts were made towards racial equality, Southern white leaders would bring up the issue of states' rights. This was a tactic used to preserve white supremacy.

So what part of that does not make sense?

And yes, states' rights has always been more than philosphical ideas -- it's a concrete part of our nation's history. There were times when concerns over states' rights were legitimate, but then there were other times, such as when movement towards racial equality were made -- that using states' rights as a tactic for white supremacy was not legitimate.

And you mentioned things about the Civil War that I have studied many times already and have knowledge of. The preservation of the Union was paramount -- only later in the midst of the Civil War, did Lincoln realize that the test of whether democracy can work in the world would not succeed if the nation remained half free, and half enslaved. It was also, as you mentioned, a great foreign relations manuever.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun


When you read primary sources of letters and newspapers from the respective periods, you will see that everytime attempts were made towards racial equality, Southern white leaders would bring up the issue of states' rights. This was a tactic used to preserve white supremacy.

So what part of that does not make sense?

So states like Michigan and California invoked states rights to justify restrictive covenants and anti-Chinese laws, etc.? Interesting.

The notion of white supremacy was inherent in our northern European origins. Giving ex-slaves incentives (good or otherwise) to return to Africa, conquering somewhere in Central America to deport them to, yadda yadda blah blah, were all mainstream ideas among many semi-abolitionists. Very few who opposed the notion of slavery really thought of blacks (or even poor whites) as full social and political equals.

The real notion of equality is something from the 20th century, not the 19th, with very, very few individual exceptions, and no policy exceptions.

[Ramo]

When you read primary sources of letters and newspapers from the respective periods, you will see that everytime attempts were made towards racial equality, Southern white leaders would bring up the issue of states' rights. This was a tactic used to preserve white supremacy.

So what part of that does not make sense?

No, Southern leaders used federal authority (see the Fugitive Slave Act or the attempts at forcing new states to be slave states) and state authority whenever it proved advantageous to their interests. The Northern leaders did exactly the same thing. And these interests weren't limited to slavery, but also included import tariffs, industrial subsidies, etc.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by MrFun


When you read primary sources of letters and newspapers from the respective periods, you will see that everytime attempts were made towards racial equality, Southern white leaders would bring up the issue of states' rights. This was a tactic used to preserve white supremacy.

So what part of that does not make sense?

As said before the notion of white supremacy was nearly universal both north and south and the idea of equality would appall 98% of northerners so none of it makes sense to me. Southern white leaders were concerned about their economic issues not white supremacy.

However, politicians always use scare tactics and the image of blacks as equals would no doubt raise the rabble. This is just the same as the standard Democratic scare tactic use to get the elderly vote out. "The Republicans are going to eliminate your Social Security". Which of course the Democrats know won't happen but its a tool they use.

I would like to read some of those papers and such, no doubt a collection handpicked by revisionist intent on maintaining the myth of the great Northern Cause.

But I can keep an open mind.

[MichaeltheGreat]