What rights do I have?

[Ben Kenobi]

Richmond, VA would also be an apt example. Manassas, Virginia would be an apt example. I've actually met a couple ignorant buffoons who are confederate apologists there (remember, I went to that re-enactment?). They aren't racist, just ignorant.

And you are somehow less ignorant?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's funny because the ordinances of secession specifically said the reason they were leaving was because they were worried Lincoln was going to take away der slaves.

Well we all know Lincoln freed the slaves. Right?

But nope the Confederacy was not a racist institution. And neo-confederate retards are not either spectacularly ignorant about the nature of the CSA or are racists themselves.

So I'm a racist because I believe that the Confederacy had every right to secede? Arguing that they had the right to do so is not the same as saying that I agree with their rationales for doing so.

[Dinner]

Bank of America and Chase want to charge you $10 a month just to have a checking account and Chase wants to charge you an additional $5 just to use your debit card. No thanks. Not interested. I use a local credit union where they don't charge anything to maintain a checking account, nothing to use your debit card, and they'll even refund $20 worth of fees each month if I use someone else's ATM and they charge me for it. Credit Unions are simply superior in every way.

[Lonestar]

Well we all know Lincoln freed the slaves. Right?

?

For someone who claims to have a degree in History you continue to impress even me with your levels of ignorance.

So I'm a racist because I believe that the Confederacy had every right to secede? Arguing that they had the right to do so is not the same as saying that I agree with their rationales for doing so.

No one has the right to secede in a Democracy/Republic unless:

(1)Both sides agree to it

(2)Their individual rights were being grossly violated. As it is the Rebs wanted to leave because they were worried that "The Yankees" were going to strip them of their "right" to own people, so cry me a effing river.

[Ben Kenobi]

For someone who claims to have a degree in History you continue to impress even me with your levels of ignorance.

Proclamation only applied to those slaves who were not under his jurisdiction. Wouldn't be till the Civil Rights act that they had all the same rights as every other citizen.

Go Lincoln! His motivation was never to free the slaves, but simply to preserve the union. If the Proclamation helped him prevent international recognition of the South without substantive change, then it did the job.

No one has the right to secede in a Democracy/Republic unless:

States enter into the US by passing a vote. They can leave the same way. If a state does not wish to be part of the US, they can vote to leave, as the South did.

(2)Their individual rights were being grossly violated. As it is the Rebs wanted to leave because they were worried that "The Yankees" were going to strip them of their "right" to own people, so cry me a effing river.

Right, because the North allowed slaves to vote, etc. Balderdash. They argued in favour of nullification, that a state could reject a federal bill if contrary to the interests of the state. When the North tried to hobble the South through punitive tariffs on Southern exports and imports, the South objected and tried to nullify the bill.

[Lonestar]

Proclamation only applied to those slaves who were not under his jurisdiction. Wouldn't be till the Civil Rights act that they had all the same rights as every other citizen.

Go Lincoln! His motivation was never to free the slaves, but simply to preserve the union. If the Proclamation helped him prevent international recognition of the South without substantive change, then it did the job.

What's your point here? I didn't say that Lincoln "freed the slaves" I said that the secession started because the Southern Leadership were afraid their 'right' to own people would be taken away.

States enter into the US by passing a vote. They can leave the same way. If a state does not wish to be part of the US, they can vote to leave, as the South did.

No Independent state has entered the US "by vote" since the original 13 besides, oh, Hawaii & Texas, unless you are seriously arguing that organized territories(oftentimes with appointed executives) were independent.

And no, they can't "vote to leave" unless the rest of the nation gives it's blessing.

Right, because the North allowed slaves to vote, etc. Balderdash. They argued in favour of nullification, that a state could reject a federal bill if contrary to the interests of the state. When the North tried to hobble the South through punitive tariffs on Southern exports and imports, the South objected and tried to nullify the bill.

Some Northern states allowed free blacks to vote, yes. I never made the claim that "the North allowed slaves to vote".

Of the 4 slave states that remained loyal, two had parallel pro-Confederate governments(Kentucky and Missouri) one had to be suppressed through sheer numbers of arriving Northern militia(Maryland) and the other had far and away the least amount of slaves in numbers and percentage of the population(Delaware). So it is completely reasonable to frame the struggle as "free states vs. slave states".


And I'm going to go ahead and give you ONE CHANCE to back off from the "nullification" argument. I'll even direct you to the SC Ordinance of secession for a starting point as to why that's a ****ing stupid and hypocritical argument to make:

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_south_carolina.html

Tell me if there's anything jumping out at you. I recommend you hit "find" on your browser and type in "nullify".

[Ben Kenobi]

What's your point here? I didn't say that Lincoln "freed the slaves"

That's true. You simply attacked me. Now you admit I was right. Glad to hear it.

I said that the secession started because the Southern Leadership were afraid their 'right' to own people would be taken away.

And I'm arguing that was one of their reasons. One among many. The rest of the articles of seccession go on to list their other grievances, including punitive tariffs on the industries in the South.

No Independent state has entered the US "by vote" since the original 13 besides, oh, Hawaii & Texas, unless you are seriously arguing that organized territories(oftentimes with appointed executives) were independent.

If it applies equally to Texas, then I don't see why it wouldn't also apply to every other state in the union. Due to the precedent set by TX and HI.

And no, they can't "vote to leave" unless the rest of the nation gives it's blessing.

The 10th says that they can. They retain the right to leave as sovereign states.

I never made the claim that "the North allowed slaves to vote".

So we have the South where they were slaves, and the North where they weren't 'slaves' but certainly not citizens....

Wow, now I totally understand why they went to war with each other. It's totally clear to me now.

Of the 4 slave states that remained loyal, two had parallel pro-Confederate governments(Kentucky and Missouri) one had to be suppressed through sheer numbers of arriving Northern militia(Maryland) and the other had far and away the least amount of slaves in numbers and percentage of the population(Delaware). So it is completely reasonable to frame the struggle as "free states vs. slave states".

Remind me, how does that whole principle work where the US can suppress the state legislature of MD? That's not exactly strengthening your position here.

And I'm going to go ahead and give you ONE CHANCE to back off from the "nullification" argument. I'll even direct you to the SC Ordinance of secession for a starting point as to why that's a ****ing stupid and hypocritical argument to make

Other then the fact that the 10th frickin' amendment in the Bill of Rights clearly states that powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government are state powers, nullification is a huge part of the constitution. Lincoln won, but he only did so because he basically set fire to the very constitution that he claimed to be defending.

And in the end, accomplished nothing. No slaves ever voted under his tenure, he laid waste to the South, so I guess if that was the goal, then he 'won'.

[giblets]

Ben, you're the best, really. No wait just kidding you're a ****ing moron with **** for brains. Richmond, VA would also be an apt example. Manassas, Virginia would be an apt example. I've actually met a couple ignorant buffoons who are confederate apologists there (remember, I went to that re-enactment?). They aren't racist, just ignorant.

You on the other hand are something else entirely.

It really is sad how some people will try to twist the facts to make Lincoln look bad when he freed most of the slaves and supported the thirteenth amendment.

[Ben Kenobi]

It really is sad how some people will try to twist the facts to make Lincoln look bad when he freed most of the slaves.

Really? Are you really, 'free', if you can't vote? Isn't that why the US rebelled anyways, taxation without representation?

[Lorizael]

If it applies equally to Texas, then I don't see why it wouldn't also apply to every other state in the union. Due to the precedent set by TX and HI.

The South could secede legally due to the precedent set by Hawaii. You're awesome, BK.

[Hauldren Collider]

The South could secede legally due to the precedent set by Hawaii. You're awesome, BK.

[Ben Kenobi]

The South could secede legally due to the precedent set by Hawaii. You're awesome, BK

We were discussing the states outside of the original 13, but nice try.

Last I checked GA, SC, NC, VA were in that original 13.

[Lonestar]

That's true. You simply attacked me. Now you admit I was right. Glad to hear it.

Hold on Ben. I said:

"It's funny because the ordinances of secession specifically said the reason they were leaving was because they were worried Lincoln was going to take away der slaves."

and you said:

"Well we all know Lincoln freed the slaves. Right?"


So, rather than addressing that racist ****** who wanted to own people was the root cause of the ACW, you got butthurt and, frankly, given other whoppers you've made in the past, I was unwilling to extend you the benefit of the doubt that you were being sarcastic.

And I'm arguing that was one of their reasons. One among many. The rest of the articles of seccession go on to list their other grievances, including punitive tariffs on the industries in the South.

It is the reason. Again and again and again. No other states other than slave ones whined about "punitive tariffs". No other states besides the slave ones resolved to use armed force if they didn't get their way, probably a reflection of the need of the South being an armed camp in order to rapidly suppress slave insurrections.

It is freaking amazing that resource extraction and agro-economies outside of the South managed to never threatened to go to use armed over "punitive tariffs", but, by what I'm sure you think is an incredible divine coincidence, only the slave states did.

If it applies equally to Texas, then I don't see why it wouldn't also apply to every other state in the union. Due to the precedent set by TX and HI.

(1)Seriously? Just how stupid are you?

(2)No you know what? I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I thought I would after the first response in this post, but I've decided against it.

Ben, even if I were to accept that Texas had the right to walk out(and I don't, even the Texan ordinance of secession explicitly said they "surrendered their sovereignty" to the US) none of the other states in the lower 48(minus ht eoriginal 13) were independent in any meaningful sense. They survived on Federal largess until they got to the point where they could stand on their own. Some oddbal conquistadors didn't head out to unclaimed land and make a new country, they headed out to land claimed by the government in DC, protected by the government in DC, and within the economic walled garden of the government in DC. Many of these territories were never independent. The closest you might get would be the Mormon state of Deseret. But Young jettisoned that real quick after the Mexican War was over.

The 10th says that they can. They retain the right to leave as sovereign states.

Nope, it sure doesn't. In fact, there is no amendment that contradicts that the Federal judiciary is the final word in regards "to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;"(Article 3, Section 2)

So we have the South where they were slaves, and the North where they weren't 'slaves' but certainly not citizens....

Yes, because in your universe Chattel slavery is exactly the same as not having full citizenship.

Of course you think any form of taxation is slavery.

Wow, now I totally understand why they went to war with each other. It's totally clear to me now.

Remind me, how does that whole principle work where the US can suppress the state legislature of MD? That's not exactly strengthening your position here.

Man it's almost as if the Constitution(or the Amendments) didn't mention rebellion or have a context that indicated that "rebellion was bad" and sometimes extraordinary measures were needed.

WHOOPS


And yes, it is strengthening my argument that the conflict was a Slave State vs. Free One. If swarms of outside Militia were needed to pacify the state to prevent secession, and no such action was needed in non-slave states, then that's kinda a pattern, isn't it? One that we can derive a conclusion from?

Other then the fact that the 10th frickin' amendment in the Bill of Rights clearly states that powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government are state powers, nullification is a huge part of the constitution.

Nope, it isn't.

In fact, you dishonest turd, by trotting this out you are indicating that you either didn't check the SC Ordinance of Secession, even after I provided you the link, or you have just chosen to ignore it. So I'm going to spell it out

THE SOUTH ONLY CARED ABOUT NULLIFICATION WHEN IT BENEFITED THEM. IT ****ING SAYS SO RIGHT IN THE ORDINANCE WHERE THEY ***** ABOUT FREE STATES NULLIFYING THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACTS.

But hey, I know that you are all about ignoring raging hypocrisy, so maybe you need an expert to on the Constitution and the meaning of it to tell all about whether or not nullification is Constitutional. But man, who would know, without a shadow of a doubt, what the words of the Constitution mean?

Boy if only there was someway to go back in time and ask the primary author what...wait, you mean someone did?

James Mothereffing Madison

I have recd your very kind letter of the 6th, from Washington, and by the same mail a copy of your late Speech in the Senate, for which I tender my thanks. I have found as I expected, that it takes a very able and enlightening view of its subject. I wish it may have the effect of reclaiming to the doctrine & language held by all from the birth of the Constitution, & till very lately by themselves, those who now Contend that the States have never parted with an Atom of their sovereignty, and consequently that the Constitutional band which holds them together, is a mere league or partnership, without any of the characteristics of sovereignty or nationality.

It seems strange that it should be necessary to disprove this novel and nullifying doctrine, and stranger still that those who deny it should be denounced as Innovators, heretics & Apostates. Our political system is admitted to be a new Creation — a real nondescript. Its character therefore must be sought within itself, not in precedents, because there are none, not in writers whose comments are guided by precedents. Who can tell at present how Vattel and others of that class, would have qualified (in the Gallic sense of the term) a Compound & peculiar system with such an example of it as ours before them.

What can be more preposterous than to say that the States as united, are in no respect or degree, a Nation, which implies sovereignty, altho' acknowledged to be such by all other Nations & Sovereigns, and maintaining with them, all the international relations, of war & peace, treaties, commerce, &c, and, on the other hand and at the same time, to say that the States separately are compleatly nations & sovereigns, although they can separately neither speak nor harken to any other nation, nor maintain with it any of the international relations whatever and would be disowned as Nations if presenting themselves in that character.

The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.

The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?

Oh well, I guess that the pro-nullifying crowd(like you) are just full of **** when claiming that the Constitution supports Nullification.

[DaShi]

If you stop talking to him, he'll go away.

[Ben Kenobi]

I was unwilling to extend you the benefit of the doubt that you were being sarcastic.

So again, because you have a low opinion of me you assume I don't know anything. How's that working out for you so far? If you are arguing that Lincoln believed in racial equality, etc, that's hardly true. He was against giving slaves the right to vote and while he 'freed' them, had no intention of actually enforcing it, or putting it in such a way that it couldn't be rolled back. Lincoln's legacy is the hundred of thousands of his countrymen dead, while a nation like England managed to ban slavery peacefully.

I see no reason why it could not have also been done peacefully in the US. Had they been willing to compensate the south for their losses, the issue would likely have been over. Sure, some would not have liked it but the whole issue could have been wrapped up. Instead, Lincoln did his best to escalate the situation, go to war and devastate the south. The South is still recovering. It was never about 'freeing' the slaves, everything about crippling the South.

It is the reason.

Had the North been willing to compensate the South, the whole issue would have been over. Why did they not? Remember, Great Britian had banned the slave trade. They had no way to get more of them.

No other states other than slave ones whined about "punitive tariffs".

That's because the only tariffs imposed were on Southern industries. Why would northern industries complain about tariffs enacted to crush the South? They were the prime beneficiaries.

No other states besides the slave ones resolved to use armed force if they didn't get their way, probably a reflection of the need of the South being an armed camp in order to rapidly suppress slave insurrections.

Entirely false. The North, rather then letting the South go, decided to invade. Or rather, Lincoln did, because Buchanan explicitly refused to go to war with the South over their legitimate secession.

It is freaking amazing that resource extraction and agro-economies outside of the South managed to never threatened to go to use armed over "punitive tariffs", but, by what I'm sure you think is an incredible divine coincidence, only the slave states did.

Well duh, because their industries weren't hit by the tariffs. That was the whole point of the tariffs, to kill the southern industries.

Ben, even if I were to accept that Texas had the right to walk out(and I don't, even the Texan ordinance of secession explicitly said they "surrendered their sovereignty" to the US)

Every state has this right under the 10th amendment to secede. Including TX. That TX voted to join the United States, and grant considerable territory to it, is part of the agreement to pay off their debts. If Texas wanted to leave, they could.

none of the other states in the lower 48(minus ht eoriginal 13) were independent in any meaningful sense.

Which doesn't mean they as states have fewer rights than the other states. Each state has the same rights and privileges as any other.

They survived on Federal largess until they got to the point where they could stand on their own. Some oddbal conquistadors didn't head out to unclaimed land and make a new country, they headed out to land claimed by the government in DC, protected by the government in DC, and within the economic walled garden of the government in DC. Many of these territories were never independent. The closest you might get would be the Mormon state of Deseret. But Young jettisoned that real quick after the Mexican War was over.

Oregon Territory? Oklahoma Territory? Arizona and New Mexico territory? Even Alaska. Those are probably the big ones that had significant existence prior to their formation as a state. All of them have very different histories and very different relationships with the federal government. I don't really see how the argument that they are a 'creation of the federal government' has any bearing on their authority as a state.

Nope, it sure doesn't. In fact, there is no amendment that contradicts that the Federal judiciary is the final word in regards "to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party

So let's start telling the truth here. It's got nothing to do with slavery. Nothing to do with racism. Everything to do with federalism. You want a big-all powerful Washington DC, and I'm siding with the states. That is why we will not agree on the War of Northern Aggression, because you believe the federal government has all the power and the states just rubber stamp. I don't see how the founders intended to strip the states of the rights that they possessed prior to the Union.

Yes, because in your universe Chattel slavery is exactly the same as not having full citizenship.

Well considering that income taxation was enacted on those who could not vote, yeah, the North was *really* opposed to slavery. No, it was never about slavery, only over ownership. The North wanted the Southern slaves, and they won, so they got to take the spoils.

Lincoln et al could have tried to do what Wilberforce did, but he just didn't care enough to enact the reforms peacefully. It never was about the well-being of the slaves.

Of course you think any form of taxation is slavery.

Income taxation, yes. Someone comes along and says I must pay them part of my labor or I will get thrown in jail. At least slaves were well taken care of by their masters.

Man it's almost as if the Constitution(or the Amendments) didn't mention rebellion or have a context that indicated that "rebellion was bad" and sometimes extraordinary measures were needed.

Never mind that whole constitution. Lets suspend habeaus corpus (which he did), override the MD legislature (which he did). What is this 'constitution' think he was standing up for? Extraordinary measures, sure. But is that so different than what King George did? At least King George didn't burn New York.

And yes, it is strengthening my argument that the conflict was a Slave State vs. Free One. If swarms of outside Militia were needed to pacify the state to prevent secession, and no such action was needed in non-slave states, then that's kinda a pattern, isn't it? One that we can derive a conclusion from?

Uh, is your side really the 'free' state side, if you have to send in the militia to override the vote of the MD legislature because you worry it will go against your desires? Seems to me the 'free state' side was the South, since they were standing up for the rights of states. Everyone else was yoked to Washington DC, come hell or high water.

Nope, it isn't.

Checks and balances. The Feds just can't take a dump on states that it doesn't like.

THE SOUTH ONLY CARED ABOUT NULLIFICATION WHEN IT BENEFITED THEM.

And the North adhered to nullifying the constitution when it suited them. Both sides adhered to the principle that the states can nullify federal laws that they don't like when it suits them. It was the North, that suspended habeaus corpus. It was the North that enacted martial law to override the legislature of Maryland.

Oh well, I guess that the pro-nullifying crowd(like you) are just full of **** when claiming that the Constitution supports Nullification.

Gee, I guess because Madison wrote the whole constitution himself. Perhaps I should quote George Mason.