 |
| |
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Ethelred,
One that disagrees with you? Can't have that, can we? |
Pot meet kettle.
quote:
Actually the USA started the war by attempting to resupply US troops in CSA territory, and refusing to withdraw said troops, and by invading Virginia. |
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.
Especially since it didn't exist in January.
quote:
What does that matter? The concept of slavery essentially means forced labor, and there's no way you can say that conscription is not forced labor. |
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.
quote:
Approximately 160,000 CSA, 360,000 USA deaths, in addition to thousands of civilians. |
Still the responsibility of the people that caused the war.
quote:
Not to mention thousands more who were displaced and had their lives ruined by William T. Sherman, who was much more a war criminal than Slobodan Milosevic. |
Hardly. Milosevic was intentionly killing people in a campaign of extermination. 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. Slavery by the way does fit genocide. Fifty percent of the victims died on the way over. Lots more in the US after they were sold as well.
quote:
And all this because Lincoln had an inferiority complex about his penis size, and wouldn't dream of letting people exercise their Constitutional rights in order to avoid all that slaughter. |
I suspect he may have a bit better endowed than you imagine. Large people in general are better endowed.
Any claim to a right to secede is questionable at best. 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. Some even before the states in question had seceded so they had violated the constitution even before attempting to secede.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I also find it amusing that there are those the hold up Lincoln as the Emancipator without realizing what that Emancipation Proclimation actually did. It freed slaves in the states STILL IN REBELLION. |
I find it amusing you think you are the only one aware of this.
quote:
It did nothing for slaves that were in states that were readmitted to the Union by that time. Why? Because Lincoln didn't want to ruffle any feathers in the North. |
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. Whats amazing is that you knew that last part yet were unable to realize what it meant regarding the Emancipation Proclamation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Well, let's see what happens when it isn't in his political interest to free blacks.
For instance, he didn't support abolition in DC when the vote came. Nor did he oppose the Fugitive Slave Act. And he counter-manded Fremont's orders when he tried to emancipate slaves in Missouri. And he allowed Halleck to forbid slaves to enter his army lines. Etc., etc. |
All those actions were legaly correct. Freed slaves had to be paid for. Its in the Constitution regarding property rights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
No he didn't. Even if one assumes that the CSA was NOT sovereign, |
No assumption is needed. They had to win the war to be sovereign.
quote:
Lincoln still could not act in that way without Congress at the bare minimum (and personally, I don't think the federal government had any way to act at all, at least Constitutionally). |
Wrong. He had the power in revolting states to do pretty much anything under martial law. The properties of rebels are automaticly forfeit. All he really did was formalize that fact.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Yes it is. Who owned the federal forts after secession determines who started the war. And that involves minor legal sematnics. |
Again hardly minor considering the number of deaths that ensued.
quote:
Conscription is a type of slavery. There's nothing loaded about what I wrote. |
Well now its just fraud instead of loaded. Glad we get down to the essentials there.
quote:
Nor are paranoid ramblings. |
I have been leaving that sort of thing to you. You are very good at it. My hat and even some hair is off to you.
I can always hope that parnoid people can learn better.
quote:
The people of Catalonia would disagree. |
Did they get to vote on it? And did they really intend to have no government at all. I take they were mostly farmers then and had no cities or infrastructure to speak of.
quote:
What do you consider a government? And why is it relevant if you don't consider thre to be governments in these examples? |
If they had a government then they weren't anarchists. Libertarians maybe.
quote:
You don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Anarchism in Catalonia lead to plenty of innovation, prosperity, etc. Why do you say that there were no viable economic systems in the cases I pointed out? |
How about you give a link or three covering them?
After all the cases are hardly common knowledge.
quote:
While the smart response is another insult, obviously. You must be a goddamn genius given the amount of insulting you do around here. |
Thank you for your support in this matter. You did just call me paranoid now didn't you. Can I add hypocrite to your list of qualities now?
Frankly my responce was much funnier than yours was.
quote:
He imposed his oppressive system of protective tariffs. Of course, the South likely would've gone the same way, eventually. |
Esecially since they did so even before he was in office. He didn't impose anything untill AFTER he was in office. He couldn't. Not even Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin managed to pass laws till they had the power in hand.
quote:
I don't see it guaranteed that the South would balkanize if there wasn't any invasion. |
The US was being balkinized. I really don't care to speculate a lot about what would have happened with the South but it did set seccesion as both a precedent and a clear legal right for States. What would Texas have done if the rest of the South finally figured out that slavery was a bad thing? Its articles of Seccesion were by far the most strongly pro slavery.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
What do you think ownership is, but legal control? Conscription is government slavery. |
The government can't sell you. They can't keep you forever either. Trying to redefine things is the sort of thing I am used in arguing with Creationists. They love to reinvent words so they can have different and unusual meanings than others use. Makes is easier to obfuscate the issues.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Again hardly minor considering the number of deaths that ensued. |
Whoever started the war comes down to legal semantics. It's that simple.
quote:
Did they get to vote on it? |
Yes... You don't seem to understand what anarcho-syndicalism (the prevalent doctrine in Catalonia at the time) is. Look it up.
quote:
And did they really intend to have no government at all. |
You never defined what you think a government is. You seem to be touchy about that kind of stuff. I think they definitely had a government.
quote:
I take they were mostly farmers then and had no cities or infrastructure to speak of. |
Ever hear of a city called Barcelona, you know the capital of Catalonia? Catalonia was the most industrialized area of Spain.
quote:
If they had a government then they weren't anarchists. Libertarians maybe. |
1. That depends upon the definition of government.
2. I don't think you understand what anarchism is in the least.
quote:
How about you give a link or three covering them? |
The only online link I can recall is the the Anarchist FAQ (look it up in google). I believe it covers all three, as well as other examples.
quote:
Thank you for your support in this matter. You did just call me paranoid now didn't you. Can I add hypocrite to your list of qualities now? |
I never said I never insult. I don't consider it a civil response, but some times it's warranted in the case of *******s such as yourself.
I was pointing out that insulting without reason is a far more idiotic than ignoring an assinine assertion. Particularly when you obviously are completely ignorant about what you're insulting.
quote:
Esecially since they did so even before he was in office. He didn't impose anything untill AFTER he was in office. He couldn't. Not even Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin managed to pass laws till they had the power in hand. |
What are you on about now? Did some Southerner rape you when you were a kid?
Think about what you're reading and what you're writing for a minute.
All I'm saying is that if Lincoln didn't invade the South, Southern farmers wouldn't be subsidizing industrialists in the short term.
quote:
I really don't care to speculate a lot about what would have happened with the South but it did set seccesion as both a precedent and a clear legal right for States. |
And I'd find it very unlikely that the US would allow another state to peacefully secede.
quote:
What would Texas have done if the rest of the South finally figured out that slavery was a bad thing? Its articles of Seccesion were by far the most strongly pro slavery. |
I see it very likely that Texas would try to secede from the South, given that it would industrialize later (and slavery would die out later, given the large supply of land) than the rest of the South. However, I see it far more likely that the CSA would forcefully prevent secession than not.
Last edited by Ramo on 04-09-2002 at 21:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
The Republicans of that era would be the Democrats of today. Comparing the neo-fascist right wing organization known as the GOP to the Republicans of the mid to late 19th century is false. They share little more than a name. |
Point number one; you are over simplifying the political culture of the United States of the mid 19th century, with today's policial culture.
Point number two; you are right though, when you say that the Republican party of the mid 19th century is not like today's Republican party.
And Imran, the issue over slavery began from the days of our revolution, with our Declaration of Independence.
Southern Congressional leaders threatened to kill the revolution by not fighting for independence, when Jeffereson originally proposed a passage in the Declaration of Independence, condeming the slave trade.
Jefferson then deleted the passage in the face of blackmail by Southern Congressional leaders.
Historians continue to argue whether or not the Northwest Ordinance set a legal precedent for all future western territories in regards to slavery by settling who had the power to restrict slavery, or if that specific ordinance only applied to the old northwestern territories.
Southern states argued FOR a STRONGER federal government, in terms of forcing Northern states to return slave fugitives who have fled to the Northern states.
Southern leaders argued for a weaker government only when it was convenient for them, and then for a stronger federal government when it was in their best interest.
So to how much of an extent was states' rights not the real issue, and merely a facade??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:22
|
|
quote:
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! 
quote:
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!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
quote:
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  )
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
All that said, go back and read your Civics 101 again.
|
I suggest you bone up on Article VI of the Constitution, sirrah. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
Ethelred,
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
quote:
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.
quote:
Hardly. Milosevic was intentionly killing people in a campaign of extermination. |
Says you.
quote:
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.
quote:
Any claim to a right to secede is questionable at best. |
Questionable if you can't read the 10th Amendment, I suppose.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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,
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
Boris,
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2002 10:34
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.
.
|