 |
| |
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:25
|
|
JohnT:
don't forget that Sava is also a drug user and probably a sex fiend...
Mr. Fun:
But like I said... local gov't works better. furthermore, a local gov't can protect local issues. It is conceivable that a non-federlist national gov't would be dominated by people on the east coast and passing laws that would be extremely detrimental to people out in Montana and Wyoming. State's rights perserves their right to have a voice in their governing.
a national gov't would also hamper the rights of minority groups, especially minority groups who are clustered in certain specific areas. Mexican-Americans who make up a considerable percentage of the population of California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas can have significant influence on the laws of those states... on a national level, however, Mexicans would be unrepresented. The same could be said of other groups.
once again, Mr.Fun, you seem to be only in favour of racist policies without even knowing it...
thanks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Have you noticed how efficient the Europeans are at nabbing terrorists? I think it may be because each country has an integrated police system. Here in the US terrorists and criminals easily make use of the lack of integration of the various sate and local police to evade detaection.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
THat's okay, I don't care what a Nazi and a silly troll think of me. JohnT, you seriously need some help man if you're going to get all pissed at me  I wonder how you handle real challenges in life if you can hardly handle someone poking fun at you.
I skimmed over your little rant, sorry, you're not important enough for me to actually take the time to read that crap... hahaha
I live in Schaumburg, BTW, my parents live in Naperville... actually, I have a girl that tells me she loves me every night, usually about 3 or 4 times (depending on how tired I get during the day.
I don't really care to enrich the lives of other people; remember, I'm an 4sshole.
Anyways, I never said I don't insult people, in fact, I'm pretty darn good at it. But you're certainly aren't worth getting restricted over. I think I'll just continue to agitate you. And as much as you'll argue otherwise, if you actually spend time telling me how dumb I am, or how much of an asswipe I am, then you've proved my case about having no life.
Anyways... states rights.. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
 |
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:25
|
|
Actually, the whole claim of "State's Rights" is constitutionally invalid. Most of the foundations for the concept claimed to be seen in the Constitution work only if taken out of context (i.e., as "one-liners").
For example, the claim that the parties to the Constitution entered as sovereign States was not even seen as valid by the *Anti-Federalists*. The states were never individually sovereign. They did not sign individual treaties with the British, they never ceased functioning as part of the Continental Congress during the revolution nor were they sovereign during the Articles of Confederation, and there was no point between the Articles and the Constitution.
The fight the states *did* make was for state-level influence over the National government versus individual-level influence. The Congress was then the top branch of government (and still is, BTW), and under the Articles, congressmen were merely creatures of the states governors/legislatures. The congressmen were instructed how to vote by the state government, they were paid by the state government, and they could be recalled/replaced at will by the state government.
Under the Constitution, congressmen were chosen by voters, were independent in terms of salary and agenda, and could only be recalled by voter actions. The state *governments* lost their direct control over national representatives.
THAT"S what the "states rights" argument was all about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I get amused at people who want to separate religion from politics, but want to legislate morality to extent of war.
Whether or not slavery was moral or immoral was not relevent to the issues of the War of Northern Agression. The result of the war was the enslavery of the States by the Federal Government. At the point of a bayonet.
Someday the UN or some similar organization will grow in power and a country or group of countries will attempt to leave the organization and will be warred upon. It's an issue of power, not morality.
Lincoln was clear on the issue. The war was fought over Union. He said that if he could keep the Union with slavery he would do it.
When you invade and attempt to impose your will upon others by force it's called aggression. How nice to be able use a MORAL issue to cover up the truth.
With Iraq, the difference is that America does not intend to conquer Iraq and force them into our nation.
Land of the free? Not on this side of Mason Dixon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:25
|
|
cavebear: 
Each of the original signatory states to the Constitution were sovereign and had full authority to act independentlyexcept as to those matters delegated by them to the Continental Congress, or to the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution.
The Continental Congress had no binding authority to do anything, and no compulsory authority whatsoever over any individual colony, and until ratification of the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress (very carefully, so as to make treason at least a nominally triable issue of fact  ) stated clearly that each colony represented were in fact colonies of the crown.
From the Declaration of Independence onward, the former colonies functioned as independent states which appointed representatives to a Continental Congress to negotiate matters of mutual interest to the states. This process clearly respected the sovereignty of the states, as each state's legislature determined in it's discretion how much or how little direct authority to give it's delegates to the Continental Congress, and those delegates often voted (or failed to vote) upon express instructions of their respective legislatures.
The Articles of Confederation were approved in November, 1777, but the ninth state (Maryland) did not ratify until March, 1781, at which time the Articles of Confederation became legally effective.
Your non-sovereignty "argument" is killed, buried, and had a mass said over it by the bare language of the Articles of Confederation itself:
quote:
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be
"The United States of America".
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
III.
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
|
Plain enough for you?
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.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 21-01-2003 at 06:29
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:25
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:25
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-01-2003 06:30
We're one country dammit! It's stupid to keep using old historical borders. I think there should be an elimination of states and a complete reorganization of the way our country is defined; internally. 
Right on, brother Jimmy. 
|