# Confederacy not as bad?



## bthoma91 (Apr 23, 2009)

I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.  

Tell me your opinion.


----------



## Jon (Apr 23, 2009)

The South was right on states' right, which was the real issue with the Civil War. Slavery would have been abolished eventually, even if the South had won the war. What the Civil War did was mark the beginning of the end of states' rights. Obama's election seems to be the end of the end of states' rights.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 23, 2009)

bthoma91 said:


> I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.
> 
> Tell me your opinion.



What is so wonderful about state's rights?

Are you an American or a Marylander first?

But it is a good question.  We have as a nation supported secession movements when it was in our best interest.  Panama is a classic example.  Yet not when it was a part of our nation that wanted to succeed.

American has unfortunately had a lot of double standards when it comes to rules that we think should apply to other nations as opposed to what we think should apply to us.

The waterboarding torture thing is just the most recent example.


----------



## Jon (Apr 23, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> What is so wonderful about state's rights?



States are a more localized form of government and, in most cases, well catered to the citizens who live within the state. Those citizens are able to build the laws to suit their way of life, and such ways of life may not apply to even their neighboring states. In a country with as many differing opinions as the USA, it's impossible to come up with a set of laws that satisfy everyone. That's why the states were given the right to govern their people to begin with, but the federal laws are beginning to overshadow states' rights.


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 23, 2009)

I'd say that as in many if not most conflicts there is a little bit of "truth" in both sides of the argument.  The South was right on state's rights, but very, very wrong on slavery.  

As for the Union, well, state's rights is a "grey" (no pun intended) area and the Union fought not only to defend what they perceived as state rights, but also to defend the federal union and in regards to slavery, well, it is perceived that the union was against slavery when, in fact, had it not been for succession, the North would have been content to allow slavery to continue in the Southern states.  

So, although, you might have been raised, North Good--South Bad, there was a little bit of Good and Bad on both sides.

Immie


----------



## Mad Scientist (Apr 23, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> What is so wonderful about state's rights?
> 
> Are you an American or a Marylander first?
> 
> ...


You've turned a discussion about states right in to one about torture.

Why?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

Both sides were wrong on the issue of slavery.  Too many people forget that there were five slave states that remained in the Union, and they remained slave states until after the Civil War.  The fact is that the Confederacy had every right to secede and Lincoln subverted the Constitution to force them back into the Union.


----------



## Newby (Apr 23, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> bthoma91 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.
> ...



You need a history lesson.  Start with the Constitution and the federalist papers.


----------



## Newby (Apr 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Both sides were wrong on the issue of slavery.  Too many people forget that there were five slave states that remained in the Union, and they remained slave states until after the Civil War.  The fact is that the Confederacy had every right to secede and Lincoln subverted the Constitution to force them back into the Union.




Yes, states rights are very important to maintaining the equal balance of power in this country and to keep the feds from getting out of control, as they are right now.


----------



## Sinatra (Apr 23, 2009)

Mad Scientist said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > What is so wonderful about state's rights?
> ...




Because it is morally convenient for her to do so?

Plus, she assures us she works with "hardcore" gang members.

So that alone justifies the wayward logic, no?


----------



## Newby (Apr 23, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



Wasn't that Catzmeow?  Altho, it is easy to confuse the two of them.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 23, 2009)

States rights can't supercede an individuals right to "life, liberty and the the pursuit of hapiness". Clearly the South was wrong. Had the South won it is very likely that slavery would have persisted for a very long time afterward, perhaps until today. It's hard to imagine a world in which the United States, the loser in a war over human rights would become the world's leader in human rights had it failed to guarantee them for a large segment of their own society


----------



## Gunny (Apr 23, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> bthoma91 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.
> ...



Nice non-answer.  Stop trying to hijack the thread.  States Rights has nothing to do with waterboarding.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 23, 2009)

wihosa said:


> States rights can't supercede an individuals right to "life, liberty and the the pursuit of hapiness". Clearly the South was wrong. Had the South won it is very likely that slavery would have persisted for a very long time afterward, perhaps until today. It's hard to imagine a world in which the United States, the loser in a war over human rights would become the world's leader in human rights had it failed to guarantee them for a large segment of their own society



The South was not wrong and had nothing to do with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Slavery was on it's way out already.  Slaves were a lot more expensive than machinery.

There was no war over human rights.  The US Civil War was fought over power and money.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 23, 2009)

Why this attempt to deny the obvious. The issue of States Rights was about a State's right to allow slavery.

Again, no State has the right to violate an indiviuals rights.

Slavery was not on the way out, it was being expanded with the growth of the United States.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 23, 2009)

wihosa said:


> Why this attempt to deny the obvious. The issue of States Rights was about a State's right to allow slavery.
> 
> Again, no State has the right to violate an indiviuals rights.
> 
> Slavery was not on the way out, it was being expanded with the growth of the United States.



I'm not attempting to deny anything.  What was slavery, Einstein?  The means of Southern wealth and power.  Only a tiny faction in the North gave a damn about slavery.  A big faction with a lot of money an power gave a damn about controlling Congress.

The issue of states rights was NOT about a states right to own slavery.  Slavery where it existed was not threatened at all.  The balance of power in Congress was threatened.

Learn to read instead of spouting the over-simplified, rewritten after-the-fact version.


----------



## WorldAHope (Apr 23, 2009)

Gunny said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > States rights can't supercede an individuals right to "life, liberty and the the pursuit of hapiness". Clearly the South was wrong. Had the South won it is very likely that slavery would have persisted for a very long time afterward, perhaps until today. It's hard to imagine a world in which the United States, the loser in a war over human rights would become the world's leader in human rights had it failed to guarantee them for a large segment of their own society
> ...


It was fought because a group of states tried to secede from the union, theie main point of contention was Slavery. 
And the country (the North) elected a President and who was willing to go to war to prevent secession, and there were many in the Congress (North) who were  willing to support the war to stop secession. 

It was mostly about the South resisting pressure from the Federal government to force Southern slave allowing states to override state laws and abolish Slavery.


----------



## WorldAHope (Apr 23, 2009)

Gunny said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Why this attempt to deny the obvious. The issue of States Rights was about a State's right to allow slavery.
> ...


Actually, the Abolitionist movement in the  North had grown pretty big, and was loud and well financed. 
A lot of members in Congress were elected primarily Because they were outright Abolitionists, and there were regularly huge Abolition rallies across the North. It was not a small movement, it attracted thousands to wild whip them up marches and rallies in cities that had populations back then of less than 25,000. 
There was also a great deal of anti-black racism and slavery sympathisers, in the North, as well.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 23, 2009)

There is a strange virus in America which seeks to denigrate the accomplishments of one of our greatest Presidents and all that followed his lead.

The Civil War was about and fought over slavery.

Those that argue against this truth are the ones re-writing history.


----------



## WorldAHope (Apr 23, 2009)

WorldAHope said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


As far as current States' Rights, has anyone mentioned the 2000 election, where the Federal Supreme Court intervened, overrindig the Florida Supreme Court's decision to conduct recounts ? 
Any discussion about teh Federal government stomping on a State's legal jurisdiction over election laws. 
That was an unprecedented intrusion. 
I'm surprised the Florida Governor did not call out the militia and demand that the FL legislature  enact a Bill of Secession from the union for that egregious dictatorial overruling of standing election regulations for the sole purpose of handing one candidate Florida's Electoral College votes.    
...oh....his name was Bush, and the legislature had a Republican majority....

How come no states diod that in teh last election? A lot of close votes, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, 
Missouri, 
and the close Senatorial election in Minnesota  - Coleman was in the lead, lost it on recount. 
He should have taken his case directly to SCOTUS, demanded that SCOTUS override state law and direct all recount activity to be illegal.  
With Bush v. Gore as the main precedent. 

States' rights, my ass. 
Nobody gives a crap about States' rights unless it suits their current purpose. 
Politicians and States Righters will flip on that fundamental topic as quick as preacher who crusades against gay marriage and homosexuals will dive into bed with a cute boy he invites to go on a one-on-one "prayer" retreat.


----------



## midcan5 (Apr 23, 2009)

Junk about secession - don't have time to organize it but all the arguments are here.

Southern Arguments for and Against Secession from the Union - Associated Content

Agrument v Lincoln's position
http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?

John C. Calhoun's Speech: Slavery, a Positive Good

Secession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Secession in the United States

"By some theories, the American Revolution was a secession, rather than a revolution.[21][22] Discussions and threats of secession have often surfaced in American politics, most notably in the case of the Confederate States of America. A 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believe that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic."[23][24]"

List of active autonomist and secessionist movements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really

AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War

court ruling on session
Texas v. White

admission of state to union
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18


----------



## Indiana Oracle (Apr 23, 2009)

jsanders said:


> The South was right on states' right, which was the real issue with the Civil War. Slavery would have been abolished eventually, even if the South had won the war. What the Civil War did was mark the beginning of the end of states' rights. Obama's election seems to be the end of the end of states' rights.


 
Ditto. 

A whole lot has been written about the question you raise, but js hit the core summary.  After that, no matter how much one studies and historians re-write history, the individual ends up judging for himself.  

So here is my judgement.  It has never been clear to me that, at the center of it all, either side was existentially right or wrong.  The war was fought to keep the union a union. Lincoln made slavery a rallying cry.  Lastly, I do not believe the war was necessary.  It was nearly as avoidable as WWI.


----------



## wihosa (Apr 23, 2009)

Indiana Oracle said:


> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> > The South was right on states' right, which was the real issue with the Civil War. Slavery would have been abolished eventually, even if the South had won the war. What the Civil War did was mark the beginning of the end of states' rights. Obama's election seems to be the end of the end of states' rights.
> ...




Sure, Lincoln could have allowed the South to secede. Then the world's "last best hope" would have become irrelevant in regards to the human rights that the country was created to secure.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 23, 2009)

jsanders said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > What is so wonderful about state's rights?
> ...



You have the same problem if you live in a state with laws you don't like.  How low down do you want to get before you stop individualizing?

Do you consider yourself and American or Arkansian first?


----------



## Indiana Oracle (Apr 23, 2009)

wihosa said:


> Indiana Oracle said:
> 
> 
> > jsanders said:
> ...


 
You need to read some more history, and this may be a challenge, to understand the material.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 23, 2009)

Mad Scientist said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > What is so wonderful about state's rights?
> ...



Because we were just discussing that issue, it is OT.

But it is true that the US has had differing views about the right of a group to secede depending on whether the secession is beneficial or our own states.

There are a lot of states' righters here.   The ulimtate state's right is to secede from the union.

How many people here support state's rights in general, and if so does that include the right for a state or group of states to secede.  Why or why not?


----------



## wihosa (Apr 23, 2009)

Indiana Oracle said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Indiana Oracle said:
> ...



Well tell you what professor, why don't you enlighten me with your encyclopedic knowledge of the Civil War and it's cause.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 23, 2009)

reading the OP and ignoring the rest because I need coffee..

The CSA exercised their right to succeed. Upon establishing their independence, they got stupid. They allowed themselves to be goaded into attacking Fort Sumter. This act of war against the union started the armed conflict. They then lost the war, despite winning most battles, due in large part to a lack of industrialization. They lost the war, were conquered, and became territory of the USA once again. They were then given their rights as states back. These rights were rein congress for a short time, then were not recognized (?!?!) when the Southern states refused to agree to the 14 amendment (the 13th and 15th might also be included, but I'm not sure). Only after they reluctantly agreed to this illegal condition were they recognized yet again, this time for good.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 23, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> I'd say that as in many if not most conflicts there is a little bit of "truth" in both sides of the argument.  The South was right on state's rights, but very, very wrong on slavery.



Not so, immanuel. You said in the other thread that you were a christian. Read your bible again- a slave is to know his place and be a good slave, for it is god's will. The authority of the slave master, like all authority, comes from god. Slavery is recognized ansd supported in both the torah and the 'new testament' library put together by king (was uit henry or george?) and used as the basis for modern neochristians



> As for the Union, well, state's rights is a "grey" (no pun intended)



No, it's not. 



> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.




So, although, you might have been raised, North Good--South Bad, there was a little bit of Good and Bad on both sides.

Immie[/QUOTE]



wihosa said:


> The Civil War was about and fought over slavery.
> 
> Those that argue against this truth are the ones re-writing history.



That's just politically correct answer given by the north. The North and the South had long been wholly separate, for all intents and purposes. They were economically, ideologically, anmd politically at odds from the begininning. Interestingly, trade continued during the way; most food eaten by CSA soldiers had come from the Union states


----------



## wihosa (Apr 23, 2009)

wihosa said:


> The Civil War was about and fought over slavery.
> 
> Those that argue against this truth are the ones re-writing history.



That's just politically correct answer given by the north. The North and the South had long been wholly separate, for all intents and purposes. They were economically, ideologically, anmd politically at odds from the begininning. Interestingly, trade continued during the way; most food eaten by CSA soldiers had come from the Union states[/QUOTE]

"wholly seperate"?

What are you talking about, there were a myriad of economic, cultural, political and familial ties.

The only great division between the States was the question of slavery, which the Southern States try to camoflauge with the claim of states rights.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 23, 2009)

I meant ideollogically


----------



## rayboyusmc (Apr 23, 2009)

This thread isn't about state's rights.  It's about the right losing the election and not being able to deal with that.   I want to take my marbles and go home because I lost.

We put up with 8 years of Bush, you can put up with 8 years of Obama.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 23, 2009)

If obama serves this term... 24 years... a quarter-century .. two familes.. one white house...

Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Obama (Clinton)


----------



## WorldAHope (Apr 23, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> If obama serves this term... 24 years... a quarter-century .. two familes.. one white house...
> 
> Bush
> Clinton
> ...


Doubt Hillary will be up for running in 2016. She can make a lot more money and relax as a civilian. 
There will be another Democrat to follow Obama. 
By that time, 2016, the GOP will have split into UltraNutcaseConservative Party and the MildlyNutcaseConservative Party, and they will not be viable political opposition to the Democrats for years to come. Those two parties, and the Libertarian and COnstitution APrties will amount to less than 20% of the electorate, combined, 
after alienating the centrists and the liberals with their wild antics and irrational proclamations
and refusal to help fix Bush's messes.


----------



## Newby (Apr 23, 2009)

wihosa said:


> States rights can't supercede an individuals right to "life, liberty and the the pursuit of hapiness". Clearly the South was wrong. Had the South won it is very likely that slavery would have persisted for a very long time afterward, perhaps until today. It's hard to imagine a world in which the United States, the loser in a war over human rights would become the world's leader in human rights had it failed to guarantee them for a large segment of their own society




States rights are in relation to the federal government and the power it has over them, it doesn't have anything to do with individual rights.


----------



## Newby (Apr 23, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> If obama serves this term... 24 years... a quarter-century .. two familes.. one white house...
> 
> Bush
> Clinton
> ...



That's more like it.


----------



## WorldAHope (Apr 23, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> This thread isn't about state's rights.  It's about the right losing the election and not being able to deal with that.   I want to take my marbles and go home because I lost.
> 
> We put up with 8 years of Bush, you can put up with 8 years of Obama.


Thank you. 
Sour grapes make sour whine. 
The GOP had a bad crop the last few years, and they keep sipping at that foul tasting vintages,  making their self pity and bitterness grow, "ungrateful voters.....wazznt our fault....s'all libbawals fault....gdammit..." and they have become addicted to their own complaining.  
They haven't figured out that America won't vote for slobbering whiners and complainers who 
can't get their act together long enough to pitch in and help their nation improve.
They'd rather stay at the bar sucking down their sour grapes juice all day long, 
Sorry ass addicted Whinos who can't see past that bottle in their hands.

They need rehab, bad.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 23, 2009)

States have no rights, only powers and authorities. Only the People have rights


----------



## Indiana Oracle (Apr 23, 2009)

wihosa said:


> Indiana Oracle said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


 
Already did.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 23, 2009)

a lot of bickering and petty squabbling on this forum x.o


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

wihosa said:


> Why this attempt to deny the obvious. The issue of States Rights was about a State's right to allow slavery.
> 
> Again, no State has the right to violate an indiviuals rights.
> 
> Slavery was not on the way out, it was being expanded with the growth of the United States.



Slavery was safer in the Union where the Constitution protected the "rights" of slave-owners, as opposed to out of the Union where northern states would have been able to ignore any Confederate claims to the Fugitive Slave Act.  Of course, the five slave states that remained in the Union would have been permitted to continue it's practice of slavery.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

wihosa said:


> There is a strange virus in America which seeks to denigrate the accomplishments of one of our greatest Presidents and all that followed his lead.
> 
> The Civil War was about and fought over slavery.
> 
> Those that argue against this truth are the ones re-writing history.



Absolute and complete nonsense.  Lincoln had no problem with slavery and had no intention to end it whatsoever.  His only goal was to restore the Confederate states to the Union, the issue of slavery was simply a means to an end.  Lincoln was actually a racist, not the "Great Emancipator" he's been portrayed as.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

"I will say then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white peoplethere must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man."

- Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln's support of the Corwin Amendment which would have made slavery a permanent institution where it already existed, and his support deporting freed African-Americans to Africa, Haiti, and other such places show that he was no friend to any African-Americans.


----------



## Jon (Apr 23, 2009)

wihosa said:


> There is a strange virus in America which seeks to denigrate the accomplishments of one of our greatest Presidents and all that followed his lead.
> 
> The Civil War was about and fought over slavery.
> 
> Those that argue against this truth are the ones re-writing history.



That you wish to remain ignorant is your own problem, not ours.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



I support states rights and the right of secession.  I support the right of secession because our federal government was created by the states to act as their agent, not their overlord.  The United States is a confederated government of free and independent states, not a national government.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Apr 23, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> bthoma91 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.
> ...



Thanks for being honest about not understanding the benefit of federalism. The greatest fear of the founders was the centralization of power and the consequent tyranny coming from that concentration.

That was why their first stab at forming a national government was the Articles of Confederation. If there was no strength in the central government, it could never be tyrannical. However, they found that system was too weak to govern effectively. They opted for the current Constitution. They purposefully set power against power in a system of check and balances more complicated than most appreciate.

The internal workings of the federal government are set against each other by dint of who elects them, to whom are they beholden and how often. Authority between the legislative and executive is split and within the legislative is split. They feared both executive tyranny and legislative tyranny. They even feared a judicial tyranny and so only allow cases to come before them (except for special cases) by appeal.

Another important check was the check between the states and the national government. They provided for a "LIMITED" national government. The government had only certain enumerated powers. But the anti-federalists were not impressed. They required a bill of rights or positive rights given the states and the individual. 

This was supposed to prevent the concentration of power in the central government and the tyranny that must surely follow. Because all the concentration of power lacks is the person who will misuse the power to become a tyranny.

You can see now how correct the founder's fears were. Despite all of these controls, by two decisions of the United States Supreme Court, United States v. Darby Lumber Co. and Wicker v. Fliburn, destroyed the firewall that existed preventing the concentration of power by the federal government. Since 1941, we have seen an erosion of balance and a concentration of power that wants only for a tyrannical master to abuse the power.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Apr 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



This is an incorrect statement borne of a misunderstanding of the origins of the Constitution. In order to be as you describe, the Constitution would have had to have been adopted by state governmental entities and state processes. In the same way a treaty was ratified by the several sovereign states. This is a description of the adoption of the Articles of Confederation but not the adoption of the Constitution.

The founders understood the Rouseauian social contract theory that in order to derive the power necessary to govern, it must derive it from the people directly not through their representatives (the states). Therefore, constitutional conventions were held in each states. The representative thereto were not the political leaders of the state, but special electors elected for the special purpose of ratifying the new Constitution.

It is this special characteristic that legitimizes the Constitution and casts doubt on the ability of states to separate themselves from the union.


----------



## Newby (Apr 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > There is a strange virus in America which seeks to denigrate the accomplishments of one of our greatest Presidents and all that followed his lead.
> ...



I've never actually read those words by Lincoln before, thanks.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 23, 2009)

jsanders said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > What is so wonderful about state's rights?
> ...



So what happens when the laws of one state make it more favorable to live there and that state gets an influx of out-of-staters which ultimately ruin it for the natives simply because of overcrowding? Do you have residency requirements for, say, welfare benefits applicable only to your state? Do you start redistricting to include/exclude certain "elements" from school systems?

At the other end of that scenario would be those who move to a state to get away from the hubbub of city life and into a region where the air is always clean and the water always safe to drink directly from a well and the views are of mountains, not highrises. Usually those people are the ones who can afford to escape the cities (and suburbs thereof), but once they get resettled, they also find that they miss the cultural activities, the fine 4-lane highways, public sewer systems instead of septic tanks, designer shopping enclaves, and everything else that require a higher tax base to support. Soon, as the flatlanders begin demanding of their new state of residence the same services they had become accustomed to, and taxes need to be increased to the point where the natives can't afford to live there anymore.

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



What exactly constitutes a misunderstanding?  I don't see our two descriptions as being opposed to one another.  You're correct that special electors were elected to ratify the Constitution, but they did so on behalf of the individual states.  The individual states ratified the Constitution, not the American people as a whole.  The Constitution required 9 states to ratify it before it went into effect, when the 9th state ratified the Constitution the 4 remaining states were not automatically incorporated into the newly formed Union.  North Carolina and Rhode Island in particular remained outside the new Union for well over a year.

Let's also not forget that the Constitution does not forbid the states to secede, which under the 10th amendment would mean that they are permitted to do so.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 23, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > bthoma91 said:
> ...



Or was it that states were jealous of losing their power?  If state's rights are supreme, what prevents a state from imposing a tyranny?



> That was why their first stab at forming a national government was the Articles of Confederation. If there was no strength in the central government, it could never be tyrannical. However, they found that system was too weak to govern effectively. They opted for the current Constitution. They purposefully set power against power in a system of check and balances more complicated than most appreciate.
> 
> The internal workings of the federal government are set against each other by dint of who elects them, to whom are they beholden and how often. Authority between the legislative and executive is split and within the legislative is split. They feared both executive tyranny and legislative tyranny. They even feared a judicial tyranny and so only allow cases to come before them (except for special cases) by appeal.
> 
> ...



I'd think the decision to eliminate State armed forces or militias in favor of a national armed force was much or a retardation of the check of state power than expanding the commerce clause for national programs.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Apr 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



The special electors create a direct connection with the people of the state rather than with the state as a political entity. 

You are correct that the states individually joined the union, but there was not practical way for the people to vote any other way. Each state was a sovereign entity. The character of the people was not as homogeneous as it is today. You couldn't have a general election in all of the states at one time. Even if the states would have gotten together and voted the same day, what effect would that have had? The people of each sovereign state had to vote to change the character of the relationship to the national government.

Take a case in point, one state, say Virginia. Let's look at it's social contract as an individual state. After the revolution and state evolved from a colony to a state, Virginia rather by default, stands on it own. The elected government of the people act for it in foreign matters. They make external treaties with other states. One of the treaties is the Articles of Confederation. The polity of the state makes the treaty. The people elected their government, but otherwise have no special say in this treaty. In social contract theory language the power of the Articles of Confederation are derived from the powers given it by the states forming the confederation.

By contrast, when the Constitution was ratified, special elections we held by the people and representatives to the Constitutional convention were elected, thereby avoiding the apparatus of state government and the political entity known as Virginia (in this example). Therefore, the state as a political entity, the nation-state of Virginia, did not ratify the Constitution. The people who lived in the nation-state of Virginia, through their specially elected representatives, ratified the Constitution. Ratification by the people then extent in the several states of North America could have been had in no other way. The people living in Virginia did not and could not, in the body there assembled, speak for the political entity of the Nation-State of Virginia nor bind it except as a citizen of Virginia and now of the United States (after ratification). The understanding was, if the citizens of Virginia voted to ratify, that ipso facto, the polity that was the sovereign state of Virginia (Commonwealth in its case) becomes a political subdivision with a distinct sphere of authority (everything not ceded to the national government). Its citizens are citizens of both Virginia and the United States by direct ratification of the Constitution.


----------



## ItsFairmont (Apr 23, 2009)

Republicans have a hart time with this one (the Civil War).  Most white Southerners are Republicans, of course, but many support the Confederate Flag.  The Republicans burned the South.  The Republicans were the ones who started the destruction in Congress by taking away states' rights with unfair tariffs and other laws that made it so that Southerners were dependent on the North.

The Constitution wasn't supposed to do anything but enable a common currency and army to protect the states, and to guarantee free trade AMONG THE STATES, not among nations.

This made it so that the states could do business how they saw fit with other nations.  The Southern states were very successful with cotton, and sold it to Europe.  The Southerners also purchased European goods, like tea sets, doors, windows, dresses, silverware, etc.

But the North wanted in on the action.  Mississippi was the richest state in the Union (now is the poorest), and The North wanted in on the action.

The South sent their raw cotton to Europe for processing, and the North wanted in on the action.


The industrialists of the north formed a new political party, the Republicans, and continued to force the South to send their cotton north, and imposed tariffs that made it impossibly expensive to buy European goods, so the South had to buy from the North.

Since the Southerners were so outnumbered in Congress they got their butts kicked through the legislative process.

They finally had enough when Lincoln was elected, and withdrew from the Union (although in a very rash manner--they should have been better prepared).

The Republican Party only went after slavery because they figured it would devestate the Southern economy and force Southerners to comply with their demands.  The Republicans didn't care any more about slavery than Bush did about Iraqis.  It was completely economical.

The Republican Party was and is the party that represents industrialists and nobody else, but they fool millions of people by claiming to care about issues like states' rights, smaller government, pro-life, and fiscal conservation.  They have fulfilled none of those so-called ideals.  Why?

They don't want to.  They need those issues to keep the suckers in line who vote for them.


Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, was the founding father of what is now called the Democratic Party.

Alexander Hamilton, the man who favored a stronger federal government and less power for the states, was the founding father of what is now the Republican Party.


The Democratic Party has always represented the people who work for a living.

The Republican Party represents the rich bankers and industrialists, and nobody else.

It really is that simple.  I'm glad this is settled.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



Your account of the ratification of the Constitution is sound, but the only misunderstanding I'm having is how we're saying different things.  Whether the electors of the Constitutional Conventions reflect the will of the people of the state or of the state itself is essentially the same thing to my mind.  It wasn't simply a majority vote of all the people of the thirteen states required to ratify the Constitution, but required that every state ratify the Constitution or they remained independent of the Union formed by the Constitution.  And it was the powers of the independent states that were ceded to the new federal government.  Otherwise, the individual states would be able to declare war or create treaties on their own.

Again, I think we're essentially saying the same things.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

ItsFairmont said:


> Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, was the founding father of what is now called the Democratic Party.
> 
> Alexander Hamilton, the man who favored a stronger federal government and less power for the states, was the founding father of what is now the Republican Party.



Thomas Jefferson would not support todays Democratic Party whatsoever.  They believe too much in big government that Jefferson would have condemned completely.  Hamilton would support both the Republicans and Democrats of today.


----------



## ItsFairmont (Apr 23, 2009)

I forgot to mention:

The Southern states were not perfect in any of this either.  They made a ton of mistakes.

1. Most of the Tories (Loyalists to the Crown) during the American Revolution were Southerners, mostly in Georgia, the Carolinas, and Alaksa (just kidding about Alaska).

2.  They were foolish for relying so heavily on slavery.

3.  When considering secession, they should have freed all slaves immediately if they volunteered to serve the Confederate army.

4.  They should have better prepared for war.  They rushed into it.

5.  Their 3/5 clause in the U.S. Constitution was a joke.  People talk about taxation without representation.  The Southerners demanded representation without taxation.  The North should have told them to go to blazes if they wanted to count a slave in the census without giving slaves the right to vote.  Talk about the dumbest section of the Constitution.  Just dumb.

6.  The Southerners could have communicated better if they didn't all sound like Jeff Foxworthy after a few drinks.

7.  They should have written their own song.  Dixie (Battle Hymn) was written by a Yankee.

8.  Part of their problem was that a lot of the Southerners were of Scot/Irish/Welsh ancestry, and held contempt for the more England-based Northerners.  The English have been outsmarting the rest of the UK for hundreds of years, including that Braveheart dude.  He went down.  

9.  Weren't many Southerners hooking up with their sisters and cousins?  That's not a great idea.

10.  Finally, the Confederates tried to gain an alliance with France.  Only a relaxed, beer-drinking party animal like Ben Franklin had any luck with the French.  Getting the French on board is next to impossible, particularly for a Southern.   The Southerners would have had better luck with Mexico.


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 23, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say that as in many if not most conflicts there is a little bit of "truth" in both sides of the argument.  The South was right on state's rights, but very, very wrong on slavery.
> ...



I think you take the Bible out of context here.

Yes, slavery is discussed in the Bible.  Yes, slaves are to obey their masters.

Slavery as practiced by the Americas is not condoned nor is racism.

The Israelites were taken into slavery by the Egyptians and also later by the Babylonians.  But, it was God himself who put them in that position because of their disobedience.

Check out the book of Philemon.

You refer to a passage about a slave knowing his place.  I believe 1 Peter 2:17-19 is the passage of which you speak:


> 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
> 
> 18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of *unjust suffering* because he is conscious of God.



This has nothing to do with promoting slavery but rather the attitudes of those who find themselves in such a position. In fact, it even describes Slavery as "unjust suffering".  



JBeukema said:


> > As for the Union, well, state's rights is a "grey" (no pun intended)
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.



You are welcome to your opinion, but please explain why you do not think it is a grey area.  The two sides had a difference of opinion as to what rights a state had.  The North did not state that states had no rights at all, in fact they were willing to allow slavery to continue, rather they refused the states the right to secede. 

Did a state have the right to secede or not and if so under what conditions.  The issue was not black and white, written in stone.  There was room for give and take on both sides.  

Much like abortion, there is some room for pro-life people like myself to realize that there cannot be a hard and fast rule, such as when the life of the mother is endangered or a 12 year old girl gets raped and ends up pregnant. 

Immie


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

ItsFairmont said:


> I forgot to mention:
> 
> The Southern states were not perfect in any of this either.  They made a ton of mistakes.
> 
> ...



A few things.  Slave-owners were a minority in the south, so they didn't rely "heavily" on it.  Rather, a minority relied heavily on it.  Some former-slaves, or possibly even slaves, did participate in the Confederate army.  The south tried to communicate with Lincoln, but he refused their efforts.  Many Europeans were sympathetic to the Confederacy, such as England and France.  However, it was the issue of slavery and Lincoln's aggressiveness that kept them from becoming more involved in the situation on the south's behalf.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 23, 2009)

ItsFairmont said:


> Republicans have a hart time with this one (the Civil War).  Most white Southerners are Republicans, of course, but many support the Confederate Flag.  The Republicans burned the South.  The Republicans were the ones who started the destruction in Congress by taking away states' rights with unfair tariffs and other laws that made it so that Southerners were dependent on the North.
> 
> The Constitution wasn't supposed to do anything but enable a common currency and army to protect the states, and to guarantee free trade AMONG THE STATES, not among nations.
> 
> ...



Uh oh... Got your flak jacket on?


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 23, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> You are welcome to your opinion, but please explain why you do not think it is a grey area....Did a state have the right to secede or not and if so under what conditions.



Two words: Tenth Amendment


----------



## Kalam (Apr 23, 2009)

I'm always amazed when I hear yankees explaining how they were taught that the Civil War was fought over slavery, that Lincoln was a great leader, and that the South was morally "evil" whereas the Union was "good." What shamelessly propagandistic revisionism!

Giving more power to the states will always yield better results than concentrating the vast majority of it in Washington. The state, by its very nature, is far more responsive to the needs and desires of its constituency than the nation is. If we actually followed the constitution and gave all responsibilities not specified therein to each individual state, we'd be far better off.


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 23, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > You are welcome to your opinion, but please explain why you do not think it is a grey area....Did a state have the right to secede or not and if so under what conditions.
> ...



That doesn't change a thing.  

The Constitution granted rights to the states that the two sides disagreed on.  

The South claimed the right to secede.  The North claimed that the right to secede did not exist, but that did not mean that there were no states rights.  Basically, the North believed that the States were subservient to the Federal Government and the South contended that it was the other way around.

That still leaves room for give and take by both sides thus leaving it a grey area.  I submit the following in my assertion that there was no hard and fast rule as to the rights of the States.

From Wikipedia.



> Interpretations of the amendment can be divided into two camps. The first interpretation, as held by the Tenth Amendment Center, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties, and a few Republicans including Ron Paul and Jeff Flake, is that the Constitution does not grant the United States any power that it does not expressly mention. This has been used as the basis for such court cases as Gonzales v. Raich, and for arguments in favor of repealing a large number of Federal laws, abolishing the Federal Reserve, and drastically slashing the Federal budget by 50% or more. It is also why amendments were necessary for the abolition of slavery and the prohibition of alcohol - without said amendments, Congress did not have the authority to do those things.
> 
> The contrary opinion is that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to do more or less anything that is not explicitly prohibited by the first eight amendments.



James Ostrowski - Lincoln's Secession Arguments



> President Lincoln set forth his views on secession mainly in his First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861), and his Special Message to Congress (July 4, 1861). In the first speech, Lincoln made primarily political arguments against secession, apparently hoping to persuade secessionists with his arguments. However, with secession already accomplished by July 4, 1861, Lincoln's Special Address to Congress focused on the alleged illegality of secession, to establish the legitimacy of his intended military resistance to it. This paper will therefore first consider the Special Message's legal arguments against secession, then the First Inaugural's political arguments against secession.
> 
> In his July 4, 1861 address to Congress, President Lincoln called the doctrine of the secessionists "an insidious debauching of the public mind." "They invented," he said, "an ingenious sophism, which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps, through all the incidents, to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is, that any state of the Union may, consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore lawfully, and peacefully, withdraw from the Union, without the consent of the Union, or of any other state." Ironically, it was not "fire-eating" Southern rebels who had originated this "sophism," but the man Lincoln called "the most distinguished politician in our history"--Thomas Jefferson.11 Jefferson, who called Virginia his "country," planted the seeds of the secession doctrine with his Kentucky Resolution of 1798, written in protest to the Alien and Sedition laws:
> 
> ...



American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Causes of secession
> Main articles: Origins of the American Civil War and Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War
> 
> The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict likely. Lincoln did not propose federal laws against slavery where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction."[1] Much of the political battle in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery into the newly created territories.[2][3][4] All of the organized territories were likely to become free-soil states, which increased the Southern movement toward secession. Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die.[5][6][7]
> ...



Sometimes the roles were reversed... grey area.  No hard and fast rule.

Immie


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 23, 2009)

The right existed because it was not denied the states in the constitution

again, after they attacked US land, it made no difference


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 23, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> The right existed because it was not denied the states in the constitution
> 
> again, after they attacked US land, it made no difference



That is not what we are discussing.  We are not arguing whether or not the right existed but rather if it was a "hard and fast rule" seen the same by both sides.

I do not disagree that the right existed, although I imagine there are some "federalists" on this board that would argue that the right does not exist.  What I said in the post that brought you into the discussion was that it was a grey area.  The two sides did not agree but neither side saw it as an either/or situation.  

There were times when the sides reversed their points of view on states right vs federal rights. Much like I would say "No abortions... period!... except when the mother's life is at risk".  You see, even someone as stubborn as myself realizes that there are times when rules don't or shouldn't apply.

Immie


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 23, 2009)

> We are not arguing whether or not the right existed but rather if it was a "hard and fast rule" seen the same by both sides.


The right to exist isn't seen by both sides, yet it exists



> I do not disagree that the right existed, although I imagine there are some "federalists" on this board that would argue that the right does not exist.[/QUOTE
> 
> Then they are fools who understand neither the Constitution nor the consent of the governed
> 
> ...


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 23, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Then they are fools who understand neither the Constitution nor the consent of the governed



Then you would be calling Abe Lincoln a fool, because he did not recognize the right of secession either.  I am quite confident that President Lincoln was not alone in that belief either.  How many Union soldiers died for the anti-secession cause?

Immie


----------



## Xenophon (Apr 23, 2009)

Confederacy sucked, they had horrible uniforms.







I'd want to fight too if they made me wear that.


----------



## ItsFairmont (Apr 23, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Uh oh... Got your flak jacket on?



What's that supposed to be, a threat?


----------



## JohnStOnge (Apr 23, 2009)

bthoma91 said:


> I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.
> 
> Tell me your opinion.



I think the South was right about the States Rights issue in terms of what the original intent of the Contitution was and what the understanding of the original 13 colonies was when they agreed to enter into the Union.  But, as we know, might makes right and the North had a much bigger population, a far superior industrial base, and a navy.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 23, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> The right existed because it was not denied the states in the constitution
> 
> again, after they attacked US land, it made no difference



Why was Ft. Sumner US land after SC seceded?  Isn't in SC territory?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > The right existed because it was not denied the states in the constitution
> ...



Exactly.  Which is why they attacked Fort Sumter in the first place.  They didn't want a Union base in their borders.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 23, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Then they are fools who understand neither the Constitution nor the consent of the governed
> ...



Abe Lincoln was a fool in that regard, though he deafened the union and crush her attacker



Iriemon said:


> Why was Ft. Sumner US land after SC seceded?  Isn't in SC territory?



No.  The fort was the territory of the Union Army. The commander of the fort and his mean diod not succeed. When the CSA seceded, they claimed land belonging to and held by loyalists who stayed with the Union. They then attacked a union fort, killing American soldiers on American soil- an act of war... a war they could not win



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> They didn't want a Union base in their borders.



On their border, not on their land. They crossed the borders of the land they held under Confederate control and attacked union soil- attacked a union fort. That act of war would lead to their destruction


----------



## 007 (Apr 23, 2009)

I think it's rather safe to say that the south and the north "didn't like each other," and when the north threw down the, "you have to set all your slaves free" gauntlet to the south, they told them to piss off, and secession was how they did it, and that lead to war.

Now today I think it's probably just as safe to say that liberals and conservatives don't like each other either, and now that the liberals have an ultra liberal empty suit with zero experience at anything running everything, and fucking up is putting what he and his cohorts have been up to, the conservatives are looking back at what happened during the Civil War and saying, "maybe we need to do that again." 

Here's a quote from President Jefferson that's eerily relavent to matters today...



			
				President Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."



And another from Abraham Lincoln...



			
				President Abraham Lincoln said:
			
		

> America will never be destroyed from the outside.  If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.  ~Abraham Lincoln



Our country is reaching the point of no return. We can't vote our way out of this mess, we can't buy our way out of this mess, we can't borrow our way out of this mess. It's going to take something a lot more intense, like a revolution... like a Civil War.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Actually, nobody was killed at Fort Sumter.  They surrendered and were allowed to return to the north.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> I think it's rather safe to say that the south and the north "didn't like each other," and when the north threw down the, "you have to set all your slaves free" gauntlet to the south, they told them to piss off, and secession was how they did it, and that lead to war.
> 
> Now today I think it's probably just as safe to say that liberals and conservatives don't like each other either, and now that the liberals have an ultra liberal empty suit with zero experience at anything running everything, and fucking up is putting what he and his cohorts have been up to, the conservatives are looking back at what happened during the Civil War and saying, "maybe we need to do that again."
> 
> ...



The north never told the south that they have to set all their slaves free, in fact the north was quite content with the slaves where they were.  They didn't want all the freed slaves to move to the north.  And the Lincoln quote you provided is actually a fake, Lincoln never said that.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Actually, nobody was killed at Fort Sumter.  They surrendered and were allowed to return to the north.



Really? *Google*



> No one from either side was killed during the bombardment, with only five Union and four Confederate soldiers severely injured.



I stand corrected. So they attacked and wounded union soldiers...



> During the 100-gun salute to the U.S. flagAnderson's one condition for withdrawala pile of cartridges blew up from a spark, killing one soldier instantly (Private Daniel Hough) and seriously injuring the rest of the gun crew, one mortally (Private Edward Galloway); these were the first fatalities of the war.[12] The salute was stopped at fifty shots. Galloway and another injured crewman were sent to the hospital in Charleston where Galloway died.


(Wikipedia)

that's... sad...


----------



## 007 (Apr 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's rather safe to say that the south and the north "didn't like each other," and when the north threw down the, "you have to set all your slaves free" gauntlet to the south, they told them to piss off, and secession was how they did it, and that lead to war.
> ...



Then what do you think the Emancipation Proclamation was? The north wanted the slaves free. They made no qualms about it. Whether they insisted the south free all their slaves or not was irrelevant. The south wasn't going to have any of it, so there was war.

And yes, Lincoln did say that. If you think otherwise, prove it.

A couple more Jefferson quotes...



> Every generation needs a new revolution.
> -Thomas Jefferson





> When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
> -Thomas Jefferson


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 23, 2009)

logically, you must prove the positive- that he said it- by providing a source. Otherwise, we must assume the negative, making you a liar


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Apr 23, 2009)

bthoma91 said:


> I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.
> 
> Tell me your opinion.



Virtually ALL domestic policy should be decided and implemented at the local and state level.  A Federal gov't responsibility pretty much begins and ends with national defense.  Domestically, it's only viable role is ensuring the free flow of interstate commerce.  That's what the founding fathers envisioned, anyway.  People must remember, this nation came very close to never forming and actually spent it's early years as only a very loosely tied "federation" of 13 mostly autonomous states.  When we won the Mexican-American war in 1848, California pretty much existed as an independent nation-state until the Intercontinental railroad connected to the east in 1869.  It didn;t even really participate in the Civil War, being so far removed.

States rights are the at the core of our founding father's beliefs.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



Well I can't technically prove that he didn't say it because I can't point to something and say, "There it isn't!"  You can simply say I'm wrong, take my word for it, or try to prove me wrong by finding where exactly he said it.

As to the Emancipation Proclamation, that came well after the south had already seceded.  Your previous post said that the north said that the south had to free their slaves so the south seceded, which is incorrect.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Apr 23, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



Many Jefferson quotes:

John Kennedy once said to a assembled group of scholars in the White House, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

The quotes below could prove his point.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe
Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson


No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson


Very Interesting Quote:


In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.


----------



## GHook93 (Apr 23, 2009)

bthoma91 said:


> I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.
> 
> Tell me your opinion.



Yea I agree, I got a ride home from a black cab driver and I had to pay the asshole. He should have been doing it for free and if he did a bad job then I should have had the right to wipe him! Then when I got home he should have painted my house! 

Yep I heard all the arguments that the Northern factories were like white slavery, but they still paid them and gave them the freedom to leave! State rights, are you fucking kidding me? A weak excuse at best. The 10th amendment in theory comes into play if there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting it. Yet the original due process clause of the 5th amendment, the state can't deny life, liberty or property without due process of the law. I think liberty is a more than justification to deny a State the right to slavery!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> bthoma91 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.
> ...



What about the five slave states that remained in the Union during the Civil War?  Clearly it wasn't fought to end slavery since that would have meant that those five states would have had to fight the Union as well.

As has already been proven, the Civil War was fought to force the Confederate states back into the Union.


----------



## 007 (Apr 23, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> logically, you must prove the positive- that he said it- by providing a source. Otherwise, we must assume the negative, making you a liar



Other than your gas, you contribution is as tepid as two day old piss.

I found a quote of Lincoln on a website. If you think it's a lie, find a source that disputes it. The burden of proof that it's a lie is your's. 

We all know what happens when "you" *ass*ume.

Now go find another thread to derail with your shit, or put up or shut up.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > logically, you must prove the positive- that he said it- by providing a source. Otherwise, we must assume the negative, making you a liar
> ...



[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195064690/ref=s9_sims_gw_s1_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1Y7AF55D7R3AMVZMQFYZ&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846]Amazon.com: They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions: Paul F. Boller Jr., John George: Books[/ame]

That book disputes the quote.


----------



## 007 (Apr 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



I found a website that had that, and many others, attributed to Lincoln. If you can prove Lincoln didn't say that, that's fine. Do it. We'll all wait. But to claim he didn't say it and without a stitch of proof makes one wonder WHY you make that claim. If you know it for fact, then you should be able to prove it.

Yes, the E.P. came after the south had succeeded. But what it made clear was how the north felt, and it did NOT speak for the south, which felt much different. Had they been in agreement on that, there wouldn't have ever been a war. The north had been trying to tell the south how to run their states and they didn't like it. The north had been hinting that they were going to do away with slavery for years, so when the north said that slaves would soon be set free, the south said go pound sand, we're going to fight this one out.


----------



## 007 (Apr 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



OK, well, I don't have the book, and I can't see where it disputes it. So, we're right back to square one. Show me. I want to know the truth.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

Well I provided the book, but I'm not going to assume that you've got it sitting on your bookshelf.  At any rate, it's not that big of a deal, just thought you should know.

The north never said that, though.  They never felt that way either.  They were very content with the slaves remaining in the south because they didn't want the mass exodus of a bunch of newly freed slaves to the north.


----------



## 007 (Apr 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well I provided the book, but I'm not going to assume that you've got it sitting on your bookshelf.  At any rate, it's not that big of a deal, just thought you should know.
> 
> The north never said that, though.  They never felt that way either.  They were very content with the slaves remaining in the south because they didn't want the mass exodus of a bunch of newly freed slaves to the north.



Is that why then the Emancipation Proclamation came? That doesn't sound like they wanted slavery to continue....


----------



## 007 (Apr 23, 2009)

*Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
By Fredric Smoler


Was it just about slavery? A historian provides an answer.*

A great many Americans still debate the origins of the Civil War in the same terms as a century or more ago. People say the war was not &#8220;about&#8221; slavery; it was about economics, or &#8220;states&#8217; rights,&#8221; or elemental Southern nationalism. Those who insist that the war wasn&#8217;t about slavery tend to do so with the conviction that they are talking to naive and moralistic innocents. The historian Chandra Manning, who has met a lot of these people, has just published What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War (Knopf, 350 pages, $26.95), and in it she investigates what the men who actually fought the war believed they were about.

She has looked at a remarkable wealth of letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers, assembling data on what 657 Union soldiers and 477 Confederate soldiers thought they were doing over the four years of combat, rather than what some of them wrote in hazy, embittered, or sentimental retrospect. She is perfectly aware that soldiers do not all think the same thing; she knows that their views alter over time (she traces that evolution with great care and subtlety); and as a rule she does not count something as a representative view unless the soldiers who held it outnumbered dissenters by at least three to one.

*Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it. *

It is perhaps not surprising that in 1864 the black men of the Fourteenth Rhode Island Heavy Artillery reminded one another that &#8220;upon your prowess, discipline, and character; depend the destinies of four millions of people.&#8221; *It may be more surprising to find a white Union soldier writing in 1862 that &#8220;the fact that slavery is the sole undeniable cause of this infamous rebellion, that it is a war of, by, and for Slavery, is as plain as the noon-day sun.&#8221; That same year a soldier on the other side, in Morgan&#8217;s Confederate Brigade, wrote that &#8220;any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks . . . is either a fool or a liar.*&#8221; Manning can and does multiply these examples, and she finds that they vastly outweigh the evidence for any other dominant motive among the combatants.

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Well I provided the book, but I'm not going to assume that you've got it sitting on your bookshelf.  At any rate, it's not that big of a deal, just thought you should know.
> ...



Well, for one, it wasn't the entire north that gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was one man.  As to why he gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was because he wanted to hurt the south and hoped that southern slaves might rise up against the slave-owners.  Let's also not forget that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Apr 23, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> *Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
> By Fredric Smoler
> 
> 
> ...



The problem with the premise of the book is that she concludes that what the common foot soldier thought the war was about was actually what it was fought over.  What soldiers think about why a war is fought usually has very little to do with the reasons their political masters had for fighting it.  

The only war in US History where the opinion of soldiers was at any congruence with what their political masters thought was WWII, and even that was rough and only really applied to the Pacific theator, as Roosevelt's primary reason for wanting to get into the war before Pearl Harbor was NOT to fight Hitler but counter Stalin overrunning all of Europe with Communism, as he knew Hitler couldn't win but didn't want to idly sit by and watch Stalin become the master of Europe, but most soldiers thought they were fighting fascism and Hitler....


----------



## 007 (Apr 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Yeah well, it was more than one man KK. It was the entire north. Lincoln might have penned it, but the north stood behind it. Let's not forget the Underground Railroad.
I've never heard that story about the north hoping the slaves would rise up against the slave owners in the south, although it is an interesting thought. I've read plenty about the battles of the Civil War, but little about the politics of it. Maybe I'll brush up. It is a subject I enjoy.


----------



## 007 (Apr 23, 2009)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > *Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
> ...


Well, no, it's more than that...



> She freely concedes that there are paradoxes in Northern attitudes. Many Northerners initially combined a detestation of slavery with unpleasant views of their black countrymen. She suggests that a focus on the latter attitude has obscured awareness of the intensity and breadth of the former one, and she points out that closer acquaintance with slavery, a result of waging war on Confederate soil, only intensified soldiers loathing of it. Encounters with the sexual and child exploitation that slavery made possible were especially likely to produce this reaction. She quotes many eloquent examples. Sgt. Cyrus Boyd, of the Fifth Iowa, after encountering a child about to be sold by her father and owner, vowed in his diary that By G-d Ill fight till hell freezes over and then Ill cut the ice and fight on. Mannings evidence is that such feelings, which grew stronger as the war continued, were already pretty strong when it started.
> 
> As for the other side, her work continues in the interpretive tradition of the historian James McPherson: The defense of slavery was as much the main motive for Confederate combatants as its destruction was for Union men. This, too, is something of a paradox for those who like to cite the fact that only one in three Confederate families owned slaves, and who describe the Rebel effort as a rich mans war and a poor mans fight. Manning believes that the hope of owning slaves was a real motive for men who didnt already possess them, and she argues most forcefully, and with strong evidence, that the fear that four million freed slaves might seek revenge after two and a half centuries of torment was also a strong impetus for defending the institution. She also believes that guaranteed social superiority on the grounds of pigmentation motivated poor whites. In her view, shared beliefs about the value of slavery were what held the Confederacy together, rather than a class issue that could ever have wedged it apart.



AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



The north did not stand behind the Emancipation Proclamation, however.  For one, the Underground Railroad and abolitionists in general were a minority even in the north.

"Plenty of soldiers believed that the proclamation had changed the purpose of the war.  They professed to feel betrayed.  They were willing to risk their lives for the Union, they said, but not for black freedom." - James McPherson, prominent Lincoln Cultist

Many Union soldiers deserted the army, and enlistment numbers plummeted after the Emancipation Proclamation.  In July of 1863 there were riots in New York where white men began attacking any black people unlucky enough to cross their path, and burning buildings.  They were protesting the conscription laws that only applied to white men, and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Here are a few quotes from northern soldiers.

"If emancipation is to be the policy of this war... I do not care how quickly the country goes to rot."

"If anyone thinks that this army is fighting to free the Negro... they are terribly mistaken."

"I don't want to fire another shot for the Negroes and I wish that all the abolitionists were in Hell...  I do not fight or want to fight for Lincoln's Negro proclamation one day longer."


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Apr 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Both North and South detested the Negro, just manifested itself differently.  In John Jakes novel the North and South, he eloquently stated this in the book. "In the south it didn't matter how close a black man got so long as he didn't get to high.  In the north it didn't matter how high a black man rose, so long as he didn't get too close".


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



I'd certainly agree with that.

And just to add to it, in _Democracy In America_ Alexis de Tocqueville remarked:

"The prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known."


----------



## 007 (Apr 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Interesting... but the north and south fought regardless, and whether or not the north wanted to fight for slaves, they did. Just as well as the south did, to keep them. Slavery was the main reason for the war.

Had the south won, I doubt little would be different today. Makes me wonder if another Civil War would really do us any good? Would another 150 years after a second Civil War really be any different than had there not been one?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 23, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



Well I'm glad you seem to be receptive to the fact that the north didn't fight over slavery, whether or not you 100% agree with it or not.  However, let me also point out that there were 5 slave states that remained in the Union, and I doubt very seriously that they fought to end slavery.

As to whether the south had won, it's hard to say what might be different.  Would they have remained their own nation or would they have found that separation wasn't in their best interests?  I'm not sure why we'd have a Civil War today, so I'm not sure why you're pondering the idea.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 23, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> OK, well, I don't have the book, and I can't see where it disputes it. So, we're right back to square one. Show me. I want to know the truth.



You still have yet to provide a source for your quote. You (A) don't know what the burden of proof is, (B) Assume it's true because you want it to be, and therefore have no claim to reason, or (C) Are a liar and know it's a false attribution


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

bthoma91 said:


> I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.
> 
> Tell me your opinion.



As a Southerner and a student of politics, and history, and geology; I know without a doubt in 1860 I would have fought for the South.

But, in fairness, I cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the institution of slavery had corrupted the Southern political landscape, free speech was unheard of.  Anything against slavery would put you in jail in any southern state.  People who were not pro-slavery were ostracized by a very rigid society that had three classes, slaves and freed blacks, middle class free whites, slaveholders black or white (there were both).

In this class system, in a highly individualistic society, it was fend for yourself, and the lion's share of political power was concentrated in the slaveholder class.

The North aptly called it the "SLAVE POWER CONSPIRACY".

So, in short, under the guise of states' rights, an oligarchic tyranny ruled the land.

But, the ideal exists, and the Southern spirit lives and breaths in most Americans, that states' rights is the proper check to federal tyranny, that individuals matter more than groups or the nation.

If we could fight a civil war to re-establish those ideals, we should.


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

Just so you know in regards to sentiment of emancipation.

Northerners were at the time more racist than southerners, "not in my back yard" exists racially, and Northerners didn't want blacks in their states that's why they sold all their blacks south before "freeing" any remaining blacks of which there were nearly none.

Someone prominent said to the effect:

"The war ended slavery only for the worse fears of the boys in gray to be put upon everyone, including those in blue; that we are now all slaves of the government."


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 24, 2009)

Evangelical said:


> Just so you know in regards to sentiment of emancipation.
> 
> Northerners were at the time more racist than southerners, "not in my back yard" exists racially, and Northerners didn't want blacks in their states that's why they sold all their blacks south before "freeing" any remaining blacks of which there were nearly none.
> 
> ...



Just to add to this, Illinois, and possibly others though I don't know for sure, made it illegal for African-Americans to immigrate to the state.  And who supported this policy?  One Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Evangelical said:
> 
> 
> > Just so you know in regards to sentiment of emancipation.
> ...



Philadelphia allowed Whites to "scourge" Blacks if found in town after dark as late as 1870.  Scourging means to whip, and beat severely.


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

I mention this elsewhere so I'll mention it here where it's more relevant.

Slaves had the longest lifespan of any demographic in the US at the time.

Slaves had a higher caloric intake (on average) than even their Masters.

Slaves worked an average of about 3-4 months out of the year (the typical labor time for a single crop plantation).

Slaves had some impressive slave quarters.

*Slave quarters in Cahawba, Alabama.*
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sempervirens/159775442/

Basically slaves had a better standard of living than any factory worker in Free States, and the Abolitionist movement lied or misrepresented slavery to make it look worse to gain sympathizers.

It doesn't change the fact that slaves earned to be free in general, that masters sometimes were abusive, that slavery is demeaning, that without freedom a person's spirit is crushed, that the threat of slave rebellion required oppressive tyrannical measures of control in the South.

But, still, a slave's life was often better than free labor counterparts, it wouldn't be until after the Golden Era that the standard of living of most laborers would improve well past that of a slave's, and today there's no comparison.

A slave could not be paid enough in kind (services, housing, food etc.) to compensate for the lavish lifestyle we live for 8hr/ work days.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 24, 2009)

Evangelical said:


> Just so you know in regards to sentiment of emancipation.
> 
> Northerners were at the time more racist than southerners, "not in my back yard" exists racially, and Northerners didn't want blacks in their states that's why they sold all their blacks south before "freeing" any remaining blacks of which there were nearly none.
> 
> ...



of course... where were the Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes put into effect, again? Where id thee Klan start and the Freedom Rider bombings later take place? Was it New york?


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Evangelical said:
> 
> 
> > Just so you know in regards to sentiment of emancipation.
> ...



What's your point?  You're saying because you can name one or two instances of racism but you can't name any of the others, you think somehow magically the racism only existed in the South?


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 24, 2009)

1) 'one or two instances'?! I threw out two blanket terms that cover entire litany of abuses

2)Nowhere did I say that. Nice strawman, though


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> 1) 'one or two instances'?! I threw out two blanket terms that cover entire litany of abuses
> 
> 2)Nowhere did I say that. Nice strawman, though



I don't mean instances to mean isolation, learn the meaning of the word.

I asked what is your point?

You for some reason bring up two instances of a long line of abuses, and you apparently don't know anything about the Northern contribution.

So why do you bring it up at all?  Do you have something to add?

Oh wait, let's see, you make the regional reference "where were the Jim Crow Laws etc...."

What does that matter?

That does not change the fact that the North was more Racist than the South before the Civil War.


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

At least freed blacks weren't scourged in the South, and beaten by mobs of angry immigrants.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 24, 2009)

Nope, just recaptured and made slaves again as soon as they wandered too far away from thier 'former' master

Yes, sharecropping really was an improvement...


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Nope, just recaptured and made slaves again as soon as they wandered too far away from thier 'former' master
> 
> Yes, sharecropping really was an improvement...



Again, what's your point?


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 24, 2009)

that glorifying the south is foolish


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> that glorifying the south is foolish



Why?  Most of the greatest of the Founding Fathers came from the South, most of the early Presidents Jefferson notwithstanding, came from the South.

The independent, do-it-yourself, small government populist beliefs that America has come to largely recognize, came from the South (the North were Yeoman farmers and cottagers who relied heavily upon civil government to provide them the means with which to bring manufactures to market; so from the beginning they were dependents).

The South's anti-federalist papers greatly shaped how the debate would evolve to create the federalist papers.

The Federalist Papers would establish the basis of interpretation for the US Constitution.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 24, 2009)

anti-fedealists were limp-wristed weaklings. No Confederacy could possibly stand. Only a republic had the strength to survive


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> anti-fedealists were limp-wristed weaklings. No Confederacy could possibly stand. Only a republic had the strength to survive



The Southern Confederacy was a strong federal republic, modeled almost identically to the US Constitution.  Southerners were convinced by the 1860 that the Union was a good model of government but that the Union as then contained two uncompromising groups of ideologies.

The Anti-Federalists were hardly limp-wristed weaklings do you even know one subject matter of the Anti-Federalist papers?


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 24, 2009)

Evangelical said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > anti-fedealists were limp-wristed weaklings. No Confederacy could possibly stand. Only a republic had the strength to survive
> ...



Impossible by definition. A Confederacy and a Federation are two very different systems. Or do you intend to tell me they were too stupid to know what they were?


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Evangelical said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



No, I'm telling you you're too stupid to know what a Confederacy is.  Read the CS Constitution and tell me what kind of Government it constructed.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 24, 2009)

Evangelical said:


> No, I'm telling you you're too stupid to know what a Confederacy is.  Read the CS Constitution and tell me what kind of Government it constructed.



Yes, let's do that..
The Constitution: text

Let's search for 'Conf-'
First result: 


> No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.



Let's search 'repub-'
First hit


> Article 4 Section 4 - Republican government
> 
> The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 24, 2009)

The US is a federation. The UN is a confederation


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> The US is a federation. The UN is a confederation



Not by any definition of the word.

You're using a high school level of understanding of comparative politics without knowing what limits of knowledge you actually have.

The UN is not a Confederacy at all, the UN is not a binding alliance for all states involved.

A Confederacy is a Union, the United States even today is still considered a Confederacy.

The word Federation, actually in the same use as "Confederacy" is the word "Federacy".

And a Federacy is in fact the EXACT same thing as a Confederacy.

So the United States is also a Federacy.

The difference is usually if any, antagonisms toward one another, a federacy is united against a confederacy in two separate leagues.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 24, 2009)

You're backpeddling and moving the goal posts because your challenge showed you wrong

'Federation' entails a federated system with power going from the top-down. Law from the central gov't overrides local laws unless a system is put in place to limit its power. Federal law overrides any and all local laws in areas where the fed is granted authjority

A confederacy is less centralized and the central authority has no real power- like the UN with its resolutions


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 24, 2009)

America is a federated system which borrowed certain concepts from the confederate ideals when imposing restrictions on federal authority- read up on the Great Compromise


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> America is a federated system which borrowed certain concepts from the confederate ideals when imposing restrictions on federal authority- read up on the Great Compromise



This is my point, you're using high school grade education to make an argument and it's confusing you.

A Federacy (federate system) or a Confederacy (confederated system) are in fact the same thing.

What made the Articles of Confederation and the United States (the United States was called such under the Articles as well, but that's besides the point) different, was not the titles bestowed upon it, that never changed.  It was the fact that within the Confederacy (whether under the Articles or the Constitution) the method of Union had changed from a loose alliance in the Articles to a more defined compromise between state and federal governments.

If anything, what changed was the Confederacy went from being a "Union of Republics" to becoming a "Republic unifying Republics".  The prior Congress didn't really constitute a Government as much as it did an advisement body and representation of unanimous or nearly unanimous agendas of the various Republics it represented.


----------



## Evangelical (Apr 24, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> You're backpeddling and moving the goal posts because your challenge showed you wrong
> 
> 'Federation' entails a federated system with power going from the top-down. Law from the central gov't overrides local laws unless a system is put in place to limit its power. Federal law overrides any and all local laws in areas where the fed is granted authjority
> 
> A confederacy is less centralized and the central authority has no real power- like the UN with its resolutions



Here you're already wrong.

"Top-down" power is called Unitarianism and is the system in use in Britain.

The US is a "bottom-up" power base, exemplified by the fact there are over 70,000 autonomous governments in the US representing the People who control them.

The UN does not even meet the definition of a Confederacy because it has no alliance system combining all the participating states into a Confederacy.

NATO is a Confederacy.

But so is the current United States.

So was THE Confederacy.

So was the Union before that.

So was the Articles of Confederation.

All of them are Confederacies.  You need to expand your vocabulary to better discuss the differences between them.


----------



## noakes 2024 (Apr 24, 2009)

The Declaration of Independence states, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". This to secure the "unalienable Rights" which were "endowed [upon us] by [our] Creator".

The argument in this post seems to be that a limited Federal Government is more in line with what the Founding Fathers' envisioned for our Country. That is achieved, largely by allowing the individual states and local governments and individuals to have more control. 

I think the principle inferred in the original post is correct. People are so caught up in the semantics  of the argument using the 'Confederacy' and the 'Union' that they don't want to recognize the principle. It is always best to solve problems or issues at the lowest level possible. One of the reasons America is so great, is our system allows for that to happen. We have local, state, and federal governing bodies. The problem in the current trend (I think this is what the thread is pointing out) is the Federal Government is expanding its power to encompass areas that should be left to the lower governing bodies or the individual person. With a vast expansion of power, the Federal Government transforms from deriving powers from our consent to seizing power and imposing its will upon those who are governed. You see it is a fundamental role reversal. The system that was initially established to serve the people and protect their rights, becomes so large and all encompassing that it requires the people to serve it through a restriction of rights. In theory a governing body should not be allow to do something that I personally am not entitled to do through virtue of my unalienable rights. This is b/c the government gets its power from me and I cannot give it power that I do not have. I do not have the power or the right to take money or gain from my neighbors for my support or to advance my industry. Therefore it is an abuse of power for me to have a governing body do it on my behalf (ie. farmers' subsidies, bailouts, federal government takeovers of private businesses, etc).


----------



## editec (Apr 24, 2009)

bthoma91 said:


> I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.
> 
> Tell me your opinion.


 
The southern states has a legitmate beef when it came to TARIFFS.

Since theirs were by NATURE an agricultural economy, tariffs simply cost them money when they bought stuff from Europe.

But as the floundering fathers set up the FEDS with the power to control international trade, and since those same floundering fathers wanted to ENCOURAGE the growth of industrialism, and IMPOSED TARIFFS, (hell the whole Federal government was paid for from tariffs!) one can CERTAINLY understand the Southerners anger about having to pay duties on imports.

But the real problem was slavery.

The Southern economy, and MOST of it capital was in the form of slaves.

ANYTHING that threatened slavery was a threat to the whole Southern economy.

EVen limiting slavery to the existing southern states depressed the value of those slaves (hence the borrowing power of slavers, too)

The war between the states was still another example of a CLASS WAR, folks.

In this case the CLASSES were the dominate agricultures MASTERS of the South V the growing industrial MASTERS of the North. 

It's about ECONOMICS, folks...it's _ALWAYS_ about economics.

Brush aside all the legalistic BS about states rights, all the moral blather about slavery, all the social heritage values nonsense, and what you find when you get to the root of the problem is opposing forces fighting for the only thing that they really worship..._ MAMMON._

BOTH sides, folks.._both sides_ were fighting over economic CONTROL.


----------



## 007 (Apr 24, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > OK, well, I don't have the book, and I can't see where it disputes it. So, we're right back to square one. Show me. I want to know the truth.
> ...



This old trick is as dumb as dirt. If you want to claim Lincoln didn't say that, then prove he didn't say it, simple as that. Calling me a liar when I've lied about nothing isn't going to do anything but acquire yourself an enemy here that won't forget it.

Now get to work or shut the fuck up. Adults are having a conversation.


----------



## GHook93 (Apr 24, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > bthoma91 said:
> ...



Preserving the UNION was the cause of the war, but the split of the Union was because of Slavery! Its clear as day!


----------



## 007 (Apr 24, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Well, like I said, I've read quite a bit about Civil War battles and even visited battle grounds, but have a rather average knowledge of the intricacies of the why's of the war. Thanks for the conversation on that.

And I bring up the possibility of another one because there's murmuring of one. Things are bad. We have a President with zero experience at anything other than community organizing. He and his liberal henchmen are spending money at an astronomical rate and passing massive bills that grow the government into a behemoth and they don't read the bills before they vote on them. Also it's now become evident that our grand children are going to be so far in debt that they'll never, ever be able to pay it back. They'll be taxed into oblivion. In other words, draconian actions may be needed to correct the problem, as in a revolution, or Civil War.


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 24, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> This old trick is as dumb as dirt. If you want to claim Lincoln didn't say that, then prove he didn't say it, simple as that. Calling me a liar when I've lied about nothing isn't going to do anything but acquire yourself an enemy here that won't forget it.
> 
> Now get to work or shut the fuck up. Adults are having a conversation.




'I am a terrorist. I remember when I first met Osama bin Laden- we mad passionate love all night and swore to eachother we would destroy the infidels. Nothing angers me more than Americans and their freedom, especially when I'm making love to a camel.'
-Pale Rider
-George Bush
-Barrack Obama
-Hillary Clinton


Prove that none of them said it.

He who argues the affirmative must prove the affirmative to be true. that you refuse to observe the burden of proof and defend your claims when you were challenged by another user implies that you were well aware that the information (quote) you cited was incorrect and used it anyway in a dishonest attempt to lend credence to your claims. That makes you a liar. You made the claim that Lincoln said it. Either cite verifiable and reliable source or recant


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 24, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> anti-fedealists were limp-wristed weaklings. No Confederacy could possibly stand. Only a republic had the strength to survive



The thing of it is, is that the United States is a confederacy.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 24, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Clear as a cloudy day, perhaps.  Yes, slavery was certainly a part of their reason for leaving the Union, but you can't ignore the role that tariffs played either.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 24, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



I see no benefit to secession or a Civil War in this day and age.  I mean, is it there really a point to trading one massive government for another?  There aren't enough Thomas Jefferson's around that believe in a truly limited government these days.


----------



## cunclusion (Apr 24, 2009)

jsanders said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > What is so wonderful about state's rights?
> ...



The issue with states rights is that most states do the same job as the federal government just on a smaller level. They neglect part of the population, mismanage money atleast that is what they are doing in South Carolina (you have property, sales, luxury(car) and income) and they still cant keep money correct this is a Republican run state by the way, depend on outside income from the federal government.  So are states really that much better than the federal government because things would be alot different if states ran things and not the federal government (Brown vs Board of Education).


----------



## editec (Apr 24, 2009)

> Both North and South detested the Negro, just manifested itself differently. In John Jakes novel the North and South, he eloquently stated this in the book. "In the south it didn't matter how close a black man got so long as he didn't get to high. In the north it didn't matter how high a black man rose, so long as he didn't get too close".


 
Not much has really changed, has it?

This is one of the better threads this place has spawned, folks.

Kudos to those of you who've contributed to it.

As to things Abe Lincoln said?

Abe said a lot of things, some of them overtly racist.

He didn't end up like he started out, folks.

As to what caused the war?

Seems like all of you have at least a piece of the puzzle.

Put them ALL together and you're going to see the whole picture.


----------



## GHook93 (Apr 24, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



In every war there are dozens of underlining causes, but the preservation of the union was the main cause of the Civil War and the main cause of the succession was slavery. 

You do know that there was an attempt back during the formation of the country after the revolutionary war to end slavery. The abolutionist movement was alive and well as far back as 1750. HOWEVER, the country just went through a civil war and was in its infancy. It was not ready for an internal conflict, so it settled on a compromise. That compromise was the Northwest Ordinance! 

For one to even begin to argue that Fed's abolishing of slavery infringed on the 10th amendment, first does not understand the 10th amendment and 2nd doesn't understand the 5th amendment.

For one to argue that slavery was not a leading cause of the war, doesn't understand the effect the Dred Scott Case had on history or how prevalent the abolutionary movement was in the North (not saying the North didn't have their prejuidices against the Blacks)!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 24, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Well the abolitionist movement in the north was not very prevalent, to be honest.  As to abolishing slavery being an infringement on the 10th amendment, nobody has made that claim.  However, not allowing the states to secede is an infringement of constitutional rights.


----------



## ItsFairmont (Apr 24, 2009)

Slavery the cause of the Civil War?

What about the tariffs?


The Southerners dropped out of the Union.  Now, why would the North spend so much time, energy, money and men to force the South back into the Union?


Money!


The North needed the South, but the South did not need the North.


It is that simple.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 25, 2009)

ItsFairmont said:


> Slavery the cause of the Civil War?
> 
> What about the tariffs?
> 
> ...



I agree with that.  Lincoln only wanted to force the south back into the Union so that they would have to pay their tribute to the federal government.


----------



## balatro (May 10, 2009)

The question is if the Confederate regime was significantly morally distinguishable from the imperialist regimes of the day.  Consider, for example, that the Anglo-French opium war (Second Opium War) ended only months before secession.  Also, the Native American genocide is at least comparable to Confederate-era slavery in terms of degree of wrongness.  No, the issue here, IMO, is one of selective outrage over justifiable outrage.  

I think the Lincoln-endorsed Corwin Amendment has already been mentioned.  Let me just add that this amendment was/is what&#8217;s known as an entrenchment.  In other words, it was designed to prevent any future amendments that would&#8217;ve given Congress the power to interfere with slavery where it existed.

Lincoln also, prior to his own proclamation, overturned two of his generals&#8217; emancipation proclamations.  Additionally, he was calling for both gradual emancipation to the year 1900 and voluntary deportation of the emancipated blacks months after his 1862 proclamation of selective emancipation.

On the subject of emancipation, it&#8217;s worth mentioning that Confederate commanders like Lee and Cleburne supported both Southern conditional emancipation (for blacks who served in the Confederate military) and Southern gradualistic universal emancipation.  The Davis government also presented to Britain and France an offer of emancipation in exchange for diplomatic recognition.  Now, I&#8217;m not suggesting that the South turned egalitarian during this period of time.  However, the evidence establishes that the characterization of the Confederate upper-echelon as solidly pro-slavery is false.

I have no interest in presenting the Confederate movement as a positive historical force.  However, I will oppose to the end the moral isolation of the Confederate regime (i.e., its selective demonization) from the other parasitical oligarchies of that time.


----------



## GHook93 (May 11, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Take some law classes before you proclaim yourself a master of the constitution. Otherwise you just look like a fool!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (May 11, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



I've never claimed to be a "master of the Constitution."  However, I am able to read and since the 10th Amendment claims all powers not granted to the federal government or prohibited to the state governments belong to the states or to the people it is to be assumed that secession is clearly constitutional.


----------



## Meemer (May 12, 2009)

I must jump in here before my eyes go bad---this thread is growing so fast.

Cause of War: expansion of slavery into the territories (see Kansas/Nebraska for ex.)

Lincoln mulled over the Emancipation for many, many months. The mental conflict was fighting a war to stop the spread of slavery, yet not ending slavery for those people and granting them freedom. A conundrum.

Slavery was becoming economically infeasible, thus the need to spread to new lands in the SW and Plains territories for fresh soil.

Labor in the North did fear the freed slaves as competition for jobs. They would fight to stop expansion and to end secession but they were not fighting to free blacks.

Our Constitution provides no manner I'm aware of for seceding once a territory has committed to becoming a state. As for WV, those former counties of VA, to their minds, never really left the Union = their acceptance as a state and not as a seceded state from another state.

I noticed McPherson mentioned. It would pay many of you to read this man's Civil War books. Also Bruce Catton's books on the Civil War.

Someone stated the South did not need the North!  With one major iron factory the South didn't need the industry of the North?
Another thing, getting back to the concept of North-good; South-bad. I was never taught that and never thought that---being a Northerner. Personally I think the South was short-minded. 1860 was a bumper cotton crop year. The British warehouses were bulging. Seceding and precipitating a war and thinking European, primarily British aid would come a'runni' was naive. No source of money, very few major industries, 100s of miles less railroads. My view is "My way or no way" commanded Southern thinking. The bulk of the population had no slaves, thus slavery was not the cause. The expansion of slavery was a major cause, as were the tariffs. But tariffs had been lowered prior to the outbreak of hostilities. For me the cause of the American Civil War was arrogance.


----------

