Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[kaz]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

I think the Confederacy would have had to concede the issue of slavery by 1900. They would have grudgingly provided blacks with some legal status but not full rights and not the vote
It would be like Jim Crow on steroids

Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party. Either that or you'll lynch them. But they can't say they don't have a choice!

How on earth are blacks slaves of the Democratic Party?

Are you just rambling whatever nonsense pops into your head?

Um...I answered that question in the post you quoted, big guy...

 

[bripat9643]

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

The historical revisionists want moar slaves, as apparently the illegals they get in from Mexico aren't enough.

You and your komrades are the ones who want to bring in slaves from Mexico.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

How on earth are blacks slaves of the Democratic Party?

Are you just rambling whatever nonsense pops into your head?

Because a greater percentage of their population is food, clothed and sheltered than any other racial group in the United States. Blacks were dependent on KKK Democrats before they were free, and they are dependent on the same KKK LBJ "make dem nigga vote democrat for 200 years" Democratic party of today.

Nothing has changed, just the label from "slave" to "free."

If I put a "fresh" sticker on a rotten apple would that make it fresh in reality?

 

[OKTexas]

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

Has no bearing on a States right to succeed.

 

[OKTexas]

QUOTE="Skylar: "Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position."


Great post.

Those who argue that the General Welfare clause is an independent power also must ignore Madison. The only difference is Madison included the limits on General Welfare in the Constitution and included nothing on succession.

 

[-S-]

[Your claim was, in black and white, as clear as crystal:

KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."

Yes, and you just again proved me right

As for Bripat:

In response to the argument "why would anybody defend the immoral Confederate causes"

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government?...

To which I and many others pointed out that the 'right to self government' was based around the 'right' to continue slavery, to which he never made an argument against slavery, just that the 'states had the right' to choose for themselves.

Your argument is exactly what I said, if he supports secession, that means he supports the reason they want to secede. No, it doesn't mean that. Amazing, you keep hounding me to prove your statement which you keep proving yourself

Incorrect. You claim was that I said that you and others who support the right to secede automatically supports slavery. It's up there^ in black and white. That's what "WE" means. There's no "WE" in any of your 'proof'.

You are wrong and your tap dance routine around the main point of the discourse is obvious for everyone to see.

 

[bripat9643]

[Your claim was, in black and white, as clear as crystal:

KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."

Yes, and you just again proved me right

As for Bripat:

In response to the argument "why would anybody defend the immoral Confederate causes"

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government?...

To which I and many others pointed out that the 'right to self government' was based around the 'right' to continue slavery, to which he never made an argument against slavery, just that the 'states had the right' to choose for themselves.

Your argument is exactly what I said, if he supports secession, that means he supports the reason they want to secede. No, it doesn't mean that. Amazing, you keep hounding me to prove your statement which you keep proving yourself

Incorrect. You claim was that I said that you and others who support the right to secede automatically supports slavery. It's up there^ in black and white. That's what "WE" means. There's no "WE" in any of your 'proof'.

You are wrong and your tap dance routine around the main point of the discourse is obvious for everyone to see.

Gibberish.

 

[-S-]

[Your claim was, in black and white, as clear as crystal:

KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."

Yes, and you just again proved me right

As for Bripat:

In response to the argument "why would anybody defend the immoral Confederate causes"

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government?...

To which I and many others pointed out that the 'right to self government' was based around the 'right' to continue slavery, to which he never made an argument against slavery, just that the 'states had the right' to choose for themselves.

Your argument is exactly what I said, if he supports secession, that means he supports the reason they want to secede. No, it doesn't mean that. Amazing, you keep hounding me to prove your statement which you keep proving yourself

Incorrect. You claim was that I said that you and others who support the right to secede automatically supports slavery. It's up there^ in black and white. That's what "WE" means. There's no "WE" in any of your 'proof'.

You are wrong and your tap dance routine around the main point of the discourse is obvious for everyone to see.

Gibberish.

To the uneducated, yes.

 

[Siete]

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

Has no bearing on a States right to succeed.

secede you idiot.

 

[hipeter924]

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

Has no bearing on a States right to succeed.

Well, I think the South went about it all wrong.

If you want to secede, you
hold a referendum (legal or not), then petition the central government. If negotiation fails then you consider arbitrary steps like setting up a counter government.

Having set up a counter government, you then respond peacefully through demonstrations and never take up arms, which is what Gandhi did in India with widespread success - as non violent protests are something a democratic government can't stop without protests from all of society.

Had the South remained in the House and the Senate, and pressured for secession it would have had a much greater chance at it, than with a civil war.

 

[rightwinger]

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

I already proved it's not a contract, fool.

The supreme court is an arm of the government. Allowing that arrangement to resolve disputes between the government and the people would be like having a game between the Patriots and the Seahawks and having the Patriot's coaching staff do all the officiating for the game.

No one has a problem when things go their way, especially not the government, and things almost always go its way.

Sorry, but you proved you are a moron

The Constitution was the contract of our nation and was signed by all states

You are not allowed to unilaterally void a contract

 

[paperview]

QUOTE="Skylar: "Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position."


Great post.

"expressly understood"?

So, they did not put in any language to put their position into the Constitution.

And, then years later, an organ of the government ruled to increase their own power...


This is not convincing to me.

A contract that once entered, you cannot revoke under penalty of war, that point should be very clearly spelled out.

Article VI, Clause 2. :

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3 of Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [My emphasis]

State officers have to swear an oath (or affirmation) to support the federal Constitution. State sovereignty is subordinate to the federal government.

And in the words of James Madison himself:

“[T]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.

 

[Correll]

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

I already proved it's not a contract, fool.

The supreme court is an arm of the government. Allowing that arrangement to resolve disputes between the government and the people would be like having a game between the Patriots and the Seahawks and having the Patriot's coaching staff do all the officiating for the game.

No one has a problem when things go their way, especially not the government, and things almost always go its way.

Sorry, but you proved you are a moron

The Constitution was the contract of our nation and was signed by all states

You are not allowed to unilaterally void a contract

Show me where it said that those that entered the Union could not exit the Union.

 

[rightwinger]

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

Has no bearing on a States right to succeed.

Well, I think the South went about it all wrong.

If you want to secede, you
hold a referendum (legal or not), then petition the central government. If negotiation fails then you consider arbitrary steps like setting up a counter government.

Having set up a counter government, you then respond peacefully through demonstrations and never take up arms, which is what Gandhi did in India with widespread success - as non violent protests are something a democratic government can't stop without protests from all of society.

Had the South remained in the House and the Senate, and pressured for secession it would have had a much greater chance at it, than with a civil war.

The Southern States cannot just pick up their ball and go home when they no longer want to belong to the United States. The withdrawall terms had to be negotiated with the other states to resolve issues like national debt, federal assets in those states, federal property, citizens who want to remain loyal to the US and hundreds of other details

 

[rightwinger]

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

I already proved it's not a contract, fool.

The supreme court is an arm of the government. Allowing that arrangement to resolve disputes between the government and the people would be like having a game between the Patriots and the Seahawks and having the Patriot's coaching staff do all the officiating for the game.

No one has a problem when things go their way, especially not the government, and things almost always go its way.

Sorry, but you proved you are a moron

The Constitution was the contract of our nation and was signed by all states

You are not allowed to unilaterally void a contract

Show me where it said that those that entered the Union could not exit the Union.

The part where they confirmed the Constitution

 

[-S-]

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

I already proved it's not a contract, fool.

The supreme court is an arm of the government. Allowing that arrangement to resolve disputes between the government and the people would be like having a game between the Patriots and the Seahawks and having the Patriot's coaching staff do all the officiating for the game.

No one has a problem when things go their way, especially not the government, and things almost always go its way.

Sorry, but you proved you are a moron

The Constitution was the contract of our nation and was signed by all states

You are not allowed to unilaterally void a contract

Show me where it said that those that entered the Union could not exit the Union.

On the flip side, show us where it states that those that entered the Union COULD exit the Union.

 

[OKTexas]

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

Has no bearing on a States right to succeed.

Well, I think the South went about it all wrong.

If you want to secede, you
hold a referendum (legal or not), then petition the central government. If negotiation fails then you consider arbitrary steps like setting up a counter government.

Having set up a counter government, you then respond peacefully through demonstrations and never take up arms, which is what Gandhi did in India with widespread success - as non violent protests are something a democratic government can't stop without protests from all of society.

Had the South remained in the House and the Senate, and pressured for secession it would have had a much greater chance at it, than with a civil war.

Different place different time, had Gandhi done what he did in the 1860's he most likely been met with the same force.

 

[-S-]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

I think the Confederacy would have had to concede the issue of slavery by 1900. They would have grudgingly provided blacks with some legal status but not full rights and not the vote
It would be like Jim Crow on steroids

Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party. Either that or you'll lynch them. But they can't say they don't have a choice!

How on earth are blacks slaves of the Democratic Party?

Are you just rambling whatever nonsense pops into your head?

Um...I answered that question in the post you quoted, big guy...

Um...No you didn't.

You made the claim in the post he quoted. He wanted you to substantiate that claim.

You're really bad at this 'debate' stuff..

 

[Correll]

QUOTE="Skylar: "Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position."


Great post.

"expressly understood"?

So, they did not put in any language to put their position into the Constitution.

And, then years later, an organ of the government ruled to increase their own power...


This is not convincing to me.

A contract that once entered, you cannot revoke under penalty of war, that point should be very clearly spelled out.

Article VI, Clause 2. :

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3 of Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [My emphasis]

State officers have to swear an oath (or affirmation) to support the federal Constitution. State sovereignty is subordinate to the federal government.

And in the words of James Madison himself:

“[T]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.

I like what Madison said. That was very, very clear. "In toto, and for ever".

If that was in the Constitution, then the ramifications would have been clear to those that signed it.

There is no such language in your excerpt from the Constitution.

I can see how such language COULD BE interpreted to support the idea that the states legislators, would be required to resist any session movement.

But, it is still implied, at best, and a matter of judgement as to whether it means that.

 

[bripat9643]

[Your claim was, in black and white, as clear as crystal:

KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."

Yes, and you just again proved me right

As for Bripat:

In response to the argument "why would anybody defend the immoral Confederate causes"

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government?...

To which I and many others pointed out that the 'right to self government' was based around the 'right' to continue slavery, to which he never made an argument against slavery, just that the 'states had the right' to choose for themselves.

Your argument is exactly what I said, if he supports secession, that means he supports the reason they want to secede. No, it doesn't mean that. Amazing, you keep hounding me to prove your statement which you keep proving yourself

Incorrect. You claim was that I said that you and others who support the right to secede automatically supports slavery. It's up there^ in black and white. That's what "WE" means. There's no "WE" in any of your 'proof'.

You are wrong and your tap dance routine around the main point of the discourse is obvious for everyone to see.

Gibberish.

To the uneducated, yes.

Nope. It's gibberish.

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

Has no bearing on a States right to succeed.

Well, I think the South went about it all wrong.

If you want to secede, you
hold a referendum (legal or not), then petition the central government. If negotiation fails then you consider arbitrary steps like setting up a counter government.

Having set up a counter government, you then respond peacefully through demonstrations and never take up arms, which is what Gandhi did in India with widespread success - as non violent protests are something a democratic government can't stop without protests from all of society.

Had the South remained in the House and the Senate, and pressured for secession it would have had a much greater chance at it, than with a civil war.

That only works for colonies of decaying empires, moron. It doesn't work with tyrants who are willing to commit mass murder to keep you from seceding.