Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They like white Christian Republican Americans, and everybody else...they range from tolerating them, to hating themThis thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.
This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.
Total *$*#^ from the man who is famously quoted as saying "people never talk about the "good aspects" of slavery."
No, it happens to be fact. Go read those states' ordinances/declarations of causes. It's in black and white.
And this gross distortion about my comments regarding the aspects of slavery has been answered before. People can read the original statement in Slavery and Southern Independence.
Sure free States Could join the the Union -- as SLAVE STATES. Slavery was a guarantee in the CSA.
Wrong again. Free states could join the Confederacy as free states. The "guarantee" of slavery that you keep mischaracterizing was that slaveholders could temporarily travel in free Confederate states with their slaves and that the national government could not abolish slavery in any state without the state's consent.
The Confederates Constitution ensured slavery in perpetuity.
Wrong yet again. The CSA Constitution allowed for Confederate states to abolish slavery if they so desired. When the Confederate debate on emancipation became widespread in 1864, both sides acknowledged this fact.
As for your fiction about the right of secession, try this short article for starters:
Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary
Here's some more light reading for you, neo confed give a finger toddler:
"Let’s now consider New York: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.” When they are speaking of the people within states they use the phrase “of the several states.” Since that phrase is absent when they discuss the powers of government being reassumed by “the People,” they are clearly referring to the people of the United States en masse.
Is there any support for this? Yes!
During the New York ratification convention, there was a move to propose amendments, and to reserve a right to withdraw from the Union if these amendments were not accepted. Alexander Hamilton wrote to James Madison about this, and Madison replied
, “My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.
It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
“This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started in Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.” [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788]
Notice how Madison says the idea of reserving a right to withdraw was considered and rejected in the Virginia Ratification Convention. The proposal to reserve a right to withdraw was defeated in the New York convention as well."
More: Did the States Reserve a Right to Secede Student of the American Civil War
This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.
That's what happens when your country turns into a big fascist empire of subjects and job holders.
Here's some more light reading for you, neo confed give a finger toddler:
"Let’s now consider New York: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.” When they are speaking of the people within states they use the phrase “of the several states.” Since that phrase is absent when they discuss the powers of government being reassumed by “the People,” they are clearly referring to the people of the United States en masse.
Is there any support for this? Yes!
During the New York ratification convention, there was a move to propose amendments, and to reserve a right to withdraw from the Union if these amendments were not accepted. Alexander Hamilton wrote to James Madison about this, and Madison replied
, “My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.
It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
“This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started in Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.” [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788]
Notice how Madison says the idea of reserving a right to withdraw was considered and rejected in the Virginia Ratification Convention. The proposal to reserve a right to withdraw was defeated in the New York convention as well."
More: Did the States Reserve a Right to Secede Student of the American Civil War
Yes, you've done a fine job of showing that there were people, at the time that thought the Union was "in toto and for ever".
It is to bad that those people were not confident enough in their support to actually place such language in the Constitution.
A legal opinion of what a law means is a has no weight unless it is in a judicial review, and then it lasts until some future court decides to over turn it.
Do you believe this?
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Total *$*#^ from the man who is famously quoted as saying "people never talk about the "good aspects" of slavery."
No, it happens to be fact. Go read those states' ordinances/declarations of causes. It's in black and white.
And this gross distortion about my comments regarding the aspects of slavery has been answered before. People can read the original statement in Slavery and Southern Independence.
Sure free States Could join the the Union -- as SLAVE STATES. Slavery was a guarantee in the CSA.
Wrong again. Free states could join the Confederacy as free states. The "guarantee" of slavery that you keep mischaracterizing was that slaveholders could temporarily travel in free Confederate states with their slaves and that the national government could not abolish slavery in any state without the state's consent.
Here's some more light reading for you, neo confed give a finger toddler:
"Let’s now consider New York: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.” When they are speaking of the people within states they use the phrase “of the several states.” Since that phrase is absent when they discuss the powers of government being reassumed by “the People,” they are clearly referring to the people of the United States en masse.
Is there any support for this? Yes!
During the New York ratification convention, there was a move to propose amendments, and to reserve a right to withdraw from the Union if these amendments were not accepted. Alexander Hamilton wrote to James Madison about this, and Madison replied
, “My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.
It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
“This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started in Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.” [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788]
Notice how Madison says the idea of reserving a right to withdraw was considered and rejected in the Virginia Ratification Convention. The proposal to reserve a right to withdraw was defeated in the New York convention as well."
More: Did the States Reserve a Right to Secede Student of the American Civil War
Here's some more light reading for you, neo confed give a finger toddler:
"Let’s now consider New York: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.” When they are speaking of the people within states they use the phrase “of the several states.” Since that phrase is absent when they discuss the powers of government being reassumed by “the People,” they are clearly referring to the people of the United States en masse.
Is there any support for this? Yes!
During the New York ratification convention, there was a move to propose amendments, and to reserve a right to withdraw from the Union if these amendments were not accepted. Alexander Hamilton wrote to James Madison about this, and Madison replied
, “My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.
It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
“This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started in Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.” [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788]
Notice how Madison says the idea of reserving a right to withdraw was considered and rejected in the Virginia Ratification Convention. The proposal to reserve a right to withdraw was defeated in the New York convention as well."
More: Did the States Reserve a Right to Secede Student of the American Civil War
Yes, you've done a fine job of showing that there were people, at the time that thought the Union was "in toto and for ever".
It is to bad that those people were not confident enough in their support to actually place such language in the Constitution.
A legal opinion of what a law means is a has no weight unless it is in a judicial review, and then it lasts until some future court decides to over turn it.
Do you believe this?
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
All that statement in italics does is bless treason.
....
Wrong yet again. The CSA Constitution allowed for Confederate states to abolish slavery if they so desired. ...
[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.
This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.
That's what happens when your country turns into a big fascist empire of subjects and job holders.
See? He doesn't disagree.
[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.
So you are really huffy that I said you are equating them in general and you say you were only doing it to bripat? Seriously? That really has your undies in a wad? Fascinating
That's what our discussion was about. You made a claim you couldn't substantiate, and continuously dodged that fact. Thanks for (finally) being upfront.
This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.
That's what happens when your country turns into a big fascist empire of subjects and job holders.
See? He doesn't disagree.
No I don't. this country used to be something admirable, but now it isn't.
We've known for a long time now you have trouble with reading and comprehension.Here's some more light reading for you, neo confed give a finger toddler:
"Let’s now consider New York: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.” When they are speaking of the people within states they use the phrase “of the several states.” Since that phrase is absent when they discuss the powers of government being reassumed by “the People,” they are clearly referring to the people of the United States en masse.
Is there any support for this? Yes!
During the New York ratification convention, there was a move to propose amendments, and to reserve a right to withdraw from the Union if these amendments were not accepted. Alexander Hamilton wrote to James Madison about this, and Madison replied
, “My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.
It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
“This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started in Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.” [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788]
Notice how Madison says the idea of reserving a right to withdraw was considered and rejected in the Virginia Ratification Convention. The proposal to reserve a right to withdraw was defeated in the New York convention as well."
More: Did the States Reserve a Right to Secede Student of the American Civil War
How could have been defeated when it's in the official document? You even quoted it.
I'm not sure any of them have noticed the dysfuntion the Confedreacy experienced in it's few years of trying to legislate. If the dumb asses wouldn't have started a war, within a governmental frame work that opposed centralization, it might have gone on longer. Not a lot of forward thinking from Confederates, just like the lack of forthought practiced by southern evangelicals todayThey like white Christian Republican Americans, and everybody else...they range from tolerating them, to hating themThis thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.
They want 50 countries out of the 50 states. They want the Balkanization of America.
And the reason they want it is because they believe that little conservative nations can better impose a tyranny of the majority on its citizens than can one big nation.
You'd think, in all those years, the logic centers would work beyond a 9th grade level.This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.
That's what happens when your country turns into a big fascist empire of subjects and job holders.
See? He doesn't disagree.
No I don't. this country used to be something admirable, but now it isn't.
When looking through your posts, it appears you've hated America since, at least, the Lincoln administration
We've known for a long time now you have trouble with reading and comprehension.Here's some more light reading for you, neo confed give a finger toddler:
"Let’s now consider New York: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.” When they are speaking of the people within states they use the phrase “of the several states.” Since that phrase is absent when they discuss the powers of government being reassumed by “the People,” they are clearly referring to the people of the United States en masse.
Is there any support for this? Yes!
During the New York ratification convention, there was a move to propose amendments, and to reserve a right to withdraw from the Union if these amendments were not accepted. Alexander Hamilton wrote to James Madison about this, and Madison replied
, “My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.
It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
“This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started in Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.” [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788]
Notice how Madison says the idea of reserving a right to withdraw was considered and rejected in the Virginia Ratification Convention. The proposal to reserve a right to withdraw was defeated in the New York convention as well."
More: Did the States Reserve a Right to Secede Student of the American Civil War
How could have been defeated when it's in the official document? You even quoted it.
Oh well, too bad, so sad.
Oh yeah, this too: Civil War. Southerners LOST.
"CSA: Died of a theory" - written on the tombstone - Jefferson Davis
Oh my God, shut it! Secessionists deserved to die, because they were stupid.The more southerners that were raped, killed, robbed, and otherwise demoralized, out of supporting the continued unlawfull seizure of US territiory by slave owners...the better. The fact that Republican bible thumpers from the south are still around means Sherman left too many of them aliveLincoln's soldiers, with his express permission, raped thousands of Southern women, especially black female slaves.
Oh I am curious now- where and when did Lincoln give that express permission?
Link please.
Oh puhleeze. You have to be retarded to believe that Sherman didn't deliberate turn a blind eye to it, and that Lincoln knew about it.
Oh, Sherman was an animal. He was a big believer in making war so ugly and nasty for one's opponents that surrender would be appealing.
Admittedly, he had a point, as far as that went.
You're a goose-stepping moron who condones the mass murder of American citizens.
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..
