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

[NYcarbineer]

What legal and binding document are you quoting?

I am quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Derr. I think he knows that.

The question still applies.

And if you think "The states delegated to the federal government supreme power" is wrong, then you haven't read the one important and legally binding Document you should be paying attention to...

The States ratified a Constitution which specifically limited the power of the Federal Government, specifically to preclude the Federal Government from becoming supremely powerful over the states.

If you lack the intellectual means to understand that FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN PRINCIPLE... then you simply lack the means to remain a viable contributor to this discussion.

It's not even a debatable point.

Eat this:


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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Interesting... Yet where such laws are set upon the people, outside the scope of the enumerated limits upon the power of the US Federal Government, no American is in any way obligated to so much as recognize that law, let alone to comply with such.

Of course the Federal Government will likely disagree... as did the Crown of England, when we informed them of that very principle.

The quote you refer to is an enumerated power.

All you're arguing for is the ability to commit treason. Of course people have that ability.

 

[paperview]

And when folks look at the constitution 'with their own eyes', they find absolutely no mention of secession whatsoever. Not the slightest peep.

So the constitution says absolutely nothing about secession, and the "Father of the Constitution" says no such right exists. With the States that tried to reserve the right to secede pulling such amendments, as the would not have been ratification of the Constitution.

You've given us exactly jack shit to back your claims with. You have absolutely nothing affirming your argument. Nothing in the constitution says what you do. And we have excellent sources from the era of the founding that demmonstrate that the issue was discussed, debated, and your claims refuted.

I agree, there is no mention of secession in the Constitution. Thank you for admitting that.

"Admitting' that? I've been the one telling you that. Your argument has so utterly imploded that you're trying to adopt my argument as you own.

And well you should. The evidence overwhelmingly supports my position.

The question, IMO, was open to reasonable disagreement.

Ignoring the history of the ratification of the constitution, the debates on this very issue, and the explicit and repeated rejection of the idea by the 'father of the constitution' isn't what I'd call 'reasonable'.

Reasonable would be following the preponderance of the evidence. And it lines up overwhelmingly on one side of the issue. As even southerners of the era of ratification admitted 'The Union of the States: the Majority must govern; secession is treason."

And this from a leading leading Virginian judge Spencer Roane, and leader of State's rights in the State.

Even the USSC recognized that the status of the State as sovereign changed once they joined under the constitution, as articulated in Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

I've provided overwhelming, overlapping, and among the most widely respected sources there are on the matter. You've provided nothing to refute any of it.

The Supreme Court derives its power from the Constitution. The Constitution derives its power from the states. It's more than unseemly to suggest the Supreme Court can weigh in on whether or not states can secede. Even floating that argument betrays an ignorance of the formation of the Union on a fundamental level. The states can, at their leisure, convene an Article 5 convention and do away with the Supreme Court if they so wish. The states have the power and always have.

What do you want to bet the Supreme Court would rule such an amendment "unconstitutional?"

I"m sure they would try. Ultimately courts only have the power we give to them. Eventually states are going to start realizing they don't have to abide by every edict of the Supreme Court.

How'd that work out in 1963?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Even the founders admitted that they were simply committing treason when they rebelled.

Remember the line about hanging together or hanging separately?

 

[Skylar]

And again the Might Makes Right argument.

Which is what the South used for as its basis of maintaining its entire economy and system of governance. Slavery wasn't enforced through stern looks and fingerwagging. But amputation, execution, castration and simply brutal beatings.

And if there had been a slave rebellion in the south, the south would have put it down with force. Just ask Nate Turner.

When using a system of violence to enforce your laws, you can't rightly call a foul when violence is used to enforce the law against you. You can't have it both ways.

Pick one.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Perpetual...

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Even the founders admitted that they were simply committing treason when they rebelled.

Remember the line about hanging together or hanging separately?

No shit Gilligan. Welcome to the point.

 

[Skylar]

Even the founders admitted that they were simply committing treason when they rebelled.

Remember the line about hanging together or hanging separately?

The difference is they won. If they'd lost it would have merely been a colonial rebellion put down in antiquity.

The south commited their treason, waged their war....and lost. And the most fundamental tenet of any successful rebellion?

Winning it.

 

[there4eyeM]

The war for Independence was only treason viewed from the English side.

 

[Skylar]

Why is it important?

It seems the Statesmen of the south there in 1851 understood secession was not sanctioned by the Constitution.

When threatened with the map, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

A Convention cannot place restrictions on the actions of a State in the future.

How would you respond if in a debate about an issue, I started citing the current Republican Congress, and claiming that some future Democratic Congress would not have the right to "change it's mind"?

Rhetorical question: You would ridicule me mercilessly.

And you would be right to do so.

See where I am going with this?

No one "placed restrictions on them."

It was how they read the Constitution -- at that time --

As I said -- When threatened with the map of the expanding country, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

It came down to *shit* we're gonna lose our slaves and our literal lifeblood!

Odd, prior to Gettysburg, Lincoln maintained that he was NOT out to eliminate slavery.

Are you implying that he was lying?

Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. If he could have done so without abolishing slavery, he'd have done it in a second.

How did abolishing slavery help him preserve the Union?

Because Lincoln didn't think the nation would survive half state and half free. The civil war itself being compelling evidence in support of his premise. I mean, have you even read the 'House Divided' speech? He lays it out in pretty, plain language.

While Lincoln personally disliked slavery and owned no slaves, his priority was the Union. He'd have gladly traded the slaves for unity. But it wasn't an option. So he put down the rebellion and got rid of the primary impetus of the schism: slavery.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

That would include Abraham Lincoln who said it was not about slavery.

Because he never said this?

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will 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; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.

 

[Skylar]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

That would include Abraham Lincoln who said it was not about slavery.

Because he never said this?

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will 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; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.

You can drop the mic now NY.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Perpetual...

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

A Convention cannot place restrictions on the actions of a State in the future.

How would you respond if in a debate about an issue, I started citing the current Republican Congress, and claiming that some future Democratic Congress would not have the right to "change it's mind"?

Rhetorical question: You would ridicule me mercilessly.

And you would be right to do so.

See where I am going with this?

No one "placed restrictions on them."

It was how they read the Constitution -- at that time --

As I said -- When threatened with the map of the expanding country, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

It came down to *shit* we're gonna lose our slaves and our literal lifeblood!

Odd, prior to Gettysburg, Lincoln maintained that he was NOT out to eliminate slavery.

Are you implying that he was lying?

Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. If he could have done so without abolishing slavery, he'd have done it in a second.

How did abolishing slavery help him preserve the Union?

Because Lincoln didn't think the nation would survive half state and half free. The civil war itself being compelling evidence in support of his premise. I mean, have you even read the 'House Divided' speech? He lays it out in pretty, plain language.

While Lincoln personally disliked slavery and owned no slaves, his priority was the Union. He'd have gladly traded the slaves for unity. But it wasn't an option. So he put down the rebellion and got rid of the primary impetus of the schism: slavery.

So Lincoln starts a war and that's his evidence that he should abolish slavery? Do you even read what you type before posting it?

 

[HUGGY]

I've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..

Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?

(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)

How can you be a "senior member" having joined USMB two weeks ago?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

Listen to your foolishness. That's like saying the wife of an abusive man deserves to be beaten by him again because she tried to leave. And by your logic, the police officer that shot a fleeing suspect in the back was also justified because he was rebelling by trying to get away and deserved to be shot. Your argument has fail written all over it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..

Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?

(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)

How can you be a "senior member" having joined USMB two weeks ago?

Sexual favors go a long way.

 

[Skylar]

No one "placed restrictions on them."

It was how they read the Constitution -- at that time --

As I said -- When threatened with the map of the expanding country, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

It came down to *shit* we're gonna lose our slaves and our literal lifeblood!

Odd, prior to Gettysburg, Lincoln maintained that he was NOT out to eliminate slavery.

Are you implying that he was lying?

Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. If he could have done so without abolishing slavery, he'd have done it in a second.

How did abolishing slavery help him preserve the Union?

Because Lincoln didn't think the nation would survive half state and half free. The civil war itself being compelling evidence in support of his premise. I mean, have you even read the 'House Divided' speech? He lays it out in pretty, plain language.

While Lincoln personally disliked slavery and owned no slaves, his priority was the Union. He'd have gladly traded the slaves for unity. But it wasn't an option. So he put down the rebellion and got rid of the primary impetus of the schism: slavery.

So Lincoln starts a war and that's his evidence that he should abolish slavery? Do you even read what you type before posting it?

Wow you suck at paraphrasing. The South started a war by attacking Ft. Sumter. The one saying that Lincoln started the war is you.

As for Lincoln's own argument, read the House Divided speech. He lays it out clearly.

I argue Lincoln right. The single great source of division between the States was slavery. It was the core of the impetus of the civil war. And the US likely wouldn't have survived if he'd continued the institution.

 

[paperview]

No one "placed restrictions on them."

It was how they read the Constitution -- at that time --

As I said -- When threatened with the map of the expanding country, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

It came down to *shit* we're gonna lose our slaves and our literal lifeblood!

Odd, prior to Gettysburg, Lincoln maintained that he was NOT out to eliminate slavery.

Are you implying that he was lying?

Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. If he could have done so without abolishing slavery, he'd have done it in a second.

How did abolishing slavery help him preserve the Union?

Because Lincoln didn't think the nation would survive half state and half free. The civil war itself being compelling evidence in support of his premise. I mean, have you even read the 'House Divided' speech? He lays it out in pretty, plain language.

While Lincoln personally disliked slavery and owned no slaves, his priority was the Union. He'd have gladly traded the slaves for unity. But it wasn't an option. So he put down the rebellion and got rid of the primary impetus of the schism: slavery.

So Lincoln starts a war and that's his evidence that he should abolish slavery? Do you even read what you type before posting it?

The South started the war before Lincoln ever stepped into office, dumbass.

 

[Skylar]

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

Listen to your foolishness. That's like saying the wife of an abusive man deserves to be beaten by him again because she tried to leave. And by your logic, the police officer that shot a fleeing suspect in the back was also justified because he was rebelling by trying to get away and deserved to be shot. Your argument has fail written all over it.

The obvious problem with your analogy being that the wife wasn't 'beaten' by anyone. The South attacked the US. They initiated the military conflict.

It would be like insisting that the police lack the authority to stop a riot in progress. Even though cops and local citizens are being killed. Of course they possess that authority. Likewise, the US possesses the authority to defend its territory and to put down rebellions.

As does any nation. Any nation that can't do these two things isn't a nation for long.

 

[paperview]

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

Listen to your foolishness. That's like saying the wife of an abusive man deserves to be beaten by him again because she tried to leave. .....

Wait. I'll bet you're not talking about the near four million slaves out of a total population of nine million, right?