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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Civil War Facts
Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

Gotcha, so as far as the United States is concerned, they broke the law. But to the Confederacy, they didn't care because they were no longer a part of the US.

Well, the Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and never will again, so it looks like not only did the USA win the Civil War and the freedom of the slaves, they also won the right to mark it the books that the southern states broke the law when they seceded.

Since we are in the United States of America now, might be a good idea to go by what the United States of America says is law. We can't exactly go by Confederate law, because it doesn't exist anymore.


Just a thought.

And another supporter of Might Makes Right...

Told ya...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You got some reading to do. It's not my job to alleviate your ignorance of American history, but at least I can point you in the right direction.

Slavery wasn t the main cause of the Civil War - tribunedigital-baltimoresun

Um, buddy....That's a letter to the editor from a low level real estate consultant.

Dennis doesn't provide anything to back any claims he's made. Not a single document, not a single quote, nothing. A Letter to the Editor isn't evidence. Especially from a guy whose experience is in marketing and advertising.

That's it? That's the basis of your entire argument.

Holy shit, dude.

It seems to me you can't understand it. Maybe I was wrong about your intellect.

You genuinely didn't know you were offering us a letter to the editor from a real estate consultant as your primary source?

Really?

You may want to dig a bit deeper next time. It took me about 30 seconds to figure it out. It wasn't particularly hard either. And checking your own sources is your responsibility.

But here's a site where you can read the Ordinances of Secession from every one of the eleven states, many of them making quite clear what issues were at stake. I love this one from Kentucky:

President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will;

Ordinances of Secession

And where is your evidence of the 'crushing tarriffs'? Your evidence backing anything Dennis the real estate consultant said?

Because so far your 'grand coincidence theory' of the Secessions happening the month after Lincoln's election is laughable inadequate. I mean, really....think of the odds!

Dipshit, either you can contest the argument or you cannot. Trying to attack who is making the argument in the link I supplied you is a strong indicator that you are not equipped to refute it. Put up, or STFU.

Does that random guy's opinion have any more value than yours, "Saint Michael"?

(Also, watch the language. You're already disrespecting the name by using it, don't disrespect it any further with your outbursts over being found out.)

I'll use any language I see fit. That's one. Two, opinions should have no more value than the intrinsic merit they contain. Nobody deserves to have their ignorance ascended to the par of opinions based on truth and historical accuracy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Civil War Facts
Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

Gotcha, so as far as the United States is concerned, they broke the law. But to the Confederacy, they didn't care because they were no longer a part of the US.

Well, the Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and never will again, so it looks like not only did the USA win the Civil War and the freedom of the slaves, they also won the right to mark it the books that the southern states broke the law when they seceded.

Since we are in the United States of America now, might be a good idea to go by what the United States of America says is law. We can't exactly go by Confederate law, because it doesn't exist anymore.


Just a thought.

And another supporter of Might Makes Right...

This country's independence was achieved by that very principle. Are you shitting on the American Revolution intentionally,
or did you just carelessly squat in the wrong spot?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How about we check in with Jefferson Davis about the reason secession might be justified, or necessary?

You remember Davis, right?

1849

" ...There had been a war of seventeen years standing against the institutions of the South, a war whose weapons were both wounding and insulting. As opinion had been formed, authorized by our long supineness on this subject, that we have no sufficient feeling to perceive or to resent the attacks made upon us.

Men of another section are loud in their advice that there is no danger--that action now would be hazardous or useless, and that the generosity and philanthropy of the North will always prove a sufficient safeguard to Southern rights; but such advice is the lulling of the vampire fawning the victim which he will destroy.

Every compromise has been to our loss, as witness that of the North-western territory and that of Missouri. We have yielded thus far and the results have been that upon our tame submission is now based the demand that we yield the remainder. The equality left by our fathers is to be destroyed.

Give to the North what is now demanded, and soon we shall find a preponderance of three-fourths against us; the constitution of the United States will be changed and all that is now promised to the South will be forgotten. Submit to the loss of this territory, and we shall have next to submit to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia,

and soon the constitution will be changed and slavery abolished."

The fear of the South was that it would be overwhelmed by an eventual anti-slavery majority in Congress and then could not resist a legislative/Consitutional eradication of slavery.

Speech at Jackson Miss. May 7 1849 Rice University The Papers of Jefferson Davis

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

How about we check in with Jefferson Davis about the reason secession might be justified, or necessary?

You remember Davis, right?

1849

" ...There had been a war of seventeen years standing against the institutions of the South, a war whose weapons were both wounding and insulting. As opinion had been formed, authorized by our long supineness on this subject, that we have no sufficient feeling to perceive or to resent the attacks made upon us.

Men of another section are loud in their advice that there is no danger--that action now would be hazardous or useless, and that the generosity and philanthropy of the North will always prove a sufficient safeguard to Southern rights; but such advice is the lulling of the vampire fawning the victim which he will destroy.

Every compromise has been to our loss, as witness that of the North-western territory and that of Missouri. We have yielded thus far and the results have been that upon our tame submission is now based the demand that we yield the remainder. The equality left by our fathers is to be destroyed.

Give to the North what is now demanded, and soon we shall find a preponderance of three-fourths against us; the constitution of the United States will be changed and all that is now promised to the South will be forgotten. Submit to the loss of this territory, and we shall have next to submit to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia,

and soon the constitution will be changed and slavery abolished."

The fear of the South was that it would be overwhelmed by an eventual anti-slavery majority in Congress and then could not resist a legislative/Consitutional eradication of slavery.

Speech at Jackson Miss. May 7 1849 Rice University The Papers of Jefferson Davis

As much as you worship the founders, I think they were cowards and their unwillingness to tackle the issue of slavery from the start lead up to strife, division, and ultimately full blown war because no nation that is founded on the principles of freedom can long endure the enslavement of other human beings. These men weren't men of principle, they were politicians and typical of politicians, they avoided the big, divisive issues. The irony is, because slavery wasn't a widespread practice at the time, it would have been much easier to deal with then 80 years later when it became an invaluable component of America's economy, both in the North and in the South.

Slavery didn't start the Civil War, but what it did do is ensure there was already an existing fault line between slave holding states and non, so that other issue that drove the secession movement neatly divided this nation along that fault line. Either way, the blood of 600,000 Americans lays at the feet of the cowards who didn't want to rock the boat by addressing this issue.

 

[Correll]

Civil War Facts
Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

Gotcha, so as far as the United States is concerned, they broke the law. But to the Confederacy, they didn't care because they were no longer a part of the US.

Well, the Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and never will again, so it looks like not only did the USA win the Civil War and the freedom of the slaves, they also won the right to mark it the books that the southern states broke the law when they seceded.

Since we are in the United States of America now, might be a good idea to go by what the United States of America says is law. We can't exactly go by Confederate law, because it doesn't exist anymore.


Just a thought.

And another supporter of Might Makes Right...

This country's independence was achieved by that very principle. Are you shitting on the American Revolution intentionally,
or did you just carelessly squat in the wrong spot?

Please explain your claim that the American REvolution was founded on the idea that Might Makes Right?

Because that does not match my understanding of the principles of the American Revolution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Civil War Facts
Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

Gotcha, so as far as the United States is concerned, they broke the law. But to the Confederacy, they didn't care because they were no longer a part of the US.

Well, the Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and never will again, so it looks like not only did the USA win the Civil War and the freedom of the slaves, they also won the right to mark it the books that the southern states broke the law when they seceded.

Since we are in the United States of America now, might be a good idea to go by what the United States of America says is law. We can't exactly go by Confederate law, because it doesn't exist anymore.


Just a thought.

And another supporter of Might Makes Right...

This country's independence was achieved by that very principle. Are you shitting on the American Revolution intentionally,
or did you just carelessly squat in the wrong spot?

Please explain your claim that the American REvolution was founded on the idea that Might Makes Right?

Because that does not match my understanding of the principles of the American Revolution.

The was a war of Independence. A war.

 

[Correll]

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

Gotcha, so as far as the United States is concerned, they broke the law. But to the Confederacy, they didn't care because they were no longer a part of the US.

Well, the Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and never will again, so it looks like not only did the USA win the Civil War and the freedom of the slaves, they also won the right to mark it the books that the southern states broke the law when they seceded.

Since we are in the United States of America now, might be a good idea to go by what the United States of America says is law. We can't exactly go by Confederate law, because it doesn't exist anymore.


Just a thought.

And another supporter of Might Makes Right...

This country's independence was achieved by that very principle. Are you shitting on the American Revolution intentionally,
or did you just carelessly squat in the wrong spot?

Please explain your claim that the American REvolution was founded on the idea that Might Makes Right?

Because that does not match my understanding of the principles of the American Revolution.

The was a war of Independence. A war.

That one side won a war, does not mean they are operating from a MIght Makes Right principle.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

A right to rebellion? Maybe and even legal IF you win . The confederates didn't

That's true... The South did not win.

But they were a peace loving people who were not interested in war... and once at war, they were poorly lead, running a fundamentally defensive war.

What they should have done is to have invaded the North from the beginning, marching directly into Washington and burning it to the ground, killing everyone in the city, including the entirely of the US Federal Government and seizing power of the entire United States.

Which they could have done, comparatively easy in 1860... .

But that's neither here nor there... as they did not and the failure in judgment cost them a fair percentage of their population and everything above that.

Peace loving people dont start wars or own other people....

 

[thanatos144]

I like how strongly you point out that his letter "didn't contained the slightest ambiguity".

To bad the same can't be said of the actual written document that was actually voted on, and enshrined in law.

You lefties seem to like that term, "in toto, and FOREVER".

Can you find it in the Constitution?

ROFLMNAO!

The Cult has found a Right to murder one's own child in one's own WOMB in the Constitution...

LOL! In the first amendment which specifically forbids any laws that precludes the free exercise of religion, they found the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Wherein ALL RELIGIOUS EXERCISE MUST BE SHUT DOWN the instant one comes to any position in US government.

Which establishes them as little more than the personification of Evil itself.

Quoting the Father of the Constitution on the meaning of the Constitution is the 'personification of Evil itself'?

Wow. Decaf for you.

NOooo... the personification of Evil is in the intentional misrepresentation of the words you quote.

The Consent to be governed by the enumerated and limited powers set forth in the US Constitution, in toto and FOREVER... does not provide any obligation in the way of consent to be governed by powers taken outside the scope of those specifically enumerated power.

(That's sorta the coolest part of republican constitutional government... and why such historically survives well beyond the average span of existence of the feckless democracy.)

Yet if you secede you are no longer part of the Constitution you are in essence pissing on it. Like Obama does

One is not a part of the Constitution, one is merely protected by the limitations that it sets upon the power of Government, which as the Founders noted many times and in many ways, is the greatest threat to freedom.

The south proved in irrefutable terms that secession is not a viable means of correction. Destroying the errant government is the only potential solution.

And the only time that THAT is a viable solution is at the point where that government commits the final atrocity, setting it beyond the means of the long suffering people, to tolerate it.

And that's coming, and coming rather soon I suspect.

But don't look to me to know when that will be, as I am not the government, therefore I am not in charge of what atrocities it commits or when... I am only a man with an instinctive understanding of the natural principles that sustain freedom and which subsequently define America.

So what your saying is like a progressive you want to piss all over the constitution and STILL demand that you are protected by it? Are you bipolor?

 

[thanatos144]

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

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

They attacked government bases and ships dip shit thats taking up arms.

 

[thanatos144]

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

The Confederate states didn't take arms against the the government. They seceded.

You're in fucking lala land,.


The CSA fired on ships, seized federal property, forts--even before Lincoln was President. For christ sakes man. You're insane to make such declarations.

Those ships were intruding on Southern territory. Ft Sumter is within the borders of South Carolina. All the other Forts were within the borders of the states that evicted them. I'll have to look at the history of the other Forts, but I don't believe any shots were fired.

It was before secession you idiot.

 

[thanatos144]

Civil War Facts
Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

Hey was the constitution ratified?????? Yes it was so the states gave consent.... Are you saying that a states word shouldn't be trusted????

 

[thanatos144]

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.

NOt at all.

Pre Civil War South, indeed, slave holding America in general had moral rationalizations for their slavery, weak though they sound to the modern ear.

Only the most crude of brutes use being the strongest as a moral argument.

Which is why it is so interesting that you libs keep playing that card in this discussion.

Supposedly you have, or at least believe you have the moral high ground in this discussion, and yet when challenged seriously, you keep reaching for that ancient argument, Might Makes Right.

All laws use a "system of violence" to be enforced. It is part of the definition of enforcement.

he confederates rebelled and started a war and lost that war.... I am guessing it isnt might makes right and more like dont write a check you cant cash.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

Nonsense.

The Free Industrial North was outpacing the Slave holding, Agricultural South in all aspects. If the slavery issue was tabled once again, it would only have been a matter of time until the Free States could revisit the issue, with an even stronger hand.

I am sure all those free slaves are just pissed they were not held to the whip for decades more while slavery Theoretically fizzled out.

 

[thanatos144]

How about we check in with Jefferson Davis about the reason secession might be justified, or necessary?

You remember Davis, right?

1849

" ...There had been a war of seventeen years standing against the institutions of the South, a war whose weapons were both wounding and insulting. As opinion had been formed, authorized by our long supineness on this subject, that we have no sufficient feeling to perceive or to resent the attacks made upon us.

Men of another section are loud in their advice that there is no danger--that action now would be hazardous or useless, and that the generosity and philanthropy of the North will always prove a sufficient safeguard to Southern rights; but such advice is the lulling of the vampire fawning the victim which he will destroy.

Every compromise has been to our loss, as witness that of the North-western territory and that of Missouri. We have yielded thus far and the results have been that upon our tame submission is now based the demand that we yield the remainder. The equality left by our fathers is to be destroyed.

Give to the North what is now demanded, and soon we shall find a preponderance of three-fourths against us; the constitution of the United States will be changed and all that is now promised to the South will be forgotten. Submit to the loss of this territory, and we shall have next to submit to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia,

and soon the constitution will be changed and slavery abolished."

The fear of the South was that it would be overwhelmed by an eventual anti-slavery majority in Congress and then could not resist a legislative/Consitutional eradication of slavery.

Speech at Jackson Miss. May 7 1849 Rice University The Papers of Jefferson Davis

As much as you worship the founders, I think they were cowards and their unwillingness to tackle the issue of slavery from the start lead up to strife, division, and ultimately full blown war because no nation that is founded on the principles of freedom can long endure the enslavement of other human beings. These men weren't men of principle, they were politicians and typical of politicians, they avoided the big, divisive issues. The irony is, because slavery wasn't a widespread practice at the time, it would have been much easier to deal with then 80 years later when it became an invaluable component of America's economy, both in the North and in the South.

Slavery didn't start the Civil War, but what it did do is ensure there was already an existing fault line between slave holding states and non, so that other issue that drove the secession movement neatly divided this nation along that fault line. Either way, the blood of 600,000 Americans lays at the feet of the cowards who didn't want to rock the boat by addressing this issue.

Actually slavery was the issue that started the war.... All economic excuses for the war the south cowardly used all boiled down to wanting to expand slavery into the new territories.

 

[thanatos144]

Civil War Facts
Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

Gotcha, so as far as the United States is concerned, they broke the law. But to the Confederacy, they didn't care because they were no longer a part of the US.

Well, the Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and never will again, so it looks like not only did the USA win the Civil War and the freedom of the slaves, they also won the right to mark it the books that the southern states broke the law when they seceded.

Since we are in the United States of America now, might be a good idea to go by what the United States of America says is law. We can't exactly go by Confederate law, because it doesn't exist anymore.


Just a thought.

And another supporter of Might Makes Right...

This country's independence was achieved by that very principle. Are you shitting on the American Revolution intentionally,
or did you just carelessly squat in the wrong spot?

Please explain your claim that the American REvolution was founded on the idea that Might Makes Right?

Because that does not match my understanding of the principles of the American Revolution.

Was a war fought and won by the USA? If you are going to rebel you damn sure better win.

 

[bripat9643]

Civil War Facts
Was secession legal? No, although it was not ruled illegal until after the war. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."



Do with this information what you will.

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

Gotcha, so as far as the United States is concerned, they broke the law. But to the Confederacy, they didn't care because they were no longer a part of the US.

Well, the Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and never will again, so it looks like not only did the USA win the Civil War and the freedom of the slaves, they also won the right to mark it the books that the southern states broke the law when they seceded.

Since we are in the United States of America now, might be a good idea to go by what the United States of America says is law. We can't exactly go by Confederate law, because it doesn't exist anymore.


Just a thought.

And another supporter of Might Makes Right...

This country's independence was achieved by that very principle. Are you shitting on the American Revolution intentionally,
or did you just carelessly squat in the wrong spot?

Please explain your claim that the American REvolution was founded on the idea that Might Makes Right?

Because that does not match my understanding of the principles of the American Revolution.

NYcarbineer's theory is that if you win, then it's because you believe might makes right. Apparently FDR was motivated by the same principle.

 

[bripat9643]

How about we check in with Jefferson Davis about the reason secession might be justified, or necessary?

You remember Davis, right?

1849

" ...There had been a war of seventeen years standing against the institutions of the South, a war whose weapons were both wounding and insulting. As opinion had been formed, authorized by our long supineness on this subject, that we have no sufficient feeling to perceive or to resent the attacks made upon us.

Men of another section are loud in their advice that there is no danger--that action now would be hazardous or useless, and that the generosity and philanthropy of the North will always prove a sufficient safeguard to Southern rights; but such advice is the lulling of the vampire fawning the victim which he will destroy.

Every compromise has been to our loss, as witness that of the North-western territory and that of Missouri. We have yielded thus far and the results have been that upon our tame submission is now based the demand that we yield the remainder. The equality left by our fathers is to be destroyed.

Give to the North what is now demanded, and soon we shall find a preponderance of three-fourths against us; the constitution of the United States will be changed and all that is now promised to the South will be forgotten. Submit to the loss of this territory, and we shall have next to submit to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia,

and soon the constitution will be changed and slavery abolished."

The fear of the South was that it would be overwhelmed by an eventual anti-slavery majority in Congress and then could not resist a legislative/Consitutional eradication of slavery.

Speech at Jackson Miss. May 7 1849 Rice University The Papers of Jefferson Davis

As much as you worship the founders, I think they were cowards and their unwillingness to tackle the issue of slavery from the start lead up to strife, division, and ultimately full blown war because no nation that is founded on the principles of freedom can long endure the enslavement of other human beings. These men weren't men of principle, they were politicians and typical of politicians, they avoided the big, divisive issues. The irony is, because slavery wasn't a widespread practice at the time, it would have been much easier to deal with then 80 years later when it became an invaluable component of America's economy, both in the North and in the South.

Slavery didn't start the Civil War, but what it did do is ensure there was already an existing fault line between slave holding states and non, so that other issue that drove the secession movement neatly divided this nation along that fault line. Either way, the blood of 600,000 Americans lays at the feet of the cowards who didn't want to rock the boat by addressing this issue.

Actually slavery was the issue that started the war.... All economic excuses for the war the south cowardly used all boiled down to wanting to expand slavery into the new territories.

It doesn't matter what the South's motivation for seceding was because Lincoln's motivation for invading Virginia wasn't to free the slaves.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah... here's the thing. Those laws only pertain to those who consent to be governed by those laws.

Gotcha, so as far as the United States is concerned, they broke the law. But to the Confederacy, they didn't care because they were no longer a part of the US.

Well, the Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and never will again, so it looks like not only did the USA win the Civil War and the freedom of the slaves, they also won the right to mark it the books that the southern states broke the law when they seceded.

Since we are in the United States of America now, might be a good idea to go by what the United States of America says is law. We can't exactly go by Confederate law, because it doesn't exist anymore.


Just a thought.

And another supporter of Might Makes Right...

This country's independence was achieved by that very principle. Are you shitting on the American Revolution intentionally,
or did you just carelessly squat in the wrong spot?

Please explain your claim that the American REvolution was founded on the idea that Might Makes Right?

Because that does not match my understanding of the principles of the American Revolution.

Was a war fought and won by the USA? If you are going to rebel you damn sure better win.

You really are nothing more than a bootlicking thug, you know it?