The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KK: To answer your questions, my quote "prove" that Lee disagreed with your position that the Confederacy had the right to secede.

If Lee (indicted by a Federal court in post-war VA) were loyal, then why didn't he keep his word and "suffer with" his "people" and "draw" his "sword on none"?

You said Lee was loyal to his "country (state) and not the federal government." Loyal to "anarchy ... and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution..."?

No where did Lee state that secession was illegal.

He said he would draw his sword on none save for self defense. Lincoln sending his army to force the southern states back into the Union is cause for self defense.

Anarchy is the absence of government. Are you attempting to imply that the government of Virginia was abolished when Virginia seceded from the Union? Or that the Confederate States of America was not a functioning federal government?

Where did Lee provide the exception for self-defense? How could he "suffer" with his "people" from peaceful secession? Lincoln sent troops to SC, not to the "independent" (as you falsely claim) "country" of VA. How was Lee defending himself?

Lee used the word "anarchy". I am merely quoting your hero whom you are now defending and excusing.

I suggest you read your own quote over again.

"I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none."

Lincoln's intent was to force the states back into the Union against their will, all of the states. Lee was defending his country, Virginia, from the U.S.

And you once again falsely claim that Robert E. Lee is my hero, despite my having already corrected you once.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.

Right or wrong? I dunno.

Right. The union recognizes no right to self determination-- just look at Vietnam.

 

[Toronado3800]

Its a practical limitation to my "right of self determination" that I can't rile up the voters in my census tract and declare our independence.

Thank goodness fewer folks these days identify themselves as Georgians or Mississippians or Nevadans or whatever, enough lines are drawn between imaginary groups of ppl.

BTW, while the ideological portions of me may cheer Russia's Georgia on in their attempt to be a thorn in the side of their former masters the practical side says, "What if we catch Russia funding some crazy Texan independence movement"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The pro-secessionists (and covert racists) flatly have not presented an even minimal case for the consideration of secession as a right of the states today, much less than in 1860. I thank Equat and Paper View for more than competently in handling the inanities of the wing nut presentations here, in demonstrating they have no relevance.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The pro-secessionists (and covert racists) flatly have not presented an even minimal case for the consideration of secession as a right of the states today, much less than in 1860. I thank Equat and Paper View for more than competently in handling the inanities of the wing nut presentations here, in demonstrating they have no relevance.

Covert racists? I can't speak for anyone else, but if you want to imply that I'm racist then please find a post of mine that has any racist connotation whatsoever.

 

[JakeStarkey]

KK, you have offered nothing even remotely probative for secessionism, thus leaving the distasteful inference that your motives must be darker than you suggest. I do hope I am wrong, and you do not share some of the others' foulness when it comes to matters of color and race.

 

[paperview]

Losing a war does not take away ones rights. If you were to get assaulted for speaking your mind would you then say you had lost your right to freedom of speech?

Yeah, it kinda does. If you lose, you are pretty much at the mercy of the victors. They won. You lost. That's the way it works.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KK, you have offered nothing even remotely probative for secessionism, thus leaving the distasteful inference that your motives must be darker than you suggest. I do hope I am wrong, and you do not share some of the others' foulness when it comes to matters of color and race.

No. If you can't provide any evidence that I'm racist other than your opinion that I've not offered anything of substance to the issue of secession, then I suggest you not make any such foolish claims in the future. If you can't engage in an intelligent discussion then please try to avoid them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Losing a war does not take away ones rights. If you were to get assaulted for speaking your mind would you then say you had lost your right to freedom of speech?

Yeah, it kinda does. If you lose, you are pretty much at the mercy of the victors. They won. You lost. That's the way it works.

No, it really doesn't. Our rights are natural and can't be taken away by anyone or anything. They can be violated, but they can't be taken away.

 

[paperview]

In the end, the notion of States Rights to secede was a theory.

A theory it could work, a theory the constitution allowed it, a theory it would not tear asunder the United States in the process.

That theory failed, and we saw why and how.

Jefferson Davis knew it to be the Truth and said, after his army was whipped and beaten, after he saw the end was nigh, he himself remarked:

"If the Confederacy falls, there should be written on its tombstone: Died of a theory."

If only now, 145 years later, those theoretical bones could finally
Rest In Peace.

Sigh.

 

[paperview]

Losing a war does not take away ones rights. If you were to get assaulted for speaking your mind would you then say you had lost your right to freedom of speech?

Yeah, it kinda does. If you lose, you are pretty much at the mercy of the victors. They won. You lost. That's the way it works.

No, it really doesn't. Our rights are natural and can't be taken away by anyone or anything. They can be violated, but they can't be taken away.

Semantics Kevin. If you are sitting in some dungy prison, or hanging on the end of rope, 'bout ready to have the hangman let go of the rope as you are tried for treason, you can scream to bloody maryjoseph&jesus ::but I still have rights!::

Ain't going to do you one bit of good if you think you still have your rights, they are just being violated. Who you gonna bring your violations to? No one.

You're still gonna snap at the neck with the word "Treason" etched in your marble biography.

 

[paperview]

KK, you have offered nothing even remotely probative for secessionism, thus leaving the distasteful inference that your motives must be darker than you suggest. I do hope I am wrong, and you do not share some of the others' foulness when it comes to matters of color and race.

No. If you can't provide any evidence that I'm racist other than your opinion that I've not offered anything of substance to the issue of secession, then I suggest you not make any such foolish claims in the future. If you can't engage in an intelligent discussion then please try to avoid them.

For the record Kevin, I don't think you are racist.
I have seen no evidence of it.
You are a Lew Rockwell secess'er, and you firmly believe in the cause of the confederacy, I do think you underestimate the true impact slavery played in it, but that does not make you racist, as least, from the counterpoints I have seen you muster, and your general tenor, I will admit, has been respectful.

Just thought I'd let you know.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah, it kinda does. If you lose, you are pretty much at the mercy of the victors. They won. You lost. That's the way it works.

No, it really doesn't. Our rights are natural and can't be taken away by anyone or anything. They can be violated, but they can't be taken away.

Semantics Kevin. If you are sitting in some dungy prison, or hanging on the end of rope, 'bout ready to have the hangman let go of the rope as you are tried for treason, you can scream to bloody maryjoseph&jesus ::but I still have rights!::

Ain't going to do you one bit of good if you think you still have your rights, they are just being violated. Who you gonna bring your violations to? No one.

You're still gonna snap at the neck with the word "Treason" etched in your marble biography.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I will say that the difference is vast between rights being violated and not having those rights in the first place. The difference is right and wrong. If my rights are being violated then I am, at the least, justified in my actions, however, if I don't have those rights in the first place then I am wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's the point, Kevin, whether you are racist or not. I agree with Paper View that you are not racist upon further reflection. However, you have no legal right to secession, absolutely none. Your theory has not been, nor can be substantively supported. It's nothing more than pipe dreams. But you would certainly not be the first to throw it all away on a pipe dream.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

you have no legal right to secession, absolutely none

Not what the supreme law of the land says...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's the point, Kevin, whether you are racist or not. I agree with Paper View that you are not racist upon further reflection. However, you have no legal right to secession, absolutely none. Your theory has not been, nor can be substantively supported. It's nothing more than pipe dreams. But you would certainly not be the first to throw it all away on a pipe dream.

You keep saying that, but so far I haven't seen you even attempt to back up your point.

 

[Toronado3800]

I'll bite w/o looking it up. Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states? That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll bite w/o looking it up. Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states? That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.

That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.

 

[Equat]

KK, you have offered nothing even remotely probative for secessionism, thus leaving the distasteful inference that your motives must be darker than you suggest. I do hope I am wrong, and you do not share some of the others' foulness when it comes to matters of color and race.

No. If you can't provide any evidence that I'm racist other than your opinion that I've not offered anything of substance to the issue of secession, then I suggest you not make any such foolish claims in the future. If you can't engage in an intelligent discussion then please try to avoid them.

Jake Starkey, like many discerning Americans, probably recognizes that Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists hide. What is the basis of your position? Is it one of social loyalty to a disloyal Confederacy, a legal one, a moral one, or what?

You've previously claimed "right"[eousness] is the basis of your argument. Right to what? I'm not a lawyer. However, I know lawyers who hold both a pro and an anti-secessionist position based on their respective legal views. Lee, prior to becoming a treasonous traitor stated that he believed that secession was contrary to our founding fathers and his ancestors by birth and marriage (e.g. President Washington). I do not believe that a legal discussion of the issue of secession is necessarily racist. The issue of secession is currently quite relevant and applicable in the state in which I live. Notwithstanding, I know that much of what underlies the moral/legal issue is and has historically been racist.

Part of the social disease behind racism is the minimization and denial of the victims. The Confederate overtly and primarily seceded based on racist slavery according to its Declaration of Secession (Declaration of Causes of Secession). You have minimized and obfuscated this fact and have minimized my representation of the Confederacy as being racists simply based on four states' declaration without providing the others' non-existent declarations. You parroting the mantra that slavery was merely a reason - not the primary and central one - without addressing neither this Declaration, nor the plethora of evidence provide by Jake Starkey, Paperview, Polk, et. al. Such evidence includes, " …the constitution, was … wrong... upon … equality of races.... Our [Confederacy]… is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its … corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the …world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." -Alexander Stephens. Vice President of the Confederacy, also echoed by neo-Confederates

Your denial is typically demonstrated in your rebuttals which refuse to address the questions which threaten your straw man’s position. Thus, also demonstrates dishonesty and disingenuousness by ignoring the facts.

You uphold the moral right to the Confederate's secession which is amoral and flagrantly hypocritical based on it assertion that the rights and value of whites are greater than those of blacks et. al. Thus, you raise the questions as to your motives (e.g. racism) for this discussion. Your minimization of the plight of the oppressed blacks vis-a-vis the magnification of the consequential judgment (minimal in comparison to the blacks) demonstrates your racists’ values: whites are more important than blacks. Racism is inherent to America's foundation. We wouldn't be the nation that we are without the pretentiously Christian amoral evil of racism which defines our present society and apologetics (veiled or not) for this evil.
Racism and slavery are inseparable to the Confederacy.

Judgment of racism is not necessarily ad hominem when unfleecing wolves. If you genuinely addressed (rather than ignore and obfuscate) counter-evidence, then you would would demonstrate genuiness, lack of hypocirisy, integrity, and sincerity repecting your position. Thus, you'd be on a much higher ground.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Equathas admitted that KK and I are correct by refusing to address the matter at hand and instead relying on red herrings and ad hominum attacks.