Author Topic: The battle of Charlottesville: A continuing discussion thread about the War between the States  (Read 29423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,682
Yes there is.  It is the tenth Amendment.  Read it at your leisure.

Fighting one war and losing does not end things.  Otherwise Europe would still be Roman.
I've read the tenth amendment a number of times. Strange, I didn't find anything written about the right of states to secede whenever they felt like it.
Don't you think something as momentous as a  state seceding from the union would have something codified in the U.S. constitution allowing it to do so instead. You've really got to twist the meaning of the amendment to interpret it as the fed. gov. okaying secession.
Just imagine living in a country where at any time some  majority of people in a state could vote for secession. Don't you think that would be kind of a crazy country?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:28:17 PM by MOD3 »

Online skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,468
It cannot be done.

Those who wish to subjugate the sovereign states fall back on the mantra "there was a war fought about it and it was decided", not knowing they are idiots for proposing that a 'war to end all wars' was said about WWI, yet we still had WWII, and will have more and more and more wars.

WARS DO NOT END ANYTHING, they just settled a certain outcome at the time.

If you'll allow me to tweak your statement a bit - wars that are not settled JUSTLY end nothing.

You might have your foot on your opponent's neck right now but unless treated justly human beings, being who they naturally are, are less likely to accept their subordinate position for long.

Its also why Alan West's take on this weekend's fiasco is dead nuts on target.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:28:03 PM by MOD3 »

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,967
I've read the tenth amendment a number of times. Strange, I didn't find anything written about the right of states to secede whenever they felt like it.
Don't you think something as momentous as a  state seceding from the union would have something codified in the U.S. constitution allowing it to do so instead. You've really got to twist the meaning of the amendment to interpret it as the fed. gov. okaying secession.
Just imagine living in a country where at any time some  majority of people in a state could vote for secession. Don't you think that would be kind of a crazy country?
As has been pointed out the same logic used to break ties with the English Monarchy applies.
There is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits the secession of a State. There is no statement that the Federal Government has the Right or the Power to coerce a State to remain. Rights and powers not specifically granted the Federal Government nor prohibited to it or the States by the Constitution remain the powers and Rights of the States and the People, respectively. (Amendment 10).
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:27:41 PM by MOD3 »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,646
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
I've read the tenth amendment a number of times. Strange, I didn't find anything written about the right of states to secede whenever they felt like it.
Don't you think something as momentous as a  state seceding from the union would have something codified in the U.S. constitution allowing it to do so instead. You've really got to twist the meaning of the amendment to interpret it as the fed. gov. okaying secession.
Just imagine living in a country where at any time some  majority of people in a state could vote for secession. Don't you think that would be kind of a crazy country?

A fact made even more clear by the fact that the Articles of Confederation, which were overthrown and done away with by the rump convention which brought forth the new Constitution,  clearly do say "perpetual  union". The New Constitution, which was duly adopted and is now the supreme law of this land, makes no mention of that at all!
 
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:27:27 PM by MOD3 »

Online TomSea

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,576
1860? The Revolution began in 1776.

Yes, and a lot of states got rid of slavery well before 1860, but someone said the Yankees still had slaves, so not true but for some corner of Delaware, whatever the details were.

Also, I have also seen it written per this talk of secession, that the government then, would have had the right to execute all who wished to do it per sedition.

It's in the discussion here: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/weblogs/jackblog/2015/jun/21/confederates-speak-yes-we-fought-the-civil-war-ove/

Perhaps those defending slavery and a white supremacist society will find that of interest.

States like Missouri sure weren't Union states.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:26:31 PM by MOD3 »

HonestJohn

  • Guest
Let's not re-fight the Civil War on this thread..if you want to do that start a new thread in the History Cat.

History Cat says, "Meow!"

« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:26:15 PM by MOD3 »

Online TomSea

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,576
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:25:57 PM by MOD3 »

Online IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,598
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
I've read the tenth amendment a number of times. Strange, I didn't find anything written about the right of states to secede whenever they felt like it. 
Don't you think something as momentous as a  state seceding from the union would have something codified in the U.S. constitution allowing it to do so instead. You've really got to twist the meaning of the amendment to interpret it as the fed. gov. okaying secession.
What a twisted, crazy way to explain this away.

You do realize, don't you, that the absence of something in a legal setting is not an admission of it being there, but an admission of it being NOT being there?
Quote
Just imagine living in a country where at any time some  majority of people in a state could vote for secession. Don't you think that would be kind of a crazy country?
I call that a freedom. What do you call it?  Slavery?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:25:42 PM by MOD3 »
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

HonestJohn

  • Guest
The guys on the left are alt-right... the guy on the right is a normal, decent human being...




A can of hairspray is not a literal flamethrower.

This is a literal flamethrower:

« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:25:28 PM by MOD3 »

Online EasyAce

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,261
  • I'll play the blues for you . . .
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:25:10 PM by MOD3 »

Wingnut

  • Guest
A can of hairspray is not a literal flamethrower.

This is a literal flamethrower:









Last weekend at the beach house.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:24:56 PM by MOD3 »

HonestJohn

  • Guest
The "southern strategy" was a lie foisted on the nation by liberals who couldn't stand the fact they were destined to lose conservative southern whites who were naturally turned off by radical leftism....which the Dem party was turning into.

Not according to Nixon's own political advisor.

And the guy who crafted Nixon's 'southern strategy' verifying this is far more validation than anything else.

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,967
Yes, and a lot of states got rid of slavery well before 1860, but someone said the Yankees still had slaves, so not true but for some corner of Delaware, whatever the details were.

Also, I have also seen it written per this talk of secession, that the government then, would have had the right to execute all who wished to do it per sedition.

It's in the discussion here: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/weblogs/jackblog/2015/jun/21/confederates-speak-yes-we-fought-the-civil-war-ove/

Perhaps those defending slavery and a white supremacist society will find that of interest.

States like Missouri sure weren't Union states.
Work your way back to the OP.
There is a reason I mentioned the Revolution, namely that you stated some did not believe the 'all men are created equal' clause of the Declaration of Independence.

While defenders of the Union's invasion, destruction, forcible 'repatriation', and looting of the South point to Slavery as their great moral banner, the bottom line is that the increasingly industrializing economy of the North did not need slaves, except as house servants, and had plenty of Europeans to do the scut work--enough to slight the Irish, who 'need not apply'.
When you have some other group to stuff on the bottom of the socioeconomic totem pole, you can get all high and mighty about not forcing the servitude of those the Northern shipping magnates got filthy rich off of shipping to the South at a profit and without regard for their 'humanity'.

No one here is defending slavery as an institution or a practice.

The war was fought over economics, like all wars are, ultimately. Slavery became a hot issue not out of great moral purity, but because it was no longer a profitable venture in the North and an economic brickbat with which to beat the South, which the North was exploiting like a third world country--enough so that the trade in cotton persisted even during the war. At the time that labor force was essential to the production of Cotton and Tobacco, two major economic products of the South, cotton being a product with export value which ordinarily would have exceeded the price the Northern mills were willing to pay if not for other economic constraints.
Additionally, the South was industrializing on its own, and the war not only destroyed much of that industry, but set it back decades, allowing the South to be further exploited.
But as long as agitprop like the novels Uncle Tom's Cabin and Roots are taught as "History", the view of that era through a modern lens will continue to be grossly distorted. After all, "The victors will be the judges, the vanquished, the accused." applied even then.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:24:39 PM by MOD3 »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Online IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,598
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Interesting example, since the losing side of WWI didn't like the outcome, pursued a better one in WWII, and suffered an even more devastating loss.
Yes.  Yes. Yes.

So what is your point anyway?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:24:18 PM by MOD3 »
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,646
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Work your way back to the OP.
There is a reason I mentioned the Revolution, namely that you stated some did not believe the 'all men are created equal' clause of the Declaration of Independence.

While defenders of the Union's invasion, destruction, forcible 'repatriation', and looting of the South point to Slavery as their great moral banner, the bottom line is that the increasingly industrializing economy of the North did not need slaves, except as house servants, and had plenty of Europeans to do the scut work--enough to slight the Irish, who 'need not apply'.
When you have some other group to stuff on the bottom of the socioeconomic totem pole, you can get all high and mighty about not forcing the servitude of those the Northern shipping magnates got filthy rich off of shipping to the South at a profit and without regard for their 'humanity'.

No one here is defending slavery as an institution or a practice.

The war was fought over economics, like all wars are, ultimately. Slavery became a hot issue not out of great moral purity, but because it was no longer a profitable venture in the North and an economic brickbat with which to beat the South, which the North was exploiting like a third world country--enough so that the trade in cotton persisted even during the war. At the time that labor force was essential to the production of Cotton and Tobacco, two major economic products of the South, cotton being a product with export value which ordinarily would have exceeded the price the Northern mills were willing to pay if not for other economic constraints.
Additionally, the South was industrializing on its own, and the war not only destroyed much of that industry, but set it back decades, allowing the South to be further exploited.
But as long as agitprop like the novels Uncle Tom's Cabin and Roots are taught as "History", the view of that era through a modern lens will continue to be grossly distorted. After all, "The victors will be the judges, the vanquished, the accused." applied even then.

 :amen: very well said indeed!   :patriot:
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:24:05 PM by MOD3 »

Online IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,598
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836


 I just showed, in black and white, that the states did not have the right to make this decision.  That negates the "states-rights" argument.  Just no real way around that.
I read your comment and did not see that in it.  How does anything you said negate a "states rights" argument?

Is this what you are referring to?
Quote
I'm going to throw a big old bone in the "refight the War" pot.

The constitution of the confederacy mandated that all confederate states honor the institution of "negro slavery".  Any states accepted into the confederacy after the fact must become slave states.  They did not allow states to choose. 

Remember also, that confederate leaders also had plans to go into Cuba and Latin America in order to expand slavery. 

Hard to argue it as a "states rights" issue.
And do you realize that Cuba was the second to the last country to abolish slavery in this hemisphere?  1886. Brazil followed.
Have to wonder what you mean when you say it was to go to Cuba to expand slavery.


« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:23:47 PM by MOD3 »
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,636
Quote from: Weird Tolkienish Figure

Do states have a right to secede?

Yes.  (See:  Amendment X)

Apparently not, since a war was fought. Face the facts: there's nothing in the USC about seceding.

The fact that a war was fought takes nothing away from Amendment X.  In fact, it doesn't address it at all.  In other words, you completely ignore the wording of the Constitution itself, referring instead to the brute force aggression of the United States as the arbiter of rights.  Some people would call that 'tyranny'.



Do individuals have a right to secede from towns?

Individuals are not land.  They are not part of towns.

Really? So I can secede my property from my town and declare myself ruler of WeirdTolkienishFiguresville? Not pay any local taxes! Sweet!

Property was not mentioned.  You specifically said 'individuals'.  If you want to now move the goal posts and replace 'individuals' with 'private property' then I would again refer to you state law (which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the question at hand).

And after yet another round, not one person can provide any legal basis whatsoever that prohibits a state from seceding.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:23:30 PM by MOD3 »
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,238
Quote
History is rife with instances that prove what you're saying doesn't matter one whit.  People will turn against family, religion, race in order to immerse themselves in an ideology they believe in.

@txradioguy

So what? That is a VERY wide generality that has NOTHING to do with Trump and his family. It's a lie,you all know it's a lie,but you don't care because you hate Trump.


Quote
Your argument is a straw man.

I hope you were looking in a mirror when you typed that.

Quote
Psst...hey Pete...hate to break it to you...Trump is one of those insiders himself.

Ahhh,but he is not a Republican on Dim insider. If he were,you would love him instead of hate him.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 06:32:54 PM by MOD3 »
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This post has been approved by Mod 3 or you wouldn't be seeing it.

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,238
@sneakypete, I only have time this morning to make this one comment.  Sorry, but I will be back on this evening.

 I just showed, in black and white, that the states did not have the right to make this decision.   

@Sanguine

Well,I am confident you THINK you did,anyhow.

But you are wrong.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 07:34:47 PM by MOD3 »
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This post has been approved by Mod 3 or you wouldn't be seeing it.

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,238
 
Quote
Nobody is impressed with your penchant for ponderous, pretentious, pansophism posting.



@edpc

MY,what BIG words you have,Brer Wolf!

« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 07:35:12 PM by MOD3 »
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This post has been approved by Mod 3 or you wouldn't be seeing it.

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,529
@Sanguine

Well,I am confident you THINK you did,anyhow.

But you are wrong.

Now, that's two things we disagree on!   :beer:
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 07:35:28 PM by MOD3 »
Cui bono?

Walk in Wisdom
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

But the noble make noble plans, and by noble deeds they stand.

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,238
@TomSea 

@CatherineofAragon   @TomSea

Quote
You've been corrected on this before, but let's do it one more time.

Pockets of slavery existed in the North up until the end of the war, and Yankee slave ships continued to ply their trade during that time
.

One yankee slave owner that was forced to give up his slaves AFTER the war ended was none other than General U.S.Grant,the commanding General of the Union Army.


Quote
Many blacks who escaped to the North met with persecution and hatred from "White Supremacist" Northerners.

ONE reason many of the industrialists in the north wanted slavery ended was because the Europeans that came here to work in their factories were starting to get uppity,and demanding higher wages and shorter hours. One reason for the higher wages was because they were tired of having their paychecks docked each week for the company housing they were being forced to live in,and they were tired of being forced to shop in the company stores.

They figured the blacks,who had no idea about the value of money because they had never had any,would be thrilled to work for them long hours for little money.

It has been said,and I see no reason to disbelieve it,that the corruption in the government and the army during the Civil War was enormous. Partly because the thieves in government and the politicians they bribed had never been exposed to a wide open US Treasury like that before. Everything was needed "yesterday",so they were changing 3 or 4 more than normal,and getting paid without question by corrupt government officials.


« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 07:35:47 PM by MOD3 »
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This post has been approved by Mod 3 or you wouldn't be seeing it.

Online EasyAce

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,261
  • I'll play the blues for you . . .
Nobody is impressed with your penchant for ponderous, pretentious, pansophism posting.
@edpc
Is that another way of calling him a nattering nabob of negativism with a hopeless hysterical hypochondria of history? ;)
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 07:36:06 PM by MOD3 »

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,238
There was plenty of resistance to the confederacy in the south as there was resistance to the war in the north. People who want all things to be a nice neat black and white contrast will always be disappointed by reality.

Booker T Washington repeatedly spoke of the vast generosity of former slaveholders and their donations to the Tuskeegee school.

@Cripplecreek 

History has also recorded that former General Nathan Bedford Forrest was very popular with the freed blacks in Tennessee after the war.

For those of you who don't know,he was the guy that started the KKK.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 07:36:46 PM by MOD3 »
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This post has been approved by Mod 3 or you wouldn't be seeing it.

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,856
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf