Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should the Confederate flag be removed from SC statehouse grounds?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    They illegally seceded to protect the institution of slavery. That's been established.
    Nothing in the Constitution prohibited States from seceding. For that matter, James Madison assured the States that they were only bound by their "own voluntary act(s)"...
    To the People of the State of New York:

    The last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking. The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.

    [...]

    "But it was not sufficient,'' say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.'' And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.

    Without inquiring into the accuracy of the distinction on which the objection is founded, it will be necessary to a just estimate of its force, first, to ascertain the real character of the government in question; secondly, to inquire how far the convention were authorized to propose such a government; and thirdly, how far the duty they owed to their country could supply any defect of regular authority.

    First. In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.

    On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

    That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

    [...]

    Federalist 39

    Prior to Texas v White (1865), there was no legal basis for declaring secession to be illegal, unlawful or unconstitutional.


    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma
    A secession morivated by the wish to preserve slavery.
    Preserve slavery from what? Absent a constitutional amendment, there was no legal mechanism to end it.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      Who fired the first shots?
      See, this is why we can't have an honest conversation. Everyone here knows that strategically the North was the aggressor.

      Bringing up who technically fired the first shot is just playing games and wasting everyone's time.

      If someone breaks into your home and you fire at them first, are you the aggressor?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        Nothing in the Constitution prohibited States from seceding. For that matter, James Madison assured the States that they were only bound by their "own voluntary act(s)"...
        To the People of the State of New York:

        The last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking. The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.

        [...]

        "But it was not sufficient,'' say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.'' And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.

        Without inquiring into the accuracy of the distinction on which the objection is founded, it will be necessary to a just estimate of its force, first, to ascertain the real character of the government in question; secondly, to inquire how far the convention were authorized to propose such a government; and thirdly, how far the duty they owed to their country could supply any defect of regular authority.

        First. In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.

        On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

        That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

        [...]

        Federalist 39

        Prior to Texas v White (1865), there was no legal basis for declaring secession to be illegal, unlawful or unconstitutional.




        Preserve slavery from what? Absent a constitutional amendment, there was no legal mechanism to end it.
        And yet many southern states claimed that that was the North's goal and why they had to secede. Were they blowing smoke or lying?
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          Nothing in the Constitution prohibited States from seceding. For that matter, James Madison assured the States that they were only bound by their "own voluntary act(s)"...
          To the People of the State of New York:

          The last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking. The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.

          [...]

          "But it was not sufficient,'' say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.'' And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.

          Without inquiring into the accuracy of the distinction on which the objection is founded, it will be necessary to a just estimate of its force, first, to ascertain the real character of the government in question; secondly, to inquire how far the convention were authorized to propose such a government; and thirdly, how far the duty they owed to their country could supply any defect of regular authority.

          First. In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.

          On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

          That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

          [...]

          Federalist 39

          Prior to Texas v White (1865), there was no legal basis for declaring secession to be illegal, unlawful or unconstitutional.




          Preserve slavery from what? Absent a constitutional amendment, there was no legal mechanism to end it.
          Great post.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
            Originally posted by walle View Post
            No it wasn't, and having said that. The North waged a Total War in the South.
            Best kind of war to wage if you have the resource and it's needed. Whats wrong with that?
            I submit that the US' war against the CSA wasn't total enough, as evidenced by the development of the KKK and Jim Crow. Had the North's war been truly total, then none of that would have occurred: it would have been snuffed out in utero, so to speak.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
              Except it was a war of southern aggression.
              The Confederacy did not invade the Union until after the Union had attempted to invade the Confederacy.

              When Confederate forces fired upon Ft. Sumter, they were firing on a foreign army occupying Confederate territory.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                The Confederacy did not invade the Union until after the Union had attempted to invade the Confederacy.

                When Confederate forces fired upon Ft. Sumter, they were firing on a foreign army occupying Confederate territory.
                The Confederacy was a foreign power occupying a large hunk of US territory.
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                  I submit that the US' war against the CSA wasn't total enough, as evidenced by the development of the KKK and Jim Crow. Had the North's war been truly total, then none of that would have occurred: it would have been snuffed out in utero, so to speak.
                  Ah yes, these are our benevolent "brothers" who only want their "brothers" back into the Union

                  Nothing says "we're all Americans and need to unite!" by wanton destruction and total war

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Charger View Post
                    I've already explained it. It is basic stuff.
                    The south seceded and started the war because they feared what would happen to the institution of slavery.

                    The U.S. prosecuted the war to restore the Union because of Confederate secession over slavery.

                    The war wasn't fought over slavery, it was fought because of slavery.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                      The Confederacy was a foreign power occupying a large hunk of US territory.
                      Except that the CSA legally seceded, a point that you seem to miss over and over.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                        I submit that the US' war against the CSA wasn't total enough, as evidenced by the development of the KKK and Jim Crow. Had the North's war been truly total, then none of that would have occurred: it would have been snuffed out in utero, so to speak.
                        Look at what happened during and after the worlds only 'total war'....Cities leveled, really leveled, tens of millions of non-combatants dead.....afterwords jail, prisons, and hangings for the losers.
                        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                        “To talk of many things:
                        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                        Of cabbages—and kings—
                        And why the sea is boiling hot—
                        And whether pigs have wings.”
                        ― Lewis Carroll

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                          The south seceded and started the war because they feared what would happen to the institution of slavery.

                          The U.S. prosecuted the war to restore the Union because of Confederate secession over slavery.

                          The war wasn't fought over slavery, it was fought because of slavery.
                          The war was fought over reunification, and it was fought because of people not wanting to be naked.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Charger View Post
                            Except that the CSA legally seceded, a point that you seem to miss over and over.
                            Fiction. Sorry doesn't apply.
                            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                            “To talk of many things:
                            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                            Of cabbages—and kings—
                            And why the sea is boiling hot—
                            And whether pigs have wings.”
                            ― Lewis Carroll

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Charger View Post
                              See, this is why we can't have an honest conversation. Everyone here knows that strategically the North was the aggressor.

                              Bringing up who technically fired the first shot is just playing games and wasting everyone's time.

                              If someone breaks into your home and you fire at them first, are you the aggressor?
                              Strawman, if you fire into my house first then you are the aggressor.

                              You still didn't answer the question. Would you have preferred that the South had won.
                              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Charger View Post
                                Ah yes, these are our benevolent "brothers" who only want their "brothers" back into the Union

                                Nothing says "we're all Americans and need to unite!" by wanton destruction and total war
                                Wasn't even close to any of that.
                                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                                “To talk of many things:
                                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                                Of cabbages—and kings—
                                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                                And whether pigs have wings.”
                                ― Lewis Carroll

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X