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 Half Pint John View Post
    Could that northern work guit and change jobs? Did he have to fear that his children were sold, never to be seen again?
    You missed my point, oh well...

    Could he quit work? Yeah I suppose so but not without being replaced by someone else then ending up starving, competition from other workers pouring in from the Old World would have made sure of that. Then you have the risk of getting hurt in an environment which was far from healthy and at that time very hazardous.

    At least the slaves under the French rule had two days off, in which they were allowed to sell their own produce.

    Let us fast forward to present day...
    Today the slave owners, the owners of this planet if you will, run the very same system. We have to provide for our own healthcare, cloth our selves, house our selves, and feed our selves....yet when we have paid for all that they still steal 60-70% of our output.

    But yeah, at least we're free...I think.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
      Under the US constitution ANY state could choose to eliminate slavery, whenever it wanted to, yes or no?

      Could a state in the Confederacy do so any time and in any manner, yes or no.

      Simple answers.

      It's called STATES RIGHTS.... and yet they blatantly STRIPPED that right in their new country. Why?
      The answers are "yes" and "yes."
      ARTICLE IV

      [...]

      (4) The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature or of the Executive when the Legislature is not in session) against domestic violence.

      While new territories and States were required to recognize and protect slavery upon admission, nothing in the CSA constitution prohibited them from ending the practice within their respective states.
      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
        Which means unilateral secession is unconstitutional, correct?
        It probably is... today. It wasn't illegal, unlawful or unconstitutional in 1860.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • Drifty of subject
          "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 The Doctor View Post
            It probably is... today. It wasn't illegal, unlawful or unconstitutional in 1860.
            Let's say I walk into your house and take something, claiming it as my constitutional right. You disagree, we go to the courts, and eventually the Supreme Court hears the case and rules it is unconstitutional to take your things.

            That means it was unconstitutional for me to take your item, even though the court case and decision were after the actual act.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
              Drifty of subject
              SOP.
              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 answers are "yes" and "yes."
                ARTICLE IV

                [...]

                (4) The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature or of the Executive when the Legislature is not in session) against domestic violence.

                While new territories and States were required to recognize and protect slavery upon admission, nothing in the CSA constitution prohibited them from ending the practice within their respective states.
                Yes it did.

                Same section IV:

                Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

                Any new states:

                (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

                Any citizen could move about and take up residence in any state of the confederacy with their slaves and their property rights to those slaves secured by the Confederate Constitution.
                “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
                  Let's say I walk into your house and take something, claiming it as my constitutional right. You disagree, we go to the courts, and eventually the Supreme Court hears the case and rules it is unconstitutional to take your things.

                  That means it was unconstitutional for me to take your item, even though the court case and decision were after the actual act.
                  Not prior to the ruling. The Constitution prohibits ex post facto law.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by walle View Post
                    As an aside.

                    Slaves were many times treated way better than the industrial workers in the North (note that I do not defend slavery) the slave owner was responsible for his slaves. He had to provide healthcare for them, he had to cloth them, he had to house them and he had to feed them, whereas the workers up north was replaceable at a whim. There was plenty of workers to go around pouring into New York from the Old world.

                    Again, not defending slavery here.
                    Could the Northern worker be sold away from his family? Did the Northern worker have to suffer the rape of his wife or daughter in silence? Was whipping a common punishment? Was it outright illegal to teach a Northern worker to read? Was the Northern worker's status defined by law as three-fifths of a person? Conditions in the North were undeniably difficult, and sometimes downright ugly: one of my own ancestors from Armagh took one look at Five Points and decided instead to try his luck working odd jobs the length of the Hudson River. That took him about three or four years before he landed in the Mohawk Valley. But he was free to try his hand at a risky endeavor, to travel into an unknown country and survive by his own industry and wits. Those were liberties totally denied slaves. No, the slaves had it worse, far worse: they were devoid of hope. Don't take my word for it: read Frederick Douglass' Autobiography of a Slave, and how the owners deliberately set about reducing their slaves into apathetic participants in their own bondage.

                    Or would you argue that the Helots were better off than the low-end Athenian laborers?
                    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                      Yes it did.

                      Same section IV:




                      Any new states:




                      Any citizen could move about and take up residence in any state of the confederacy with their slaves and their property rights to those slaves secured by the Confederate Constitution.
                      No it did not. Not in either case.
                      1. If Virginia outlawed slavery, the CSA constitution protected the rights of non-Virginian slaveholders traveling through or visiting (sojourning in) Virginia.
                      2. From my prior post... "While new territories and States were required to recognize and protect slavery upon admission, nothing in the CSA constitution prohibited them from ending the practice within their respective states."


                      The initial conditions were set to slavery; however, the CSA constitution clearly guaranteed each State sovereignty.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        Not prior to the ruling. The Constitution prohibits ex post facto law.
                        Do you have a section for that? I'm hardly the best constitutional scholar so little tidbits like this interest me, because it seems both logical and illogical in equal measure (which sorta sums up the law in general, don't it?).

                        On the one hand you don't want to make people guilty of a law or interpretation that they couldn't even know existed.

                        On the other, it seems that by deciding that X was unconstitutional it means that X was... unconstitutional.

                        So in this case secession was unconstitutional, but there was just a war between when the act was engaged in and when the Supreme Court passed their ruling. Because the Supreme Court is ruling on the actual act of secession, it is saying that "they were wrong on their interpretation, even if they didn't know it at the time, but they were actually acting unconstitutionally".

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          No it did not. Not in either case.
                          1. If Virginia outlawed slavery, the CSA constitution protected the rights of non-Virginian slaveholders traveling through or visiting (sojourning in) Virginia.
                          2. From my prior post... "While new territories and States were required to recognize and protect slavery upon admission, nothing in the CSA constitution prohibited them from ending the practice within their respective states."


                          The initial conditions were set to slavery; however, the CSA constitution clearly guaranteed each State sovereignty.
                          You raise an interesting conundrum: could the Confederacy survive half free and half slave? Could a Confederacy divided against itself stand, any better than a Union? When one considers the acts of staunch Confederates like Georgia's Gov Joseph E Brown, I'd think it highly unlikely that the Confederacy could have lasted under such divisive circumstances. How did Jefferson Davis put it? (I'm paraphrasing here) "Let the Confederacy's epitaph read, 'it died of an idea.'"
                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            Do you have a section for that? I'm hardly the best constitutional scholar so little tidbits like this interest me, because it seems both logical and illogical in equal measure (which sorta sums up the law in general, don't it?).
                            Article I

                            Section 9.

                            The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

                            The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

                            No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

                            No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

                            No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

                            No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

                            No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

                            No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

                            Section 10.

                            No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

                            No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

                            No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

                            https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...iclei#section9

                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay
                            On the one hand you don't want to make people guilty of a law or interpretation that they couldn't even know existed.

                            On the other, it seems that by deciding that X was unconstitutional it means that X was... unconstitutional.

                            So in this case secession was unconstitutional, but there was just a war between when the act was engaged in and when the Supreme Court passed their ruling. Because the Supreme Court is ruling on the actual act of secession, it is saying that "they were wrong on their interpretation, even if they didn't know it at the time, but they were actually acting unconstitutionally".
                            The Court ruled that the CSA never existed and that the Confederate States had never left the Union because the mechanism of secession was not constitutional.
                            Last edited by The Doctor; 24 Jun 15, 15:49.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Charger View Post
                              10th Amendment. A desire to reunite the country was the cause of the war.
                              As the Confederates were the ones who opened the ball at Fort Sumter and began the shooting that was the action that began the fighting and the war.

                              And before southern secession, the country was united.

                              I am afraid that your arguments are not making much sense.

                              Sincerely,
                              M
                              We are not now that strength which in old days
                              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                                You raise an interesting conundrum: could the Confederacy survive half free and half slave? Could a Confederacy divided against itself stand, any better than a Union? When one considers the acts of staunch Confederates like Georgia's Gov Joseph E Brown, I'd think it highly unlikely that the Confederacy could have lasted under such divisive circumstances. How did Jefferson Davis put it? (I'm paraphrasing here) "Let the Confederacy's epitaph read, 'it died of an idea.'"
                                Slavery would have eventually ended in the CSA...
                                Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

                                I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

                                http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.html
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X