[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
To claim motivations behind the civil war and the revolutionary war are really that different is ignorant. Even if you chalk up slavery as a key issue, the reasoning of lack of representation is the same. [/quote]
Absolute nonsense. There was no issue of lack of representation leading up to the Civil War. Losing an election is not the equivalent of not getting to vote in the election.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Good Lord.
Tariffs were not the catalyst of the Southern secession in 1861. Slavery was.
While modern neo-Confederate revisionists love to whine that the Civil War was instigated by “big gummint”, the Slave Power wanted a platform that included federal legislation that would have forced federal territories to recognize slave ownership, which would have been the…wait for it…larget expansion of federal government prior to the New Deal.
Because the Slave Power couldn’t get it, they split the party, and handed the Republicans the electoral victory in 1860. The Slave Power only championed “states’ rights” when it helped them - and they championed expanding federal power likewise…when it helped them.
And, to the OP - the flag is a bit of both. I think it doesn’t have to be a symbol of racism, but unfortunately occasionally is because the bearer of the flag wants to be.
Again, it doesn’t have to be - the pre-war South is defined by much more than the “peculiar institution”.[/quote]
Where in the Constitution does it say that states choosing to leave (not rebel, not try and overthrow the existing central government) may be invaded by Federal troops?
Apparently leaving a party is now equivalent to attacking the host and trying to destroy their home?
Lincoln was really good at changing the meaning of words/phraes to suit him. ‘Saving the Union’ means to now stand at the doorway with a rifle and refuse anyone leaving. And powers not delegated to the central government being reserved to the states becomes an empty phrase…
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
In this part of the world, the confederate flag stands for rockabilly, southern rock, southern comfort, american cars, and a rebellious attitude. It has nothing to do with race relations.[/quote]
In India, the swastika has nothing to do with Nazis.
Should I set up a flag outside my house with a Swastika on it?
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
In this part of the world, the confederate flag stands for rockabilly, southern rock, southern comfort, american cars, and a rebellious attitude. It has nothing to do with race relations.[/quote]
In India, the swastika has nothing to do with Nazis.
Should I set up a flag outside my house with a Swastika on it?
i might be slightly biased on the subject seeing as how i live in south carolina, but the confederate flag is neither a symbol of pride or bigotry anymore, but it is a symbol of the southern resistance even though the odds were not even close to their side. just think of the fact that the south was winning the civil war until sherman made his march and destroyed a lot, and the north had at least 3times as many fighting on their side.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
In this part of the world, the confederate flag stands for rockabilly, southern rock, southern comfort, american cars, and a rebellious attitude. It has nothing to do with race relations.
In India, the swastika has nothing to do with Nazis.
Should I set up a flag outside my house with a Swastika on it?[/quote]
If you have a heap of cowdung on your head and sit immobile for hours nobody will notice. They’ll just say ‘aahh, a hindu’ and nod understandingly. <:)
Is the confederate flag a symbol for slavery in NZ?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it say that states choosing to leave (not rebel, not try and overthrow the existing central government) may be invaded by Federal troops?
[/quote]
Excuse me- who fired on who? As I recall, the South made their decree that all Federal troops must leave the forts- when Major Anderson gave them the figurative finger, they started the war.
And the Constitution does not say that states are allowed to fuckin leave. This means that the government is allowed to keep them there. And when you fire on Federal forts, what exactly do you think is going to happen?
Once again, who fired on whom? They weren’t leaving a party- they were trying to leave the nation. That’s not so much someone trying to leave your party as it is someone who’s been drinking all night and blowing coke who’s trying to convince you that if they get pulled over, they won’t tall the cops they were by you.
No- you don’t get it- you’re not allowed to leave
Again- states are not allowed to leave. They’re not fucking sovereign countries. You show me the part where it says, “We can leave if we don’t like it” and I’ll stop arguing.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
To claim motivations behind the civil war and the revolutionary war are really that different is ignorant. Even if you chalk up slavery as a key issue, the reasoning of lack of representation is the same.
Absolute nonsense. There was no issue of lack of representation leading up to the Civil War. Losing an election is not the equivalent of not getting to vote in the election.
[/quote]
Apparently not getting your way means that you “lacked representation.” Forget any semblance of logic in any of this asshole’ statements - it’s not there.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it say that states choosing to leave (not rebel, not try and overthrow the existing central government) may be invaded by Federal troops?[/quote]
If a state or states could unilaterally decide to leave the Union they joined (in perpetuity, but that is a separate argument), then they could completely shut down and retard the operations of the federal government.
The states could not do this under the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution was designed to strengthen the federal government, not weaken it.
An existing “right” of secession would contradict the entire point of adopting the Constitution.
It wasn’t a “party”, and states didn’t join the Union - the people formed a Union.
The 10th Amendment is a truism, and it doesn’t reserve a power of secession, because federal power trumps a state’s desire to secede.
[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it say that states choosing to leave (not rebel, not try and overthrow the existing central government) may be invaded by Federal troops?
If a state or states could unilaterally decide to leave the Union they joined (in perpetuity, but that is a separate argument), then they could completely shut down and retard the operations of the federal government.
[/quote]
That is kind of the point, is it not?
[quote]orion wrote:
That is kind of the point, is it not?[/quote]
Of course it was never the point. The Constitution was created to give more powers to the federal government. You cannot simultaneously grant more power to the federal government and take that power away.
Just because you want it to be so doesn’t mean it is true.
You hold the local record for historical ignorance on this particular topic. Don’t add to your dubious legacy.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
<<< If you have a heap of cowdung on your head and sit immobile for hours nobody will notice. They’ll just say ‘aahh, a hindu’ and nod understandingly. <:) >>>.[/quote]
LOL!!!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:
That is kind of the point, is it not?
Of course it was never the point. The Constitution was created to give more powers to the federal government. You cannot simultaneously grant more power to the federal government and take that power away.
Just because you want it to be so doesn’t mean it is true.
You hold the local record for historical ignorance on this particular topic. Don’t add to your dubious legacy.[/quote]
First of all, the constitution was not created to give more powers to the federal government, it created the federal government.
Before there was not anything to give anything to.
Second, the federal government has the power given to it by the constitution and nothing else, the constitution granting it those powers explicitly says so.
Where does it say that it has the power to prevent anyone from leaving at gunpoint?
Third, to prevent someone from leaving a “union” destroys a union as surely as leaving it would have done. The declaration of independence clearly states that governments are instituted by man to serve them and that people do have the right to institute new ones if the old one does no longer serve them. It is clearly a matter of logic necessity that the people decide when that moment has come and not the government in question. The US are now a union the way Tibet is “united” with China.
So, fourth, you can bend reason and your constitutions intention like a bretzel and you might find legions of shysters to support your theories and the facts still remain that Lincoln destroyed the union without any legal or moral authority to do so and that the only reason you spout your sycophantic drivel is because the Confederates were kind enough not to burn down Washington when they had the chance and that Lincoln was not nearly as kind as them when he had the upper hand.
And my point still stands that the whole point of a threat to secede is to shut down a federal government.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Makavali wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
In this part of the world, the confederate flag stands for rockabilly, southern rock, southern comfort, american cars, and a rebellious attitude. It has nothing to do with race relations.
In India, the swastika has nothing to do with Nazis.
Should I set up a flag outside my house with a Swastika on it?
If you have a heap of cowdung on your head and sit immobile for hours nobody will notice. They’ll just say ‘aahh, a hindu’ and nod understandingly. <:)
Is the confederate flag a symbol for slavery in NZ?[/quote]
You’d think they would, but they don’t. Also, my being from NZ doesn’t make the point any less valid, and I wish you people would stop beating that dead horse.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it say that states choosing to leave (not rebel, not try and overthrow the existing central government) may be invaded by Federal troops?
Excuse me- who fired on who? As I recall, the South made their decree that all Federal troops must leave the forts- when Major Anderson gave them the figurative finger, they started the war.
And the Constitution does not say that states are allowed to fuckin leave. This means that the government is allowed to keep them there. And when you fire on Federal forts, what exactly do you think is going to happen?
Apparently leaving a party is now equivalent to attacking the host and trying to destroy their home?
Once again, who fired on whom? They weren’t leaving a party- they were trying to leave the nation. That’s not so much someone trying to leave your party as it is someone who’s been drinking all night and blowing coke who’s trying to convince you that if they get pulled over, they won’t tall the cops they were by you.
No- you don’t get it- you’re not allowed to leave
Lincoln was really good at changing the meaning of words/phraes to suit him. ‘Saving the Union’ means to now stand at the doorway with a rifle and refuse anyone leaving. And powers not delegated to the central government being reserved to the states becomes an empty phrase
Again- states are not allowed to leave. They’re not fucking sovereign countries. You show me the part where it says, “We can leave if we don’t like it” and I’ll stop arguing. [/quote]
You honestly, and I mean that, think that the people who signed on to the Constitution gave away any right to leave the Union? They just seceded from the British Empire and now permanently agreed to never secede?
Then, how long should a country tolerate what are now foreign troops sitting outside one of their main ports, collecting tariffs? If someone camped out on your porch and you kicked them off, should the cops come after you? South Carolina owns…South Carolina.
And you still didn’t show me where Federal troops can attack SECESSIONISTS.
[quote]orion wrote:
First of all, the constitution was not created to give more powers to the federal government, it created the federal government.[/quote]
Completely and laughably false. Under the Articles, for example, the national government had no ability to regulate interstate commerce. As such, treaties with foreign - particularly trade treaties - were nearly impossible because of the lack of uniformity among the confederated states.
The Constitution granted this new power to the federal government. One example.
Go look at the documents side by side. I can’t do all the work for you.
Yes, there was, under the Articles of Confederation. The people of the Union decided to scrap the old confederation, and establish a Union. With that, they expanded the powers of the government under the Articles.
We’ve been through this time and again, and it is almost as if you get dumber each time.
The federal government has a right to put down rebellions, and unilaterally withdrawing from the Union the people formed because of a democratic result you don’t prefer is, in fact, rebellion.
The Southern states had no right to leave - and refusing to obey the law is rebelling against it. The Executive enforces the law t0 put down the rebellion.
Utter nonsense.
First, Southern states could leave - call a constitutional convention and get all parties involved to re-engineer a new federal government and Union.
Second, the Declaration of Independence invokes revolution when rights are abridged - the government was working just fine and the Southern states had their representative voice in that government…they just weren’t getting the results they wanted when issues came to a vote.
If you participate in a democracy, and agree to abide by thr rule of law, you abide it when both you get your way and when you don’t. If you have right to participate in government, and then also reserve the right to leave or ignore the law generated from participating in that government, that is no law at all - it is anarchy.
The “old” government was serving them just fine. Wipe the bong resin from your mind and imagine a reverse scenario - had the Slave Power gotten its expansion of federal law to preserve slavery in the Federal Territories, there absolutely no doubt that they expected that law - duly passed with abolitionist states’ input - to be enforced.
What you suggest is lawlessness - the ability to abide by laws you like, and ignore the ones you don’t. Plain idiocy.
It’s not even that I disagree with your opinion on this - it is that I don’t even respect it.
You simply have no concept of the history or the political theory behind any of it.
The above paragraph - free of any informational content - is nothing more than a waste of bandwidth.
No question that is true - and that is precisely why both common sense and logic dictate that a Constitution that empowers the federal government cannot also have in it an automatic means to unilaterally undermine all those powers on a whim.
I realize you know next to nothing about business, but I will offer an analogy - would you sign a contract with someone if the contract included a clause that allowed the other person to walk away from the contract whenever they felt like it?
Of course not - that defeats the entire point of the contract.
Two presidents faced this question, and both saw their duty the same. The Southern states decided not to tempt Jackson into the use of force to preserve the Union, but 30 years later they decided to dare Lincoln. It was a foolish and selfish error.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Makavali wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
In this part of the world, the confederate flag stands for rockabilly, southern rock, southern comfort, american cars, and a rebellious attitude. It has nothing to do with race relations.
In India, the swastika has nothing to do with Nazis.
Should I set up a flag outside my house with a Swastika on it?
If you have a heap of cowdung on your head and sit immobile for hours nobody will notice. They’ll just say ‘aahh, a hindu’ and nod understandingly. <:)
Is the confederate flag a symbol for slavery in NZ?
You’d think they would, but they don’t. Also, my being from NZ doesn’t make the point any less valid, and I wish you people would stop beating that dead horse.[/quote]
What? Sorry Makavali, I don’t know what or whom you are debating here. I’ll rephrase, in this part of the world (Finland, Sweden, Denmark), the confederate flag stands for rockabilly, southern rock, southern comfort, american cars, and a rebellious attitude. It has practically nothing to do with race relations.
So, you don’t believe it?
Isn’t it laughable when people who allegedly believe in freedom twist words all around?
The ‘United States’ is not a union of independent states, its a monolithic central government. To be in a ‘democracy’ now means that you surrender your rights because you got outvoted and that you have to accept your fate, even if its ‘unpleasant’.
Secession, the actual only tool that states have, to control the encroachments of the Federal government, becomes ‘rebellion’ and ‘armed insurrection’.
Jesus, no wonder this country is going down the shitter.