[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
When you blatantly support and fight for a society that supports slavery, I am the last man of the face of this fuckin planet that you will receive pity from.[/quote]
Another thing I don’t get - the South was just in revolting against taxes, but the North was unjust for fighting to abolish slavery?
Taxes = ok to take up arms for.
Slavery = not ok.
As moral causes to take up arms for, I am vexed on this one.
“In 1831, long before the War between the States, South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun said, “Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.” The War between the States answered that question and produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day.”
— Walter E. Williams
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“In 1831, long before the War between the States, South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun said, “Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.” The War between the States answered that question and produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day.”
— Walter E. Williams[/quote]
How can the Civil War have created the sputtering megastate when at the same time the post-Civil War period is touted as the greatest period of laissez-faire capitalist expansion in our nation’s history?
As for Calhoun, why does no one remember that he introduced the first tariff in our nation’s history? And why does no one remember that Southern aristocrats wanted federal legislation to have the property status of their slaves recognized in non-slave states, an enormous expansion of federal rule and direct infringement on state sovereignty to not recognize slavery if it didn’t want to?
And why do Calhoun-ites completely ignore that Southern states voluntarily consented to majority rule (subject to constitutional constraints) in all things federal?
And this brings me to where I always end up - Lost Cause libertarians and left-liberals are hardly distinguishable on these kinds of issues. When they face a loss in the democratic arena, suddenly the ordinary process of democracy (that we agreed upon in advance) is “unfair” or “against my rights”.
Don’t like majoritarianism? Don’t sign up for a constitutional republic that says majority rule. To cry after the fact is not only disingenuous, but wimpy - “I don’t like this game anymore, so I am taking my ball an going home!”
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
No, its not Celebrity Death Match, guys, or anything like that.
[/quote]
Too bad. If it was, my money would be on my boy Tommy. He looks all cool and patrician on the surface, but you know he’s a fucking tiger in a scrap.
Ol’ Abe would put up a hell of a fight, though. Big guy, big reach. Skinny guys fight 'til they’re burger.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
“In 1831, long before the War between the States, South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun said, “Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.” The War between the States answered that question and produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day.”
— Walter E. Williams
How can the Civil War have created the sputtering megastate when at the same time the post-Civil War period is touted as the greatest period of laissez-faire capitalist expansion in our nation’s history?
As for Calhoun, why does no one remember that he introduced the first tariff in our nation’s history? And why does no one remember that Southern aristocrats wanted federal legislation to have the property status of their slaves recognized in non-slave states, an enormous expansion of federal rule and direct infringement on state sovereignty to not recognize slavery if it didn’t want to?
And why do Calhoun-ites completely ignore that Southern states voluntarily consented to majority rule (subject to constitutional constraints) in all things federal?
And this brings me to where I always end up - Lost Cause libertarians and left-liberals are hardly distinguishable on these kinds of issues. When they face a loss in the democratic arena, suddenly the ordinary process of democracy (that we agreed upon in advance) is “unfair” or “against my rights”.
Don’t like majoritarianism? Don’t sign up for a constitutional republic that says majority rule. To cry after the fact is not only disingenuous, but wimpy - “I don’t like this game anymore, so I am taking my ball an going home!”[/quote]
Thunder,
I started this thread because you had complained about how lousy the forum had become.
Anyway, I don’t think the founders or the original colonies would have signed up for a Union from which they couldn’t withdraw, if they so chose. Several states made it explicit: we’ll join, but we’re writing it out, that we’ll leave if we’re unhappy.
Do you honestly think that those states would sign up for something like an overpowering government, one that reserves the right to invade the individual states with Federal troops?
Now whose whining?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Thunder,
I started this thread because you had complained about how lousy the forum had become. [/quote]
Ok - I don’t get it. I think this a great thread…
Don’t think of my response to Walter Williams as somehow an attack on you. He has some interesting things to say, but is largely a theoretical libertarian who has lapses into lunacy (my opinion).
That seems odd to me, given their unhappiness with the Articles of Confederation. I don’t doubt states wanted lots of things - the ratification of the Constitution was a very messy and imperfect business.
But there is little sense in forming a Union and only staying in it when it you feel like it. As I said earlier, such a temporal approach would completely negate the entire point of strengthening the national government, which is what the Constitution was designed to do.
This misstates the issue. The Constitution expressly permits the federal government to Suppress Insurrections and Rebellions - it is right there in the text. If a rebellion starts in a state, how is it against the Constitution it send federal troops in suppress it?
And as far as “overpowering government” - the federal government exercising its federal powers is not “overpowering”.
And as to your question w/r/t states signing up for something like that - don’t forget, Congress is made of up “states”, as in representatives from the states. States get representation in Congress - by and through elected legislators. You can’t really say “states didn’t want this or that”, because they get their constitutional say in the federal government.
What the Southern states didn’t like is a political outcome - an election. A fair one. But they got their vote in that election - the process was fair and congruent with the Constitution they ratified. So what is to secede about?
Where is the sense of fairness in the maxim “I like the system I ratified until I don’t get what I want”…? Who can organize a government around that principle? Better yet, who can defend a free government that adheres to that principle?
Not sure I know what this means, but it certainly isn’t me.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
No, its not Celebrity Death Match, guys, or anything like that.
Too bad. If it was, my money would be on my boy Tommy. He looks all cool and patrician on the surface, but you know he’s a fucking tiger in a scrap.
Ol’ Abe would put up a hell of a fight, though. Big guy, big reach. Skinny guys fight 'til they’re burger. [/quote]
Abe would kick his ass. Haven’t you ever seen Star Trek?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Thunder,
I started this thread because you had complained about how lousy the forum had become.
Ok - I don’t get it. I think this a great thread…
…[/quote]
It is a great thread.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
No, its not Celebrity Death Match, guys, or anything like that.
Too bad. If it was, my money would be on my boy Tommy. He looks all cool and patrician on the surface, but you know he’s a fucking tiger in a scrap.
Ol’ Abe would put up a hell of a fight, though. Big guy, big reach. Skinny guys fight 'til they’re burger. [/quote]
LOL! Abe was assasinated because the pricks were too afraid of him to kidnap him. The original plot was to kidnap him as he rode over to the War Dept, but they knew he’d put up one hell of a fight; so they opted to kill him instead.
Only George Washington or Teddy Roosevelt would’ve had a chance against Abe.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Thunder,
I started this thread because you had complained about how lousy the forum had become.
Ok - I don’t get it. I think this a great thread…
Don’t think of my response to Walter Williams as somehow an attack on you. He has some interesting things to say, but is largely a theoretical libertarian who has lapses into lunacy (my opinion).
Anyway, I don’t think the founders or the original colonies would have signed up for a Union from which they couldn’t withdraw, if they so chose. Several states made it explicit: we’ll join, but we’re writing it out, that we’ll leave if we’re unhappy.
That seems odd to me, given their unhappiness with the Articles of Confederation. I don’t doubt states wanted lots of things - the ratification of the Constitution was a very messy and imperfect business.
But there is little sense in forming a Union and only staying in it when it you feel like it. As I said earlier, such a temporal approach would completely negate the entire point of strengthening the national government, which is what the Constitution was designed to do.
Do you honestly think that those states would sign up for something like an overpowering government, one that reserves the right to invade the individual states with Federal troops?
This misstates the issue. The Constitution expressly permits the federal government to Suppress Insurrections and Rebellions - it is right there in the text. If a rebellion starts in a state, how is it against the Constitution it send federal troops in suppress it?
And as far as “overpowering government” - the federal government exercising its federal powers is not “overpowering”.
And as to your question w/r/t states signing up for something like that - don’t forget, Congress is made of up “states”, as in representatives from the states. States get representation in Congress - by and through elected legislators. You can’t really say “states didn’t want this or that”, because they get their constitutional say in the federal government.
What the Southern states didn’t like is a political outcome - an election. A fair one. But they got their vote in that election - the process was fair and congruent with the Constitution they ratified. So what is to secede about?
Where is the sense of fairness in the maxim “I like the system I ratified until I don’t get what I want”…? Who can organize a government around that principle? Better yet, who can defend a free government that adheres to that principle?
Now whose whining?
Not sure I know what this means, but it certainly isn’t me.[/quote]
I humbly apologize for the misread. Your knowledge in this area is outstanding and I respect your thoughts greatly.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I humbly apologize for the misread. Your knowledge in this area is outstanding and I respect your thoughts greatly.[/quote]
Oh, no worries - and I repeat, great thread.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Don’t like majoritarianism? Don’t sign up for a constitutional republic that says majority rule. To cry after the fact is not only disingenuous, but wimpy - “I don’t like this game anymore, so I am taking my ball an going home!”[/quote]
I don’t think this is quite fair; there are certainly points at which democratic rule is pernicious for a certain segment of the minority. You know as well as anyone that there are Constitutional safeguards to protect our most basic rights. But if the interests of the majority are thoroughly to the detriment of the minority, the most basic right is to self-preservation, and we need no Bill of Rights to inform us of that fact.
I think we can probably all agree with that. What we can’t all agree upon is where that line is drawn.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I don’t think this is quite fair; there are certainly points at which democratic rule is pernicious for a certain segment of the minority. You know as well as anyone that there are Constitutional safeguards to protect our most basic rights.[/quote]
We don’t disagree on this point - which is why I expressly used the phrase constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, majority rule is tempered by republicanism - the classical conservatism of a bicameral legislature, a populist House and a federalist Senate, representation instead of direct democracy - and the constitution - Bill of Rights, limits on powers, separation of powers.
In this case we cannot really talk about rights and legality because the laws of a nation are no longer valid once a state cedes from the mother nation. Nebraska could easily write a “Declaration of Independence” and declare itself free of the US, for example. Whether it would be respected is another matter. I would imagine that if the ceding state were strong enough to stand up to the US then it deserves whatever outcome should befall it, in either event.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We don’t disagree on this point - which is why I expressly used the phrase constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, majority rule is tempered by republicanism - the classical conservatism of a bicameral legislature, a populist House and a federalist Senate, representation instead of direct democracy - and the constitution - Bill of Rights, limits on powers, separation of powers.[/quote]
But even in a constitutional republic, tempered democratic will can become too onerous for a segment of the population. As Connecticut has proved, sometimes the safeguards fail, and the right to property, for some citizens, has been all but destroyed.
We cannot say that this is a governmental violation of the Constitution directly, because the Supreme Court says it is not. Yet it seems reasonable to me and some others to defend those human rights, by force if necessary.
My example is weakened by the renewed zeal of the legislature in righting this wrong, (lending to your argument) but it does at least raise the point; were the legislature in accord with the decision, ought citizens to have the right to violently oppose the action? And if so, and if the state would not relent, do they have the ability to violently overthrow that government and establish a new one?
Further, if the interests of the state, as an individual in the community of the Union, is persistently challenged by the Union itself, and its representation lacks such force that it may challenge those democratic processes, is it not reasonable that it may shake free the bonds it wilfully submitted to, when it felt that they were made bona fide?
What bothers me most is Lincoln using secession as reason to start a war. I don’t see secession being prohibited in the Constitution, and can’t imagine the original 13 states agreeing to give up secession. Here’s Madison’s take on it:
“A Union of the States containing such an ingredient (allowing the federal government to suppress seceding states) seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
— The Records of the Federal
Convention, Yale Univ Press,
1911, page 47
The stuff in parentheses was added by me to show what he was talking about.
Uhhh… Lincoln started the war?
WHAT?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What bothers me most is Lincoln using secession as reason to start a war. I don’t see secession being prohibited in the Constitution, and can’t imagine the original 13 states agreeing to give up secession. Here’s Madison’s take on it:
“A Union of the States containing such an ingredient (allowing the federal government to suppress seceding states) seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
— The Records of the Federal
Convention, Yale Univ Press,
1911, page 47
The stuff in parentheses was added by me to show what he was talking about.
[/quote]
First of all, Lincoln did not start the war. Beauregard ordered the bombardment of Sumter, and Edward Ruffin pulled the lanyard.
Lincoln reacted to an assault on Federal fort by rebellious citizens. He had every right to respond in kind.
Secondly, as is argued, just because the Constitution does not specifically say anything about it does not mean it’s illegal.
Not too mention, why, in regard to the suspension of habeas corpus, would it grant presidential powers in time of rebellion if said rebellion was not allowed to be crushed?
Although i suspect that there is no answer as to whether it was legal or not, as that has been debated quite a bit apparently.
Humorous blog about that-
http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=104
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What bothers me most is Lincoln using secession as reason to start a war. I don’t see secession being prohibited in the Constitution, and can’t imagine the original 13 states agreeing to give up secession. Here’s Madison’s take on it:
“A Union of the States containing such an ingredient (allowing the federal government to suppress seceding states) seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
— The Records of the Federal
Convention, Yale Univ Press,
1911, page 47
The stuff in parentheses was added by me to show what he was talking about.
First of all, Lincoln did not start the war. Beauregard ordered the bombardment of Sumter, and Edward Ruffin pulled the lanyard.
Lincoln reacted to an assault on Federal fort by rebellious citizens. He had every right to respond in kind.
Secondly, as is argued, just because the Constitution does not specifically say anything about it does not mean it’s illegal.
Not too mention, why, in regard to the suspension of habeas corpus, would it grant presidential powers in time of rebellion if said rebellion was not allowed to be crushed?
Although i suspect that there is no answer as to whether it was legal or not, as that has been debated quite a bit apparently.
Humorous blog about that-
http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=104
[/quote]
What this blogger does not get it is that his legal subtleties are irrelevant.
Had the South one, they would have written the law and history books and made sure all the “subtleties” were in the right place.
[quote]orion wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What bothers me most is Lincoln using secession as reason to start a war. I don’t see secession being prohibited in the Constitution, and can’t imagine the original 13 states agreeing to give up secession. Here’s Madison’s take on it:
“A Union of the States containing such an ingredient (allowing the federal government to suppress seceding states) seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
— The Records of the Federal
Convention, Yale Univ Press,
1911, page 47
The stuff in parentheses was added by me to show what he was talking about.
First of all, Lincoln did not start the war. Beauregard ordered the bombardment of Sumter, and Edward Ruffin pulled the lanyard.
Lincoln reacted to an assault on Federal fort by rebellious citizens. He had every right to respond in kind.
Secondly, as is argued, just because the Constitution does not specifically say anything about it does not mean it’s illegal.
Not too mention, why, in regard to the suspension of habeas corpus, would it grant presidential powers in time of rebellion if said rebellion was not allowed to be crushed?
Although i suspect that there is no answer as to whether it was legal or not, as that has been debated quite a bit apparently.
Humorous blog about that-
http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=104
What this blogger does not get it is that his legal subtleties are irrelevant.
Had the South one, they would have written the law and history books and made sure all the “subtleties” were in the right place.[/quote]
What exactly are you trying to say? You sound awfully apologetic about that the South lost, and seem to think that they were justified in starting a war that killed a million.
Correct me if I’m wrong.