Civil War could have been avoided through negotiation

[LeroyDumonde]

There was nothing to negotiate. Lincoln should have respected Southern states' 10 Amendment right to secede.

 

[Thanos]

Do you support people being forced to remain in marriages against their will?

The Constitution is not a marriage contract, dolt.

No country's constitution is going to give one part of the country a legal means to secede from the rest of said country.

What constitution is going to give a country an option to destroy itself???

What a lightweight dumb ass.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Great....another graduate from Kleetus Law School.

Let me break it down so even an idiot can understand.

Here's what the 10th Amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since the Constitution nowhere prohibits states from seceding the power to secede is reserved to the states.

 

[g5000]

Here's the thing: slavery was an intrinsic part of the Southern economy, and the way of life of its quasi-aristocracy. The war could have been avoided by negotiation, but that negotiation would have had to include REPARATIONS to slave owners, to compensate them for the loss of their chattel property. This is what Britain did when it abolished slavery.

But even with these reparations, the plantations did not generate enough revenue to pay farm workers to do what the slaves were doing, so it was going to be difficult, regardless. The South needed to find a way forward without destroying its whole economy.

Slavery made Southerners lazy. They considered picking cotton "n!gger work", a phrase which persists to this very day to reject any dirty work.

 

[g5000]

The State of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the State of Ohio only twelve years later; but twelve years are more in America than half a century in Europe, and, at the present day, the population of Ohio exceeds that of Kentucky by two hundred and fifty thousand souls. These opposite consequences of slavery and freedom may readily be understood, and they suffice to explain many of the differences which we remark between the civilization of antiquity and that of our own time.

Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank it is identifies with that of prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honored. On the former territory no white laborers can be found, for they would be afraid of assimilating themselves to the Negroes; all the work is done by slaves; on the latter no one is idle, for the white population extend their activity and intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich soil of Kentucky are ignorant and apathetic, while those who are active and enlightened either do nothing or pass over into Ohio, where they may work without shame.

The influence of slavery extends still further; it affects the character of the master, and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas and his tastes. Upon both banks of the Ohio, the character of the inhabitants is enterprising and energetic; but this vigor is very differently exercised in the two States. The white inhabitant of Ohio, who is obliged to subsist by his own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as the principal aim of his existence; and as the country which he occupies presents inexhaustible resources to his industry and ever-varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses the ordinary limits of human cupidity: he is tormented by the desire of wealth, and he boldly enters upon every path which fortune opens to him; he becomes a sailor, a pioneer, an artisan, or a laborer with the same indifference, and he supports, with equal constancy, the fatigues and the dangers incidental to these various professions; the resources of his intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a species of heroism.

But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor, but all the undertakings which labor promotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes are those of an idle man; money loses a portion of its value in his eyes; he covets wealth much less than pleasure and excitement; and the energy which his neighbor devotes to gain, turns with him to a passionate love of field sports and military exercises; he delights in violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat. Thus slavery not only prevents the whites from becoming opulent, but even from desiring to become so.

Democracy in America, Chapter XVIII

 

[Chillicothe]

"Since the Constitution nowhere prohibits states from seceding the power to secede is reserved to the states."

----------------------------------------------------

One could expect....if the above theory has real legs.....well, one could expect that it would have been deployed repeatedly in the 164 years since.

So how did that work out?

 

[LeroyDumonde]

The Constitution is not a marriage contract, dolt.

No country's constitution is going to give one part of the country a legal means to secede from the rest of said country.

What constitution is going to give a country an option to destroy itself???

What a lightweight dumb ass.

The Constitution doesn't call the US a country. It's a union of states.

 

[rightwinger]

Let me break it down so even an idiot can understand.

Here's what the 10th Amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since the Constitution nowhere prohibits states from seceding the power to secede is reserved to the states.

10th makes no mention of secession

Constitution has procedures to add States……but no procedure for leaving the Union

 

[LeroyDumonde]

----------------------------------------------------

One could expect....if the above theory has real legs.....well, one could expect that it would have been deployed repeatedly in the 164 years since.

So how did that work out?

Find the legal flaw in my case.

 

[lennypartiv]

----------------------------------------------------

One could expect....if the above theory has real legs.....well, one could expect that it would have been deployed repeatedly in the 164 years since.

So how did that work out?

Texas is working on it.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

10th makes no mention of secession

Constitution has procedures to add States……but no procedure for leaving the Union

It doesn't need to make mention of secession. Read what the Amendment says. Because secession was not prohibited by the Constitution then the 10th Amendment indicates that the power of secession was reserved to the states.

 

[rightwinger]

It doesn't need to make mention of secession. Read what the Amendment says. Because secession was not prohibited by the Constitution then the 10th Amendment indicates that the power of secession was reserved to the states.

Nice Try Skippy

But the 10th has never been used as justification for secession

 

[g5000]

Let me break it down so even an idiot can understand.

Here's what the 10th Amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since the Constitution nowhere prohibits states from seceding the power to secede is reserved to the states.

Well, that's what the racist Democrats of that time bleeved anyway...

 

[Thanos]

The Constitution doesn't call the US a country. It's a union of states.

Another noteworthy opinion from the Kleetus School Of Law.

 

[Chillicothe]

Find the legal flaw in my case.

Me?
I ain't no lawyer, nor am all that interested.
However, I am reassured that your novel theory hasn't really been entertained as viable, or useful, or needed.....in 164 years.

So, instead of being an ersatz legal analyst I'll lazily accept that 100+ years of reality, of real-politic, has sorta winnowed out the validity of your novel theory.

Just sayin'.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Nice Try Skippy

But the 10th has never been used as justification for secession

Doesn't matter. The Amendment says what it says.

 

[IM2]

Trump is right, we needed more statesmen back then who were willing to negotiate in order to prevent war from breaking out. So many lives lost for nothing. Lincoln should be remembered for that.

---He added Lincoln could have negotiated to avoid the war, but he would not have been as well-known as he is today.---

Trump says Civil War could have been negotiated

Former President Trump said he believed the Civil War could have been avoided through negotiation, though that would’ve changed the legacy of former President Lincoln. Trump, at an Iowa rally Saturday, said he finds the conflict “fascinating” but “so horrible.” He also noted the high death toll...

news.yahoo.com

The South turned down the Corwin Amendment. There was no negotiating. Trump doesn't know how to spell his childrens names so his interpretation of history is not to be taken seriously.

 

[IM2]

Doesn't matter. The Amendment says what it says.

Yes it does, and you might be wise to read it properly.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it(the constitution) to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people

Notice the hierarchy. States rights do not supercede federal rights.

You forget the supremacy clause just like members of the right wing pass over the first amendment to run their mouths about the second.

Article VI, Clause 2

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 

[rampart]

I suspect you have your own problems to worry about.

The people that were racist dimocrap scum in 1960 were racist dimocrap scum in 1980.

What happened was, an entirely new and better situated generation took over. And with that new generation came Republican attitudes. With that generation came a higher standard of living. And with the better living standards, the anger and hatred died away.

dimocrap scum rarely change. Hardly ever. But their children and their children's children mature.

The biggest fear that dimocrap scum have is that people who were always solid, always in the box for them, would become successful and no longer dependent on dimocrap scum. That happened in the South with Whites, it is happening with Blacks (more slowly) and Hispanics now.

It's why they are always devolving, always looking to make another group dependent on them. Women, trans, college pukes, whatever. dimocrap scum steal money from people and give it to their voters. It's what they do. In the Deep South, they stole Black People's labor, their property, the education funds allocated to them by DC, etc, etc

dimocraps are not only scum, they are thieves as well. Among other low-life White Trash attributes.

The whole party is, and always has been, based on criminality, dishonesty and thievery.

lololol yea right. alternate history as well as alternate facts. i am familiar with your vision of the south. it ain't comin' from the "conservative" direction and certainly not from whatever the "alt right" claims to be.

 

[rampart]

The South turned down the Corwin Amendment. There was no negotiating. Trump doesn't know how to spell his childrens names so his interpretation of history is not to be taken seriously.

in trumps vision of history, the founders were visionaries who took the airports and such