Southern history and the truth

[BrianH]

Banning one type of weapon isn't "banning firearms."

The District of Columbia was just sued at the Supreme Court level for the banning of firearms. The SC ruled against the DC gun ban.

 

[Rogue 9]

The District of Columbia was just sued at the Supreme Court level for the banning of firearms. The SC ruled against the DC gun ban.

Did it? The circuit court did, but I thought the SCOTUS decision wasn't due until summer.

 

[jillian]

Did it? The circuit court did, but I thought the SCOTUS decision wasn't due until summer.

It isn't.

 

[Gunny]

I didn't say they fought a war because they gave a damn about the black man; I said the southern states seceded in order to preserve slavery. In their own Constitution, they mandated that all member states must be slave states.

Which is incorrect. They seceded to keep from being on the receiving end of the power split in Congress.

As I already pointed out, the original 13th Amendment that had been ratified by the House at the time SC seceded, the guarantee of slavery in existing slave-holding states was included.

Regardless, the four states that issued Declarations of Causes (South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Mississippi) all cited threats to slavery as their primary motivation. The seceding states themselves stated outright that their motivation in secession was the preservation of slavery. The CSA's vice president, Alexander Stephens, said the same thing in a speech at the outset of the Confederacy. This makes it quite difficult to argue that slavery was not the motivating factor; unless you contend that there was a massive conspiracy on the part of the CSA state and confederate governments to lie about their motivations, then I see no evidence that we should not take their stated reasons at face value.

Not difficult at all. Not if you actually look at the history of the North and South, and threats of secession throughout the 1800s until the Southern states finally seceded.

It was based on power and money. I am not arguing that slavery did not represent a means to that end for Southerners who owned slaves.

Northern industrialists were pissed that Southerners preferred to sell their goods in England and Europe instead of sending them to Northern mills Attacking slavery was just part of the propaganda campaign to paint the South in a bad light.

Guess it really isn't so surprising the South defended the means to its ends ...

I'm sure had positions been reversed, those same Northern industrialists would have defended their own brand of slavery -- taking immigrants off the boat, making them immediately beholden to the company store and tossing them in sweatshops to work off the debt 16 hours a day. A debt that never seemed to decrease. But they could call themselves, free, right?

The North would have defended that system just as vehemently had the shoe been on the other foot because those Northern mills that wanted Southern products wouldn't have been able to operate without their sweatshops anymore than a Shouthern plantation could operate without its slaves.

 

[Gunny]

Why is it the most logical conclusion? IMO, they'd have to be pretty stupid to think they could join a group and not have to abide by the group's rules.

Unless you mean that they thought they could back out at any time, I supposed that would make a shortsighted kind of sense.

If you voluntarily join a club as an "experiment," and later decide that club is not in your best interest, do you leave? Or do you stay because the board of directors says you can't go because you agreed to join?

If you participate in an experiment and it doesn't provide the results you desire, and it becomes clear that it never will, do you continue on? Or do you scrap the experiment and move on?

 

[Gunny]

What I find interesting about the whole seccession debate is that even under the articles of confederation, states could not enter into any treaties or agreements with other states that weren't approved by the full congress. I doubt that anyone would attempt to argue that the states had greater rights under the Constitution. So, if they couldn't enter into alterntive treaties under the confederation, the certainly couldn't under the US Constitution. That would have made the confederacy illegal even under the

It was never intended for anyone to be able to withdraw or states could have withdrawn just to avoid their share of debt.

I know that there are old wounds with this issue, but it's really a non-issue, IMO.

Sorry... maybe I'm being a bit simplistic aobut it, but that's what I see.

Under the Article of Confederation, states could not leave without the consent of all other states. The US Constitution made the Articles of Confederation null and void, and did not include that same language.

The clause in the Constitution regarding other treaties would not apply once that state seceded. Those rules apply only to those states to which the Constitution would apply.

 

[Gunny]

I don't see anything shortsighted about it. The whole concept of preserving state sovereignty was to prevent the central government from growing too powerful and ultimately tyrannical. As long as the states could opt-out, it would keep the central government in check. And I'd take it one step further and say that history has proven my point. The remaining vestiges of states rights are largely symbolic. The federal government rules the land. Period.

Thank you "honest" Abe!

Totally agree. States have lost more and more of their rights to govern without Federal interference on a daily basis from 1865 to date.

 

[jillian]

Under the Article of Confederation, states could not leave without the consent of all other states. The US Constitution made the Articles of Confederation null and void, and did not include that same language.

The clause in the Constitution regarding other treaties would not apply once that state seceded. Those rules apply only to those states to which the Constitution would apply.

I know that re the articles of confederation. And under the Articles, the States had greater rights than under the Constitution. THAT'S my point... why would you think the states had greater options where they had less power?

There was never any right to secede. It was a binding agreement and there wasn't any termination date.

 

[Gunny]

Historically, how often have countries ever willingly given up territory? Truly, they weren't playing with a full deck if they thought they'd be able to back out easily.

I'm only guessing of course and I don't know much about this subject. But what is written that leads you to believe they thought they had the ability to opt out at will?

It is what is NOT written that leads one to believe they had the right to opt out at will. They voluntarily joined, the Constitution in no way precludes their leaving, and under such terms one would believe they could leave just as freely and voluntarily as they entered.

 

[BrianH]

Did it? The circuit court did, but I thought the SCOTUS decision wasn't due until summer.

I'm sorry, I typed that up completely wrong. They haven't made the final ruling. You're right, it isn't until this summer.
There was a news story that i'm trying to find. The headline said something about a day in history regarding some decision that was reached a few weeks ago. I don't think it was their actual ruling, but was some ruling of some kind regarding some aspect of the case. I'm having trouble finding the link. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Gunny]

Well, I think Gunny articulates their feelings pretty well when he says that southerners believe that they were kept from exercising a right because of the superior military might of the north. But I agree with you that there wasn't any way that the US was going to give up territory

Prior to the conclusion of the Civil War, the territory was not the US's to give up, and the US DID deny the states their rights by force of arms.

However, I'm not looking to overturn anything. I'm attempting to have a discussion on a topic. Nothing more. The future of the United States does not rest on the outcome of this topic.

 

[Gunny]

I know that re the articles of confederation. And under the Articles, the States had greater rights than under the Constitution. THAT'S my point... why would you think the states had greater options where they had less power?

There was never any right to secede. It was a binding agreement and there wasn't any termination date.

You are basing your conclusion on an assumption. The Constitution does not decalre itself a binding agreement, nor does it preclude the states the right to secede.

 

[BrianH]

You are basing your conclusion on an assumption. The Constitution does not decalre itself a binding agreement, nor does it preclude the states the right to secede.

Correct.

No one is attempting to overturn a Supreme Court decision.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession. Therfore, the
10th Amendment gives the states this power. Anything power not prohibited in the Constitution, or not delegated to the Federal Gov.

 

[Swamp Fox]

You are quite clearly wrong, for all of the previously mentioned reasons.



If one is strict constructionist, then that is a problem. However, whole bodies of law rest on things that are only implied by the Constitution.

If you agree that the colonists had the legal right to secede from Great Britian, then the South had the same right to secede from the Union.

 

[Rogue 9]

If you agree that the colonists had the legal right to secede from Great Britian, then the South had the same right to secede from the Union.

They didn't. What made the Revolution not illegal was that at the end of it, the colonists won. If you rebel and lose, you're still under the ruling authority's laws, and they're unlikely to look too kindly on your actions. If you win, of course, you are now making the laws, and are unlikely to outlaw yourself.

 

[Ravi]

If you voluntarily join a club as an "experiment," and later decide that club is not in your best interest, do you leave? Or do you stay because the board of directors says you can't go because you agreed to join?

If you participate in an experiment and it doesn't provide the results you desire, and it becomes clear that it never will, do you continue on? Or do you scrap the experiment and move on?

True enough. My view is that SCOTUS got it wrong, but as Reilly points out their ruling means what the South did was illegal.

I was just pointing out the fallacy of them believing the Union would let them go quietly.

 

[BrianH]

True enough. My view is that SCOTUS got it wrong, but as Reilly points out their ruling means what the South did was illegal.

I was just pointing out the fallacy of them believing the Union would let them go quietly.

Well nobody believes the Union would let them go quietly. But in this case, the laws of the "authority" (U.S.) allowed secession based on it's Constitution.

 

[Ravi]

Well nobody believes the Union would let them go quietly. But in this case, the laws of the "authority" (U.S.) allowed secession based on it's Constitution.

aiiiieeeee!

Let's refight the Spanish/American war now!

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is a fucking stupid analogy.

Only because you're fucking stupid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Banning one type of weapon isn't "banning firearms."

Sure it is. Impossible to deny.
Note that I didn't say "banning all firearms".