Today's American History lesson.

[The Sage of Main Street]

We could have taken all the islands in the Caribbean, making them into slaves states in return for the South keeping out of the West. That's what President Monroe wanted to do,way back in the 1820s, but the plutocracy refused to fund a Navy.

Lots of presidents have talked about that as a way to avert war. When Lincoln received a letter from the Governor of Alabama that freeing the slaves would allow the slaves to think they were people, and then the citizens of his state would be forced to lynch and kill them all and he didn't want that on his conscience, even Lincoln looked at the voluntary relocation of slaves.

Monroe's movement talk wasn't ALL slaves remember. He talked about the idea of using an island much like Australia was used. Remember he had slave revolts against him. He felt that the best way to perpetuate slavery in the US was to move the dissenters to a penal colony.

Two Years Before the Mast

Whites in Northern sweatshops suffered as much as Blacks in the South did. The failure to equate the two, similar to denying that Antifa is the Left's Nazis, shows that the required political platforms only indicate plutocratic supremacy over reasoning things out.

Contrary to what we are led to expect, 97% of the Abolitionists hated the rising labor movement. Here are some quotes from those spoiled guillotine-fodder snobs:

"We can always hire half the poor to kill the other half."

"If a worker can't live on bread and water, he has no right to live."

 

[Slash]

Two Years Before the Mast

Whites in Northern sweatshops suffered as much as Blacks in the South did.

Hmmm.

States had laws that made it illegal to teach slaves to read (fear of rebellion)
Slaves had ZERO protections under the Constitution, unless they broke a law and could be charged under it
Rape and sexual abuse was legal against Slaves
Beating, branding and mutilation were acceptable options if a slaves performance wasn't up to par at work.
Slaves were paid 0$ on a contract that was in perpetuity
Slaves were forced to give up their religion and cultures.
Castration was an acceptable punishment for poor work performance or attempting to leave work by slaves
Slaves were forbidden to leave their owners property without permission
States had laws that called for the death penalty if a slave was to leave where he worked without permission
A slave could be given the death penalty if he defended himself against an attack by a white person
Slaves had zero legal right to their own children, their child was property of their owner
Rape to breed slaves was acceptable
Families could be broken up and sold


I love that book. Sea Wolf by Jack London is another that is similar and quite good. But I'm going to disagree with his sentiment.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Wrong. The CSA killed over 300,000 Union soldiers because their land was invaded by a Tyrant warmonger who got his in the end also. Sic Semper Tyrannis

Yes he did invade, after the Confederacy spent about a day bombing a US fort. I would hope that if North Korea nuked Guam, we would fight back as well.

Wrong. Secession was legal. Fort Sumter was therefore the property of the State of SC.

The Founding Fodder Gave Us Oats, Not Votes

The defective Constitution caused the Civil War by providing no legal means to secede. But preaching pundits hired by those who fear direct democracy have succesfully brainwashed us to worship it as much as Fundamentalists worship the Bible.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Two Years Before the Mast

Whites in Northern sweatshops suffered as much as Blacks in the South did.

Hmmm.

States had laws that made it illegal to teach slaves to read (fear of rebellion)
Slaves had ZERO protections under the Constitution, unless they broke a law and could be charged under it
Rape and sexual abuse was legal against Slaves
Beating, branding and mutilation were acceptable options if a slaves performance wasn't up to par at work.
Slaves were paid 0$ on a contract that was in perpetuity
Slaves were forced to give up their religion and cultures.
Castration was an acceptable punishment for poor work performance or attempting to leave work by slaves
Slaves were forbidden to leave their owners property without permission
States had laws that called for the death penalty if a slave was to leave where he worked without permission
A slave could be given the death penalty if he defended himself against an attack by a white person
Slaves had zero legal right to their own children, their child was property of their owner
Rape to breed slaves was acceptable
Families could be broken up and sold


I love that book. Sea Wolf by Jack London is another that is similar and quite good. But I'm going to disagree with his sentiment.

Denying the equivalence is a sign of snobbery. Whites on ships and in sweatshops suffered just as much, only in different ways. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" to get confirmation of that. Besides, honest people would reform their own section first or forfeit any moral authority if they don't.

 

[rightwinger]

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.

The USA had slavery for 89 years.

More history
The Americas had slavery for 250 years

Slavery was forced on the country when the nation was formed

While the rest of the world gave up on slavery without a fight..... it cost us 600,000 lives

Even then we insisted on second class citizenship for another hundred years

 

[Slash]

Denying the equivalence is a sign of snobbery. Whites on ships and in sweatshops suffered just as much, only in different ways. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" to get confirmation of that. Besides, honest people would reform their own section first or forfeit any moral authority if they don't.

Nope, not at all. Denying the difference without facts would be though. I am just showing facts. I've shown you some of the slave specific struggles. Now show me how whites on ships/sweatshops suffered just as much.

 

[pinqy]

Show me where it says it cause thats not what you guys are saying. You are relying on a third party.
If you need some help in reading, I can attach a link to hooked on phonics for you so we can get to the bottom of this.
I say its not in the COTUS. Show me where it says states dont have the right to secession.

No, the power of the supreme court is laid right out there in the Constitution. Unless you want to rip out the pages of the US Constitution that say the Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving the Constitution then the Constitution says that the secession of the 1860's was illegal.

This isn't up for debate. You don't get to grab a marker and cross out all the parts of the US constitution you don't like.

I understand that. But that is kinda what you are doing isnt it? The Constitution is a RESTRICTION for the federal government. You need to understand that. Thats why it wasnt broad.
SHOW ME where the Constitution says secession is illegal.

Ok. In the Preamble: "in order to form a more perfect union." More perfect than what? A "perpetual union." Since the original union was perpetual, then the "more perfect union" must also be perpetual.
Article I, 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 any Thing 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 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.

This would include treaties, alliances, and confederation among the states.

Article IV Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

So we have provisions for new states, so that was clearly allowed, with restrictions. No provisions are made for leaving the Union. IF that were allowed, then we would expect there to be such provisions.

Your turn. What in the Constitution do you think allows for voluntary exit from the Union?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That was AFTER the fact. Principle of legality

Yes I am with you that our ability to get pre-cog's like the movie Minority Report is well behind where it should be.

But until we are there we will have to hold court after offenses occur. You won't be able to take your neighbor to court and get a guilty verdict for him stealing your bike until AFTER the the event occurs.

But luckily the constitution gives the supreme court the power to decide the law of the land. Their interpretation said it was illegal. That's really all there is to it. Now whether you like it or not is a personal preference, but short of overthrowing the government and creating a new higher court, that's where it stands.

SCROTUS Interpreted the Constitution As Giving It the Right to Interpret the Constitution

By parroting the ruling class's lie about judicial supremacy, you get a sense of power watching nine "Justices" overrule the will of 100 million voters. Then you tell us the scare story that eliminating those nine positions will overthrow the government!

 

[IsaacNewton]

Most of the Northern States ended slavery by 1787. The United States banned the import of slaves into the US in 1808.

It was the South that continued the debauchery until the Civil War.

Slavery Timeline

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If secession was illegal, then we are an illegal nation and belong to Great Britain. Our country was born of secession.

You do realize the constitution didn't exist then right? If another rule comes along that voids the Constitution, that secession could be validated at that time. But as long as this is the USA, that secession was illegal.

You're begging the question. When the patriots violated the laws of their sovereign, it was the same as violating a constitution. So it is the American Way to refuse to recognize any supreme body of laws. That's for meek weaklings, yet Constitutionazis think they are really tough guys.

 

[Slash]

You're begging the question. When the patriots violated the laws of their sovereign, it was the same as violating a constitution. So it is the American Way to refuse to recognize any supreme body of laws. That's for meek weaklings, yet Constitutionazis think they are really tough guys.

Yes we did. I mean anyone here can legally denounce their Citizenship of the USA and then say that body of laws doesn't apply to them. Or overthrow the government of the USA and burn it. But the American way is the US Constitution as long as that is the document that governs this nation.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Denying the equivalence is a sign of snobbery. Whites on ships and in sweatshops suffered just as much, only in different ways. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" to get confirmation of that. Besides, honest people would reform their own section first or forfeit any moral authority if they don't.

Nope, not at all. Denying the difference without facts would be though. I am just showing facts. I've shown you some of the slave specific struggles. Now show me how whites on ships/sweatshops suffered just as much.

Lincoln Married a Richgirl; That's All We Need to Know About Him

You Social-Justice Warlords obviously don't care about White people, so you close your hollow souls to any sympathy. After all, since Whites are "racist," you can convince yourselves that they deserved harsh treatment anyway--Reconstruction in advance. Another talking point in your self-convincing self-delusion was, "If the working class pulled themselves into the middle class without any outside help, they must have never had it very bad in the first place."

 

[Slash]

Lincoln Married a Richgirl; That's All We Need to Know About Him

You Social-Justice Warlords obviously don't care about White people, so you close your hollow souls to any sympathy. After all, since Whites are "racist," you can convince yourselves that they deserved harsh treatment anyway--Reconstruction in advance. Another talking point in your self-convincing self-delusion was, "If the working class pulled themselves into the middle class without any outside help, they must have never had it very bad in the first place."

Nope. I don't believe any of what you are accusing. Are you saying though that rather than debate with fact you'd just like to name call and create lies about someone? If so, just be honest about it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You're begging the question. When the patriots violated the laws of their sovereign, it was the same as violating a constitution. So it is the American Way to refuse to recognize any supreme body of laws. That's for meek weaklings, yet Constitutionazis think they are really tough guys.

Yes we did. I mean anyone here can legally denounce their Citizenship of the USA and then say that body of laws doesn't apply to them. Or overthrow the government of the USA and burn it. But the American way is the US Constitution as long as that is the document that governs this nation.

Weewee on the People

Your bossy type's Constitution empowers an oligarchy, which drums into us the lie that it empowers us.

 

[Slash]

Weewee on the People

Your bossy type's Constitution emprumman oligarchy, which drums into us the lie that it empowers us.

No idea what that was, but guessing it wasn't facts to back up your claim.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Lincoln Married a Richgirl; That's All We Need to Know About Him

You Social-Justice Warlords obviously don't care about White people, so you close your hollow souls to any sympathy. After all, since Whites are "racist," you can convince yourselves that they deserved harsh treatment anyway--Reconstruction in advance. Another talking point in your self-convincing self-delusion was, "If the working class pulled themselves into the middle class without any outside help, they must have never had it very bad in the first place."

Nope. I don't believe any of what you are accusing. Are you saying though that rather than debate with fact you'd just like to name call and create lies about someone? If so, just be honest about it.

You push lies that unfortunately are accepted by both captive sides. There is nothing wrong with Ad Hominem; exposing someone's bossy and irrationally conceited character means he'll use every true fallacy in the book and pretend that anyone who defies his will is not debating with acceptable facts. I mentioned "The Jungle," which contains all the facts you need. Character is more important than debate magic.

 

[Slash]

You push lies that unfortunately are accepted by both captive sides. There is nothing wrong with Ad Hominem; exposing someone's bossy and irrationally conceited character means he'll use every true fallacy in the book and pretend that anyone who defies his will is not debating with acceptable facts. I mentioned "The Jungle," which contains all the facts you need. Character is more important than debate magic.

Didn't push a lie. You made a statement. Just asking you to back it up with fact. Nothing more.

 

[rightwinger]

Denying the equivalence is a sign of snobbery. Whites on ships and in sweatshops suffered just as much, only in different ways. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" to get confirmation of that. Besides, honest people would reform their own section first or forfeit any moral authority if they don't.

Nope, not at all. Denying the difference without facts would be though. I am just showing facts. I've shown you some of the slave specific struggles. Now show me how whites on ships/sweatshops suffered just as much.

Lincoln Married a Richgirl; That's All We Need to Know About Him

You Social-Justice Warlords obviously don't care about White people, so you close your hollow souls to any sympathy. After all, since Whites are "racist," you can convince yourselves that they deserved harsh treatment anyway--Reconstruction in advance. Another talking point in your self-convincing self-delusion was, "If the working class pulled themselves into the middle class without any outside help, they must have never had it very bad in the first place."

So did Washington

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Weewee on the People

us.

No idea what that was, but guessing it wasn't facts to back up your claim.

Just because you claim you don't understand, that doesn't mean we have to take your word for it. It's easy to figure out that the typo means "empower." Or, if you admit you understand it, you could get kudos from your Aunt Tifa USMB brotherhood by saying, "It empowers an oligarchy of wise stewards; democracy empowers deplorable Little People."

 

[Slash]

Just because you claim you don't understand, that doesn't mean we have to take your word for it. It's easy to figure out that the typo means "empower." Or, if you admit you understand it, you could get kudos from your Aunt Tifa USMB brotherhood by saying, "It empowers an oligarchy of wise stewards; democracy empowers deplorable Little People."

Ok. This is my 7th post of me asking you simply to back your position with fact. And you can't do that. Got it.