Today's American History lesson.

Yes it was legal to own other humans. And the South wanted to make sure that would be a right granted to them in perpetuity rather than have to wonder if that right might someday be taken away. I'm not trying to retroactively apply any law

Well, yes you are, hard head!

The South was protecting their constitutional right to property by ruling of the US Supreme Court. Slavery did not become illegal until ratification of the 13th Amendment. You're attempting to apply it to 1861.
 
In the case of Fort Sumter, the sovereign state of SC gave the Union several chances to leave the fort peacefully.

But Slash you are correct in some cases Southern militias did indeed take Union equipment. But mostly the Southerners guarding that were showing their alkegence to their homeland and let it hsppen.

Yes they did. Cuba has asked multiple times for the US to abandon our base in Guantanemo. We've responded no there as well. If they bombed our troops there for nearly 24 hours after us saying that, I would hope our president would call that an act of war as well.
 
Yes they did. Cuba has asked multiple times for the US to abandon our base in Guantanemo. We've responded no there as well. If they bombed our troops there for nearly 24 hours after us saying that, I would hope our president would call that an act of war as well.

The difference is, Cuba is not a STATE with Constitutional protections as such.
 
Well, yes you are, hard head!

The South was protecting their constitutional right to property by ruling of the US Supreme Court. Slavery did not become illegal until ratification of the 13th Amendment. You're attempting to apply it to 1861.


Nobody was trying to illegally stop slavery. They were worried it would be legally stopped so they illegally seceded.

And no I am not trying to apply a later thing. The Supreme court Confirmed that the secession that occured in 1861 was against the Constitution. That's all they did. No new law.

Just because you don't like that they did confirm the secession was illegal, doesn't give us the right to take a dump on the Constitution and say "well I don't like that interpretation". I mean when the Supreme Court says that Yes, this person committed treason, they aren't creating a new law. They are taking the action and comparing it to what the Constitution defines as treason and saying that the Constitution says they broke the law.
 
The difference is, Cuba is not a STATE with Constitutional protections as such.

I agree. And while the Constitution said that secession was illegal, it never said that states could take over federal property. It never said that states could bomb US bases. It didn't protect any of those things either.
 
Remember the LEGISLATIVE Branch is the only one that can create a new law. That never happened in regards to secession. IF AFTER 1961 the legislative branch created a new law that said secession was illegal, then you would have a point. A law was made AFTER the secession and I would fully agree that you can't backdate that.

But that never happened. The Judicial Branch ruled that based on the Constitution, ratified 80 years earlier, the secession was illegal.

It's the same with anything. A law against internet porn pops up in 2000. If you were doing that before 2000 you are ok. If you do it in 2004, and the judicial system says you broke that law in your court case in 2005, you are guilty of breaking that law, even though the judicial system didn't rule on your case until after.
 
The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.

The USA had slavery for 89 years.
And the south had slavery until 1865, regardless of what they called themselves. The Federal government wanted it removed, and certain states resisted. Reminds me of illegal immigration (little segway here), how the feds want immigration laws enforced, buts certain states invoke state rights and create sanctuaries for illegal aliens. ( Our new class of neo-slaves). It seems liberals haven't learned from history or the civil was as they love too preach about.
 
It's pretty simple.

Law comes out in 2014 that concealed carry is illegal in NY
If you were carrying in 2013, you aren't charged under that law
If you carried in 2015 and a few months later the judicial system found you guilty in 2016, the act you took in 2015 was illegal

Same here. In the late 1780's states started ratifying the constitution as the law of the land. In 1861 states seceded. The charges were heard in 1869 and they were found to have broken the laws of the constitution by seceding.

That's how the constitution and the US work. It's how they've always worked. The judicial system will never judge a person for something that has yet to happen.
 
And the south had slavery until 1865, regardless of what they called themselves. The Federal government wanted it removed...
And the USA also had slavery until 1865, including New Jersey. But that is not taught anymore. Makes the US Federal Gov look like hypocrites. Thanks for proving my point. Erasing history makes some feel better.
 
And the south had slavery until 1865, regardless of what they called themselves. The Federal government wanted it removed...
And the USA also had slavery until 1865, including New Jersey. But that is not taught anymore. Makes the US Federal Gov look like hypocrites. Thanks for proving my point. Erasing history makes some feel better.
What IS you point? Slavery ended as did the Confederacy. I am all about preserving history.
 
And the south had slavery until 1865, regardless of what they called themselves. The Federal government wanted it removed...
And the USA also had slavery until 1865, including New Jersey. But that is not taught anymore. Makes the US Federal Gov look like hypocrites. Thanks for proving my point. Erasing history makes some feel better.
What IS you point? Slavery ended as did the Confederacy. I am all about preserving history.
Point being, you Ma'am did not mention that the North had slavery at the same time. Like maybe you didn't even know this.
 
Trying to change the fact that secession was not prohibited in the US Constitution at that time is not going to work.
Lincoln was the Criminal here. He got his due.
It's open to interpretation, I wondered about this comparing the southern succession from the American rebellion, most of our founding fathers were wealthy white slave owners. George Washington was once a commissioned officer in the British Army. Thomas Jefferson was a man of the times, a wealthy elitist and he framed our constitution, even he owned slaves. America was rebelling from England over unfair taxation (those taxes were to pay back England for defending English colonies during the French-Indian Wars), but the fact England was activity working to outlaw slavery at the time. Canada was aligned with England, why do you think fleeing slaves fled NORTH? Our beloved forefathers were tax evaders and defending slavery by rebelling against England. I understand the roots of the Confederacy.
 
Last edited:
All the South wanted was Independence from the North. The US has a long history of getting involved in wars where a country wanted Independence from their neighboring country.

We all lost when Imperial subjugation won the war over States rights.

Um, I'm not sure why you hate America so much, but your ancestors wanted to keep owning other human beings. That makes them kind of contemptable.

What the Southern Confederate was fighting for was their homeland. Wealthy plantation owners used a loophole called "proxy service" to avoid having to go and fight or their sons having to do so. To the extent any plantation owners were involved in the Confederacy it was as Generals or Colonels to which they were appointed. Most of the men who died fighting for the CSA didn't own slaves or know anyone who did.

I've conceded that point. The dumb white trash fought so they cold have someone to look down on. And yes, you were all dumb enough to sign up to fight wars for rich people. It's positively Darwinian.

But the war was about slavery. What the rich people said to you dumb as dirt ancestors is besides the point.
 
Maybe some of you are ok with the President in Washington telling your State what they must do. Like allowing male sexual deviants to use the ladies bathroom.

Yeah, I'm perfectly good with that. The states are usually run by boobs like Raunder, Scott, Walker, etc.

Again.... for the millionth time... enslaving humans was legal and upheld by the US Supreme Court.

Completely irrelevant. If the Supreme Court ruled cannibalism was legal, would you show up with a bottle of A-1? Slavery was a moral wrong. Your side fought to preserve it.

Secession was legal then. Not now.

So please point out a case where it happened? Thanks.
 
The South was protecting their constitutional right to property by ruling of the US Supreme Court. Slavery did not become illegal until ratification of the 13th Amendment. You're attempting to apply it to 1861.

No, we are trying to point out that just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral. Or worth fighting for.

But you dumbasses did it anyway.

Now you are whining because the people you enslaved are saying, "Take down those ugly statues to murderers!"
 
Ask some Northern school kids which states had slaves, North or South? Be kind of funny their answer. And pitiful.

And completely irrelevant to the conversation.

It's not who had slaves. It's who tried to disband the union so a few rich people could keep owning them.

Point being, you Ma'am did not mention that the North had slavery at the same time. Like maybe you didn't even know this.

No, it's not relevant... The point was, the Northern states that still had (very small amounts) of slaves didn't consider it worth going to war over.
 
Well, yes you are, hard head!

The South was protecting their constitutional right to property by ruling of the US Supreme Court. Slavery did not become illegal until ratification of the 13th Amendment. You're attempting to apply it to 1861.


Nobody was trying to illegally stop slavery. They were worried it would be legally stopped so they illegally seceded.

And no I am not trying to apply a later thing. The Supreme court Confirmed that the secession that occured in 1861 was against the Constitution. That's all they did. No new law.

Just because you don't like that they did confirm the secession was illegal, doesn't give us the right to take a dump on the Constitution and say "well I don't like that interpretation". I mean when the Supreme Court says that Yes, this person committed treason, they aren't creating a new law. They are taking the action and comparing it to what the Constitution defines as treason and saying that the Constitution says they broke the law.

Well first of all, White v. Texas did not rule that it's unconstitutional to secede. It ruled the Constitution doesn't grant a provision for state secession. Second, and more importantly, you cannot apply a future court ruling to the present because we obviously do not know the future. In 1861, there simply was no Texas v. White... it did not exist yet. i.e.; I cannot argue that abortion is unconstitutional on the grounds it may one day be ruled unconstitutional in the future. If it is ruled unconstitutional in the future that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional today. This is a silly and nonsensical argument.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top