Who was the worst traitor in U.S. history?

[martybegan]

I would argue that this would be the point. The founders, and this is actually an issue they were almost unanimous on at the time, did not believe in majority rule.

They did believe in limited franchise, but within that franchise the state legislatures went with majority rule, as did the house of representatives they set up.

The electoral college votes by majority rule, as does the supreme court, and the sentate (in most cases).

The overall mechanics of a republic is rule by a majority, tempered by a consitution which guarantees certain limits on the pure majorites ability for action.

Well let's go back to the colonies and the King, you said they won the war so the point is moot. But it's not. Either they had the right to secede, or they didn't. Whether the war was won or lost is irrelevant. So did they have the right or didn't they? I mean, Britain was just going by majority rule, right? Why shouldn't the colonies have had to pay for the war that was fought essentially on their behalf?

The sucess of the american revolution made it right. If the confederates had succeeded then Davis would still be an American Traitor, by a confederate hero.

By all means people have the right to TRY to seccede, but they need to suceed to make it "right", by the new countries standard in any event.

Unless explicitly stated in a consitution, secesssion is not allowable unless agreed to by all parties, or by force of arms.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Can you elaborate please, or is your response based on the self important view that "I disagree with this person, therefore they MUST be stupid?"

Kevin has already elaborated.

Why do you think we were named "The United States Of America?" Was it because George Washington established an empire where once colonies had stood? Trading the central authority of the British Crown for the central authority of Washington? Or was it that 13 autonomous states, each with an independent government, elected from the people therein, formed a voluntary union for common defense and to arbitrate disputes of trade?

Because, IF this were a union, than any member can leave at any time. If it is an empire, then the sovereign will bring force of arms and call the attempt of people to govern themselves "treason" and "sedition."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They did believe in limited franchise, but within that franchise the state legislatures went with majority rule, as did the house of representatives they set up.

The electoral college votes by majority rule, as does the supreme court, and the sentate (in most cases).

The overall mechanics of a republic is rule by a majority, tempered by a consitution which guarantees certain limits on the pure majorites ability for action.

Well let's go back to the colonies and the King, you said they won the war so the point is moot. But it's not. Either they had the right to secede, or they didn't. Whether the war was won or lost is irrelevant. So did they have the right or didn't they? I mean, Britain was just going by majority rule, right? Why shouldn't the colonies have had to pay for the war that was fought essentially on their behalf?

The sucess of the american revolution made it right. If the confederates had succeeded then Davis would still be an American Traitor, by a confederate hero.

By all means people have the right to TRY to seccede, but they need to suceed to make it "right", by the new countries standard in any event.

Unless explicitly stated in a consitution, secesssion is not allowable unless agreed to by all parties, or by force of arms.

That's the idea that "might makes right," but I think we can look at plenty of historical examples where the winning side wasn't "right."

Also, the tenth amendment disagrees with your last assertion.

"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."

Secession is not prohibited by the United States Constitution to the States.

 

[regent]

Elites are usually afraid of the lower classes. For the founders to give power to the masses was dangerous indeed. The logical assumption was the common folk would vote themselves all kinds of largess if allowed to vote. Democracy was a dirty word sort of like communism was in the Fifties. The amazing thing to me, however, is that with our increasing democracy the common folk have not voted themselves the treasury but in fact seem to vote often against their own best economic interests. How that happens is somewhat of a mystery.
For traitor the first name that came to me was MacArthur, but he did some good things too, and perhaps his reign as king of Japan was probably his greatest deed, a perfect fit.

 

[Sallow]

Can you elaborate please, or is your response based on the self important view that "I disagree with this person, therefore they MUST be stupid?"

Kevin has already elaborated.

Why do you think we were named "The United States Of America?" Was it because George Washington established an empire where once colonies had stood? Trading the central authority of the British Crown for the central authority of Washington? Or was it that 13 autonomous states, each with an independent government, elected from the people therein, formed a voluntary union for common defense and to arbitrate disputes of trade?

Because, IF this were a union, than any member can leave at any time. If it is an empire, then the sovereign will bring force of arms and call the attempt of people to govern themselves "treason" and "sedition."

Its basically a fairly simple concept. And the constitution makes absolutely no provision for secession. Marty is completely correct in all of his points.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Jonothan Pollard

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Can you elaborate please, or is your response based on the self important view that "I disagree with this person, therefore they MUST be stupid?"

Kevin has already elaborated.

Why do you think we were named "The United States Of America?" Was it because George Washington established an empire where once colonies had stood? Trading the central authority of the British Crown for the central authority of Washington? Or was it that 13 autonomous states, each with an independent government, elected from the people therein, formed a voluntary union for common defense and to arbitrate disputes of trade?

Because, IF this were a union, than any member can leave at any time. If it is an empire, then the sovereign will bring force of arms and call the attempt of people to govern themselves "treason" and "sedition."

Its basically a fairly simple concept. And the constitution makes absolutely no provision for secession. Marty is completely correct in all of his points.

Why doesn't the 10th Amendment apply to secession?

 

[Oddball]

Who was the worst traitor in U.S. history?

Woodrow Wilson.

 

[Oddball]

He became president of the resulting organization of states that were in rebellion and seeked replace the existing federal compact. That to me is pretty much as treasonous as you can get, against the federal government at least.

He didn't seek to replace the existing federal compact, he, against his own instincts, merely wanted to opt out of it.

What do you call the confederate constitution? He was still the president of said insurrection, which was put down. No matter what other traitors have done, he's the only one who was presdient of a competing federal style government that occupied the same areas the existing federal level government claimed as thier own.

Leaving is not insurrection or usurpation.

Up to that point, the feds had no claims upon the states...That's why they are states....They had no more claim upon the southern states than they did Canada.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He didn't seek to replace the existing federal compact, he, against his own instincts, merely wanted to opt out of it.

What do you call the confederate constitution? He was still the president of said insurrection, which was put down. No matter what other traitors have done, he's the only one who was presdient of a competing federal style government that occupied the same areas the existing federal level government claimed as thier own.

Leaving is not insurrection or usurpation.

Up to that point, the feds had no claims upon the states...That's why they are states....They had no more claim upon the southern states than they did Canada.

Apparently the only reason the U.S. government has no claim on Canada is because the U.S. government failed to conquer them.

 

[Grandma]

The Koch brothers.

 

[martybegan]

Can you elaborate please, or is your response based on the self important view that "I disagree with this person, therefore they MUST be stupid?"

Kevin has already elaborated.

Why do you think we were named "The United States Of America?" Was it because George Washington established an empire where once colonies had stood? Trading the central authority of the British Crown for the central authority of Washington? Or was it that 13 autonomous states, each with an independent government, elected from the people therein, formed a voluntary union for common defense and to arbitrate disputes of trade?

Because, IF this were a union, than any member can leave at any time. If it is an empire, then the sovereign will bring force of arms and call the attempt of people to govern themselves "treason" and "sedition."

So basically once a side loses an election, according to you, they can just leave and set up thier own government? Are you an anarchist? The only way for the union to be dissolved would have been with the consent of both sides of the argument. In any other case you would have anarchy after every election because the losers would threaten seccession unless they reicieved givebacks. The federal system would be ungovernable.

Once states signed the consitution, they were in until let out. The Civil war proved that, despite people's libertarian fantasies and neo-confederate masturbation dreams.

 

[martybegan]

Well let's go back to the colonies and the King, you said they won the war so the point is moot. But it's not. Either they had the right to secede, or they didn't. Whether the war was won or lost is irrelevant. So did they have the right or didn't they? I mean, Britain was just going by majority rule, right? Why shouldn't the colonies have had to pay for the war that was fought essentially on their behalf?

The sucess of the american revolution made it right. If the confederates had succeeded then Davis would still be an American Traitor, by a confederate hero.

By all means people have the right to TRY to seccede, but they need to suceed to make it "right", by the new countries standard in any event.

Unless explicitly stated in a consitution, secesssion is not allowable unless agreed to by all parties, or by force of arms.

That's the idea that "might makes right," but I think we can look at plenty of historical examples where the winning side wasn't "right."

Also, the tenth amendment disagrees with your last assertion.

"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."

Secession is not prohibited by the United States Constitution to the States.

If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?

A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them.

The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The sucess of the american revolution made it right. If the confederates had succeeded then Davis would still be an American Traitor, by a confederate hero.

By all means people have the right to TRY to seccede, but they need to suceed to make it "right", by the new countries standard in any event.

Unless explicitly stated in a consitution, secesssion is not allowable unless agreed to by all parties, or by force of arms.

That's the idea that "might makes right," but I think we can look at plenty of historical examples where the winning side wasn't "right."

Also, the tenth amendment disagrees with your last assertion.

"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."

Secession is not prohibited by the United States Constitution to the States.

If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?

A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them.

The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.

You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.

And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.

And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?

 

[thanatos144]

Barrack Obama.......

 

[thanatos144]

Enough with the hero worship of slave owning traitors!

 

[martybegan]

That's the idea that "might makes right," but I think we can look at plenty of historical examples where the winning side wasn't "right."

Also, the tenth amendment disagrees with your last assertion.

"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."

Secession is not prohibited by the United States Constitution to the States.

If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?

A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them.

The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.

You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.

And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.

And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?

If Virginia and Rhode Island truly wanted the right to seceede they would have put it in the document, and not left it up to the vagarities of the 10th amendment.

And secession is not a check, it is a knife held at the throat of the very concept of federalism. A system were secession without consent of the whole is allowed is unworkable, again as I said, denegrating into a bunch of micro-nations.

 

[martybegan]

Enough with the hero worship of slave owning traitors!

But it wasnt about slavery...

/sarcasm.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?

A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them.

The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.

You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.

And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.

And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?

If Virginia and Rhode Island truly wanted the right to seceede they would have put it in the document, and not left it up to the vagarities of the 10th amendment.

And secession is not a check, it is a knife held at the throat of the very concept of federalism. A system were secession without consent of the whole is allowed is unworkable, again as I said, denegrating into a bunch of micro-nations.

So then where is the idea that any state who wants to secede has to be permitted to do so from the other states? You claim the 10th Amendment is vague, though it seems pretty straight forward to me, but your claim is nonexistent.

Of course secession is a check, and that's how it worked up until South Carolina finally used it. The system, of course, was designed to favor the states over the federal government, because this was a people who wanted to jealously guard their liberty from a powerful centralized government the likes of which they had just broken away from. You say that this idea is a "knife at the throat of federalism," but you're using the wrong term. This idea was the bedrock of federalism, it was merely a knife at the throat of the federal government. Which is exactly what was intended.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Its basically a fairly simple concept. And the constitution makes absolutely no provision for secession. Marty is completely correct in all of his points.

Do you have any idea what happened on March 4, 1789?

Let's start with a definition: Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal. The term applies to private contract law, international treaties, and constitutionals in federations such as the United States and Canada.

So on March 4, 1789, the United States Constitution was ratified, the 13 member states joined a trade and mutual defense federation. Notice that the conquering body did not simply impose itself by force, but instead the sovereign states adopted a treaty of mutual defense and trade. The treaty of membership so ratified is by fact a voluntary treaty, no coercion was applied to force the member states into the federation. A voluntary treaty engaged can be revoked. You and Marty, as is the way of the left, have a preference for an Empire, rather than a federal system. Lincoln returned to the model of Britain, where a central authority rules owned territories. Thus ended the grand experiment in freedom that was established by Madison and Jefferson. The 13 states were mere vassals of the central authority.