Long after death, Confederate spy honored in Ark.

[OKTexas]

Considering none of my comments have had anything to do with the DOI, I should ignore you, however the short answer is YES. The DOI basically says that when the government is governing in a way that free men can no longer tollerate, they have a right to sever their ties to that government.

That was a different time and trying to judge them by todays standards is crazy. They did nothing illegal, except try to extracate themselves from a government that by their standards had exceeded its Constitutional authority. Remeber the 10th amendment, it plainly states that there are no implied authorities in the Constitution, the federal government only had the specifically enumerated authorities.

When the federal government started expanding its reach and they had enough, they cancelled the contract that they had entered into. As free soverign states, they had that right, show me in the Constitution where it prohibits a state from succeeding.

Now, answer my question.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution made secession illegal, and the restoration of the Union justifiable.

Your full of crap, let's see if you can come up with a rational justification for that assertion. I'll bet you can't.

What did you say about pins dropping? Come on hero, you said it, back it up.

 

[occupied]

Does that make the black slave masters racist for owning slaves? Or is that just for white slave owners? What about Indian slave owners? Hmmmmm

You do not want to go there, I might be forced to school you on the manifest destiny doctrine.

 

[Dissent]

Well answer my question...does it make them racist as well or not? I was actually asking shitforbrains cowman but hey whatever...

 

[occupied]

Well answer my question...does it make them racist as well or not? I was actually asking shitforbrains cowman but hey whatever...

Oh well since he is no longer on the thread the answer is always yes, slavery as an enduring institution is always built on a sense that the slavemaster has a god given right to own other humans because their race, caste, class, tribe, wealth or some other cultural construct makes them superior.

 

[Dissent]

I see it the same way but I don't think he did...he was merely here to troll and get on my nerves...

 

[occupied]

I see it the same way but I don't think he did...he was merely here to troll and get on my nerves...

Are you kind of sensitive that your position requires you to defend slavery as a states right of the period? You ought to be. There is no way to argue for the righteousness of the southern cause as long as slavery and the less known but still horrific plans they had for Mexico and South America are in the equation.

 

[Dissent]

I think slavery would have worked its self out...it had in every other country or it was on its way to doing so...I still don't think that's why the south wanted independence fact I know it isn't. According to Lincoln he had no intention of messing with slavery in the south....I don't trust his word he knew what he wanted and he made sure the south fired first and got into a war with the north...it was the one way Lincoln could make the republic into a huge central government led nation.

 

[occupied]

I think slavery would have worked its self out...it had in every other country or it was on its way to doing so...I still don't think that's why the south wanted independence fact I know it isn't. According to Lincoln he had no intention of messing with slavery in the south....I don't trust his word he knew what he wanted and he made sure the south fired first and got into a war with the north...it was the one way Lincoln could make the republic into a huge central government led nation.

The southern aristocracy had a plan, for long they had been worried by two trends, depleted soil and the sharp population increase of poor whites and slaves. They looked west and further south and saw an opportunity, the European powers were in decline at the time and it seemed god himself had provided them with almost unlimited room to expand their culture. They wanted to become an expansionist power by arms if necessary and take the slave culture as far as it could go exporting slaves to the southern colonies of America but one thing stood in their way, the northern attempts to confine slavery to the old south and no further. Who knows how far or how long it would have lasted with the imperial ambitions of the southern aristocracy?

 

[Dissent]

The aristocracy may have wanted 1 thing but less than 5% of southerners had slaves so I see it as they may have wanted one thing but the men who fought the war wanted an independent nation free from tyranny and oppressive taxes and tariffs.

 

[Dissent]

The north tried taking a moral stand yet they allowed slavery to exist in border states and DC until near the end of the war...they had no leg to stand on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Considering none of my comments have had anything to do with the DOI, I should ignore you, however the short answer is YES. The DOI basically says that when the government is governing in a way that free men can no longer tollerate, they have a right to sever their ties to that government.

That was a different time and trying to judge them by todays standards is crazy. They did nothing illegal, except try to extracate themselves from a government that by their standards had exceeded its Constitutional authority. Remeber the 10th amendment, it plainly states that there are no implied authorities in the Constitution, the federal government only had the specifically enumerated authorities.

When the federal government started expanding its reach and they had enough, they cancelled the contract that they had entered into. As free soverign states, they had that right, show me in the Constitution where it prohibits a state from succeeding.

Now, answer my question.

The answer to your question is, I don't know, I have never read the agreements specific to the European Union's union.

Your nothing but a freaking coward, the EU is a federation similar to the US.

So I'm supposed to just take a guess at what is in the EU agreement between the nations?

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. No, you can't because it was treason and any arugment you try to justify has already been blown out of the water.

2. No, and states' right by 1860 were the rights of one human to own another.

Ayn Rand would have fought for the North.

Trollin' for a civil war slavery debate? That argument was won over 140 years ago.

Trolling no...just a debate you will lose. Your only arguments could be

1. It was treason because secession was unconstitutional which I could easily blow out of the water
2.It was to defend slavery again can be blown out of the water

You have no argument here...it wasn't won because my homeland is still occupied just as Northern Ireland is an occupied land and so is Palestine.

 

[OKTexas]

The answer to your question is, I don't know, I have never read the agreements specific to the European Union's union.

Your nothing but a freaking coward, the EU is a federation similar to the US.

So I'm supposed to just take a guess at what is in the EU agreement between the nations?

Ok I'll let you wimp out on this, how about you explain how the supremacy clause prohibits succession. I would really be interested in that, just to help you out you can find that clause in Article 6, Clause 2. Please don't wimp out on this one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your nothing but a freaking coward, the EU is a federation similar to the US.

So I'm supposed to just take a guess at what is in the EU agreement between the nations?

Ok I'll let you wimp out on this, how about you explain how the supremacy clause prohibits succession. I would really be interested in that, just to help you out you can find that clause in Article 6, Clause 2. Please don't wimp out on this one.

It took 3/4's to form the Union and it should take 3/4's to dissolve it. The Supreme Court ruled that a State may NOT leave the Union and that the only acceptable avenue is through act of Congress.

Every State that left the Union left because of Slavery. They codified that in their Succession proclamations. Claiming other wise is simple a lie.

 

[Dissent]

There was only 13 original states so 3/4 of that would be 4? So yeah the confederacy had enough states...claiming they left because of slavery is a lie. Lincoln himself was asked why not let the south go...he said then who would pay all the bills....they were taxing the south to death....then he provoked a war by sending in troops and arms to ft sumter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dissent, if you know the truth, then you are a liar. If you don't the truth, then you are a fool. Everything the South fought for was grounded in race and slavery.

There was only 13 original states so 3/4 of that would be 4? So yeah the confederacy had enough states...claiming they left because of slavery is a lie. Lincoln himself was asked why not let the south go...he said then who would pay all the bills....they were taxing the south to death....then he provoked a war by sending in troops and arms to ft sumter.

 

[thanatos144]

Long after death, Confederate spy honored in Ark. - Yahoo! News

As he should be. Great men who fought for the right to determine our own fate,interesting how 150 years later we still have morons in the msm who still think the war was fought over slavery...wonder why they don't make such a huge fuss over white slaves from Britain? I don't agree with slavery and indeed my family as far as I know never owned a slave just like a good majority of Confederate soldiers did not they fought for their homeland and their freedom...today more than ever I do wish we had succeeded.

How not surprising you worship slavers.

 

[Cowman]

Does that make the black slave masters racist for owning slaves? Or is that just for white slave owners? What about Indian slave owners? Hmmmmm

It makes them fucking slave masters, which is worse than being a racist.

 

[thanatos144]

The confederate states started the war.....They should not have consistently attacked a union bases.

 

[Dissent]

Long after death, Confederate spy honored in Ark. - Yahoo! News

As he should be. Great men who fought for the right to determine our own fate,interesting how 150 years later we still have morons in the msm who still think the war was fought over slavery...wonder why they don't make such a huge fuss over white slaves from Britain? I don't agree with slavery and indeed my family as far as I know never owned a slave just like a good majority of Confederate soldiers did not they fought for their homeland and their freedom...today more than ever I do wish we had succeeded.

How not surprising you worship slavers.

See here ya start to show your ignorance

Does that make the black slave masters racist for owning slaves? Or is that just for white slave owners? What about Indian slave owners? Hmmmmm

It makes them fucking slave masters, which is worse than being a racist.

Lol...I bet you can't even give me the definition of racist..

The confederate states started the war.....They should not have consistently attacked a union bases.

And here ya unveil your stupidity on the subject 100%...go back north carpet bagger.