Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.

They like white Christian Republican Americans, and everybody else...they range from tolerating them, to hating them

They want 50 countries out of the 50 states. They want the Balkanization of America.

And the reason they want it is because they believe that little conservative nations can better impose a tyranny of the majority on its citizens than can one big nation.

 

[bripat9643]

This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.

That's what happens when your country turns into a big fascist empire of subjects and job holders.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Total *$*#^ from the man who is famously quoted as saying "people never talk about the "good aspects" of slavery."

No, it happens to be fact. Go read those states' ordinances/declarations of causes. It's in black and white.

And this gross distortion about my comments regarding the aspects of slavery has been answered before. People can read the original statement in Slavery and Southern Independence.

Sure free States Could join the the Union -- as SLAVE STATES. Slavery was a guarantee in the CSA.

Wrong again. Free states could join the Confederacy as free states. The "guarantee" of slavery that you keep mischaracterizing was that slaveholders could temporarily travel in free Confederate states with their slaves and that the national government could not abolish slavery in any state without the state's consent.

The Confederates Constitution ensured slavery in perpetuity.

Wrong yet again. The CSA Constitution allowed for Confederate states to abolish slavery if they so desired. When the Confederate debate on emancipation became widespread in 1864, both sides acknowledged this fact.

As for your fiction about the right of secession, try this short article for starters:

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary

Pure nonsense. You people are off in a fantasy world of your own invention.

 

[Correll]

Here's some more light reading for you, neo confed give a finger toddler:

"Let’s now consider New York: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.” When they are speaking of the people within states they use the phrase “of the several states.” Since that phrase is absent when they discuss the powers of government being reassumed by “the People,” they are clearly referring to the people of the United States en masse.

Is there any support for this? Yes!

During the New York ratification convention, there was a move to propose amendments, and to reserve a right to withdraw from the Union if these amendments were not accepted. Alexander Hamilton wrote to James Madison about this, and Madison replied

, “My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.

It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.


“This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started in Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.” [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788]

Notice how Madison says the idea of reserving a right to withdraw was considered and rejected in the Virginia Ratification Convention. The proposal to reserve a right to withdraw was defeated in the New York convention as well."

More: Did the States Reserve a Right to Secede Student of the American Civil War

Yes, you've done a fine job of showing that there were people, at the time that thought the Union was "in toto and for ever".

It is to bad that those people were not confident enough in their support to actually place such language in the Constitution.

A legal opinion of what a law means is a has no weight unless it is in a judicial review, and then it lasts until some future court decides to over turn it.

Do you believe this?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.

That's what happens when your country turns into a big fascist empire of subjects and job holders.

See? He doesn't disagree.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's some more light reading for you, neo confed give a finger toddler:

"Let’s now consider New York: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.” When they are speaking of the people within states they use the phrase “of the several states.” Since that phrase is absent when they discuss the powers of government being reassumed by “the People,” they are clearly referring to the people of the United States en masse.

Is there any support for this? Yes!

During the New York ratification convention, there was a move to propose amendments, and to reserve a right to withdraw from the Union if these amendments were not accepted. Alexander Hamilton wrote to James Madison about this, and Madison replied

, “My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.

It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.


“This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started in Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.” [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788]

Notice how Madison says the idea of reserving a right to withdraw was considered and rejected in the Virginia Ratification Convention. The proposal to reserve a right to withdraw was defeated in the New York convention as well."

More: Did the States Reserve a Right to Secede Student of the American Civil War

Yes, you've done a fine job of showing that there were people, at the time that thought the Union was "in toto and for ever".

It is to bad that those people were not confident enough in their support to actually place such language in the Constitution.

A legal opinion of what a law means is a has no weight unless it is in a judicial review, and then it lasts until some future court decides to over turn it.

Do you believe this?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

All that statement in italics does is bless treason.

 

[Syriusly]

Total *$*#^ from the man who is famously quoted as saying "people never talk about the "good aspects" of slavery."

No, it happens to be fact. Go read those states' ordinances/declarations of causes. It's in black and white.

And this gross distortion about my comments regarding the aspects of slavery has been answered before. People can read the original statement in Slavery and Southern Independence.

Sure free States Could join the the Union -- as SLAVE STATES. Slavery was a guarantee in the CSA.

Wrong again. Free states could join the Confederacy as free states. The "guarantee" of slavery that you keep mischaracterizing was that slaveholders could temporarily travel in free Confederate states with their slaves and that the national government could not abolish slavery in any state without the state's consent.

Well lets look at the actual language(see below).

What we see is no mention that new states could be free states. What does Section 3.3 say though?

to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by

The language is pretty clear.

Section 3 - New States

1. Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two- thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States; 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.

2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning the property of the Confederate States, including the lands thereof.

3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

4. The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature or of the Executive when the Legislature is not in session) against domestic violence.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's some more light reading for you, neo confed give a finger toddler:

"Let’s now consider New York: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.” When they are speaking of the people within states they use the phrase “of the several states.” Since that phrase is absent when they discuss the powers of government being reassumed by “the People,” they are clearly referring to the people of the United States en masse.

Is there any support for this? Yes!

During the New York ratification convention, there was a move to propose amendments, and to reserve a right to withdraw from the Union if these amendments were not accepted. Alexander Hamilton wrote to James Madison about this, and Madison replied

, “My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.

It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.


“This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started in Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.” [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788]

Notice how Madison says the idea of reserving a right to withdraw was considered and rejected in the Virginia Ratification Convention. The proposal to reserve a right to withdraw was defeated in the New York convention as well."

More: Did the States Reserve a Right to Secede Student of the American Civil War

How could have been defeated when it's in the official document? You even quoted it.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's some more light reading for you, neo confed give a finger toddler:

"Let’s now consider New York: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.” When they are speaking of the people within states they use the phrase “of the several states.” Since that phrase is absent when they discuss the powers of government being reassumed by “the People,” they are clearly referring to the people of the United States en masse.

Is there any support for this? Yes!

During the New York ratification convention, there was a move to propose amendments, and to reserve a right to withdraw from the Union if these amendments were not accepted. Alexander Hamilton wrote to James Madison about this, and Madison replied

, “My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.

It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.


“This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started in Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.” [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788]

Notice how Madison says the idea of reserving a right to withdraw was considered and rejected in the Virginia Ratification Convention. The proposal to reserve a right to withdraw was defeated in the New York convention as well."

More: Did the States Reserve a Right to Secede Student of the American Civil War

Yes, you've done a fine job of showing that there were people, at the time that thought the Union was "in toto and for ever".

It is to bad that those people were not confident enough in their support to actually place such language in the Constitution.

A legal opinion of what a law means is a has no weight unless it is in a judicial review, and then it lasts until some future court decides to over turn it.

Do you believe this?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

All that statement in italics does is bless treason.

It's from the Declaration of Independence, moron.

 

[paperview]

....

Wrong yet again. The CSA Constitution allowed for Confederate states to abolish slavery if they so desired. ...

You are always, always, always so full of shit.

Confed Constitution:

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

This prohibited the CSA from interfering in slavery in any way.

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

This prohibited CSA States from interfering in slavery in any way.

States Rights, eh? Nah, mang. dunt count here.


How 'bout this one?

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide,to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy.

In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.


In perpetuity, dude. That was the goal, the plan, the reaches of these slaving scumbuckets you defend.

 

[kaz]

[Your claim was, in black and white, as clear as crystal:

KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."

Yes, and you just again proved me right

As for Bripat:

In response to the argument "why would anybody defend the immoral Confederate causes"

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government?...

To which I and many others pointed out that the 'right to self government' was based around the 'right' to continue slavery, to which he never made an argument against slavery, just that the 'states had the right' to choose for themselves.

Your argument is exactly what I said, if he supports secession, that means he supports the reason they want to secede. No, it doesn't mean that. Amazing, you keep hounding me to prove your statement which you keep proving yourself

Incorrect. You claim was that I said that you and others who support the right to secede automatically supports slavery. It's up there^ in black and white. That's what "WE" means. There's no "WE" in any of your 'proof'.

You are wrong and your tap dance routine around the main point of the discourse is obvious for everyone to see.

So you are really huffy that I said you are equating them in general and you say you were only doing it to bripat? Seriously? That really has your undies in a wad? Fascinating

 

[bripat9643]

This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.

That's what happens when your country turns into a big fascist empire of subjects and job holders.

See? He doesn't disagree.

No I don't. this country used to be something admirable, but now it isn't.

 

[-S-]

[Your claim was, in black and white, as clear as crystal:

KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."

Yes, and you just again proved me right

As for Bripat:

In response to the argument "why would anybody defend the immoral Confederate causes"

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government?...

To which I and many others pointed out that the 'right to self government' was based around the 'right' to continue slavery, to which he never made an argument against slavery, just that the 'states had the right' to choose for themselves.

Your argument is exactly what I said, if he supports secession, that means he supports the reason they want to secede. No, it doesn't mean that. Amazing, you keep hounding me to prove your statement which you keep proving yourself

Incorrect. You claim was that I said that you and others who support the right to secede automatically supports slavery. It's up there^ in black and white. That's what "WE" means. There's no "WE" in any of your 'proof'.

You are wrong and your tap dance routine around the main point of the discourse is obvious for everyone to see.

So you are really huffy that I said you are equating them in general and you say you were only doing it to bripat? Seriously? That really has your undies in a wad? Fascinating

Well of course That's what our discussion was about. You made a claim you couldn't substantiate, and continuously dodged that fact. Thanks for (finally) being upfront.
Nobody likes it when an unintelligent hack spreads a false claim about you.

 

[-S-]

This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.

That's what happens when your country turns into a big fascist empire of subjects and job holders.

See? He doesn't disagree.

No I don't. this country used to be something admirable, but now it isn't.

When looking through your posts, it appears you've hated America since, at least, the Lincoln administration

 

[paperview]

Here's some more light reading for you, neo confed give a finger toddler:

"Let’s now consider New York: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.” When they are speaking of the people within states they use the phrase “of the several states.” Since that phrase is absent when they discuss the powers of government being reassumed by “the People,” they are clearly referring to the people of the United States en masse.

Is there any support for this? Yes!

During the New York ratification convention, there was a move to propose amendments, and to reserve a right to withdraw from the Union if these amendments were not accepted. Alexander Hamilton wrote to James Madison about this, and Madison replied

, “My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.

It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.


“This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started in Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.” [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788]

Notice how Madison says the idea of reserving a right to withdraw was considered and rejected in the Virginia Ratification Convention. The proposal to reserve a right to withdraw was defeated in the New York convention as well."

More: Did the States Reserve a Right to Secede Student of the American Civil War

How could have been defeated when it's in the official document? You even quoted it.

We've known for a long time now you have trouble with reading and comprehension.

Oh well, too bad, so sad.

Oh yeah, this too: Civil War. Southerners LOST.

"CSA: Died of a theory" - written on the tombstone - Jefferson Davis

 

[toxicmedia]

This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.

They like white Christian Republican Americans, and everybody else...they range from tolerating them, to hating them

They want 50 countries out of the 50 states. They want the Balkanization of America.

And the reason they want it is because they believe that little conservative nations can better impose a tyranny of the majority on its citizens than can one big nation.

I'm not sure any of them have noticed the dysfuntion the Confedreacy experienced in it's few years of trying to legislate. If the dumb asses wouldn't have started a war, within a governmental frame work that opposed centralization, it might have gone on longer. Not a lot of forward thinking from Confederates, just like the lack of forthought practiced by southern evangelicals today

 

[paperview]

This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.

That's what happens when your country turns into a big fascist empire of subjects and job holders.

See? He doesn't disagree.

No I don't. this country used to be something admirable, but now it isn't.

When looking through your posts, it appears you've hated America since, at least, the Lincoln administration

You'd think, in all those years, the logic centers would work beyond a 9th grade level.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's some more light reading for you, neo confed give a finger toddler:

"Let’s now consider New York: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.” When they are speaking of the people within states they use the phrase “of the several states.” Since that phrase is absent when they discuss the powers of government being reassumed by “the People,” they are clearly referring to the people of the United States en masse.

Is there any support for this? Yes!

During the New York ratification convention, there was a move to propose amendments, and to reserve a right to withdraw from the Union if these amendments were not accepted. Alexander Hamilton wrote to James Madison about this, and Madison replied

, “My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.

It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate [sic] the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.


“This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started in Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.” [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788]

Notice how Madison says the idea of reserving a right to withdraw was considered and rejected in the Virginia Ratification Convention. The proposal to reserve a right to withdraw was defeated in the New York convention as well."

More: Did the States Reserve a Right to Secede Student of the American Civil War

How could have been defeated when it's in the official document? You even quoted it.

We've known for a long time now you have trouble with reading and comprehension.

Oh well, too bad, so sad.

Oh yeah, this too: Civil War. Southerners LOST.

"CSA: Died of a theory" - written on the tombstone - Jefferson Davis

So, are you saying that New York isn't really part of the United States? If they are, they stated the terms of their membership. If the United States accepts New York as a member state, then it accepted the terms of its ratification document.

 

[toxicmedia]

Lincoln's soldiers, with his express permission, raped thousands of Southern women, especially black female slaves.

Oh I am curious now- where and when did Lincoln give that express permission?

Link please.

Oh puhleeze. You have to be retarded to believe that Sherman didn't deliberate turn a blind eye to it, and that Lincoln knew about it.

Oh, Sherman was an animal. He was a big believer in making war so ugly and nasty for one's opponents that surrender would be appealing.

Admittedly, he had a point, as far as that went.

The more southerners that were raped, killed, robbed, and otherwise demoralized, out of supporting the continued unlawfull seizure of US territiory by slave owners...the better. The fact that Republican bible thumpers from the south are still around means Sherman left too many of them alive

You're a goose-stepping moron who condones the mass murder of American citizens.

Oh my God, shut it! Secessionists deserved to die, because they were stupid.

Confederates were the George Zimmermans of their day. They got temselves in trouble they couldn't handle do to a lack of brains, and horrible things happened as a result.

If Sherman would have just killed everybody in the south or lives would be much better today

 

[kaz]

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

I think the Confederacy would have had to concede the issue of slavery by 1900. They would have grudgingly provided blacks with some legal status but not full rights and not the vote
It would be like Jim Crow on steroids

Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party. Either that or you'll lynch them. But they can't say they don't have a choice!

How on earth are blacks slaves of the Democratic Party?

Are you just rambling whatever nonsense pops into your head?

Um...I answered that question in the post you quoted, big guy...

Um...No you didn't.

You made the claim in the post he quoted. He wanted you to substantiate that claim.

You're really bad at this 'debate' stuff..

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with