The Civil War (Constitutional Issues)

[paperview]

Notice to all: natstew is a plagiarist.

 

[paperview]

As to the blatant lie Williams told (that natstew ripped off) :
"Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859."

These are the facts:



<click image to upsize>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Report him to the mods, as I did TheOwl a few days' ago. Let the mods take care of it. Reporting folks for not properly citing or delibrately altering posts is a good thing. I believe Redfish agrees.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

natstew

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

What is your point?

If only life were as simple as you imagine it to be. No man, be it Lincoln, Madison or Hamilton ever held true to principles when faced with the power of decision making and realities of life

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

No, the Constitution was shredded by the War Between The States.

Really? Yet all the states agreed to abide by it. Stop living in your mythic past and face reality

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.

2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.

For shame.

I never claimed to have created the piece I posted. It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.

A quote? LIAR!!! You posted it as if it were your own words. There is NOTHING in your post to indicate you were using a quote

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Report him to the mods, as I did TheOwl a few days' ago. Let the mods take care of it. Reporting folks for not properly citing or delibrately altering posts is a good thing. I believe Redfish agrees.

screw off dopey

 

[JakeStarkey]

Still smarting from getting smacked around? Tough. Sux to be you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Still smarting from getting smacked around? Tough. Sux to be you.

stop being such a big turd

It was much better when you were just warm diarrhea in a dixie cup

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

JakeStarkey

rats eat their own. good luck to any one who gets close enough to you. Ugh!

your delusions precede you

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

can we get back on topic?

or

...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Still smarting from getting smacked around? Tough. Sux to be you.

stop being such a big turd

It was much better when you were just warm diarrhea in a dixie cup

and "rats eat their own. good luck to any one who gets close enough to you. Ugh! your delusions precede you" Yep, still in your head.

 

[JakeStarkey]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

can we get back on topic?

or

...

(1) The Union is indivisible, so, no, the states had no right to leave without permission from the other states.

(2) and (3)The wartime powers of the President competently answers both of these sets of questions.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

1. Obviously they had the power to secede. The 10th Amendment states, "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." Since the Constitution does not prohibit states from seceding they have the right. There is also the matter that the idea of being able to secede was guaranteed at the ratifying conventions.

2. It's irrelevant whether the Emancipation Proclamation has the force of law, because the 13th Amendment trumped it. Why was the 13th Amendment necessary? Because the EP didn't actually free any slaves.

3. In a just world the slaveholders would not have received any compensation, and would rather have had to pay compensation to their former slaves.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1. Obviously they had the power to secede. The 10th Amendment states, "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." Since the Constitution does not prohibit states from seceding they have the right. There is also the matter that the idea of being able to secede was guaranteed at the ratifying conventions.

2. It's irrelevant whether the Emancipation Proclamation has the force of law, because the 13th Amendment trumped it. Why was the 13th Amendment necessary? Because the EP didn't actually free any slaves.

3. In a just world the slaveholders would not have received any compensation, and would rather have had to pay compensation to their former slaves.

James Madison made nuanced distinctions on any right to secede. He basically told others who had asked that there was no right to secede except in the sense that all people had an inherent right to throw off any government that was extremely oppressive.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

can we get back on topic?

or

...

(1) The Union is indivisible, so, no, the states had no right to leave without permission from the other states.

(2) and (3)The wartime powers of the President competently answers both of these sets of questions.

Indivisible? what?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

1. Obviously they had the power to secede. The 10th Amendment states, "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." Since the Constitution does not prohibit states from seceding they have the right. There is also the matter that the idea of being able to secede was guaranteed at the ratifying conventions.

2. It's irrelevant whether the Emancipation Proclamation has the force of law, because the 13th Amendment trumped it. Why was the 13th Amendment necessary? Because the EP didn't actually free any slaves.

3. In a just world the slaveholders would not have received any compensation, and would rather have had to pay compensation to their former slaves.

James Madison made nuanced distinctions on any right to secede. He basically told others who had asked that there was no right to secede except in the sense that all people had an inherent right to throw off any government that was extremely oppressive.

James Madison, like many of the founders, said different things at different times. Regardless, his opinion doesn't refute anything I said. The plain meaning of the Constitution allows for secession, and the interpretation of the Constitution during the ratifying conventions was that states could secede. The Constitution can't mean one thing before it's ratified and another thing after.

 

[Politico]

Lincoln did offer to buy slaves from the south, even sold bonds to gather resources, but the south had another plan...

People seem to forget that fact.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1. Obviously they had the power to secede. The 10th Amendment states, "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." Since the Constitution does not prohibit states from seceding they have the right. There is also the matter that the idea of being able to secede was guaranteed at the ratifying conventions.

2. It's irrelevant whether the Emancipation Proclamation has the force of law, because the 13th Amendment trumped it. Why was the 13th Amendment necessary? Because the EP didn't actually free any slaves.

3. In a just world the slaveholders would not have received any compensation, and would rather have had to pay compensation to their former slaves.

James Madison made nuanced distinctions on any right to secede. He basically told others who had asked that there was no right to secede except in the sense that all people had an inherent right to throw off any government that was extremely oppressive.

James Madison, like many of the founders, said different things at different times. Regardless, his opinion doesn't refute anything I said. (1)The plain meaning of the Constitution allows for secession, (2) and the interpretation of the Constitution during the ratifying conventions was that states could secede. The (3) Constitution can't mean one thing before it's ratified and another thing after.

(3) Of course it can. This happens with laws every day.

(1) How so? (2) really? I've read more than a few things on this subject and have not come to the same conclusions as you have -- and most of the material left by the framers appears to contradict you.

 

[natstew]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

1) What you just stated regarding tariffs is not true. Patently false.

2) Every word you just posted in your post was ripped off from the goofbucket Walter Williams. You have just been discovered to be a plagiarist.

For shame.

I never claimed to have created the piece I posted. It was a quote, not an opinion, and Walter Williams is not a goofbucket, that would be Juan Williams, and you.

Total bullshit.

You never cited him, nor even placed quotes around your post.

You used Walter Williams words as your own. Anyone can see it here: Walter Williams Was the Civil War about tariff revenue WashingtonExaminer.com

This entire quote of yours:
==============================
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?
==============================

...was ripped off whole from that piece.

And yes, Water Williams (the man you stole from) is not only a goofbucket, he is entirely WRONG.

Admit your dishonesty and move on.

Fuck you! Instead of debating the substance you attack the poster, typical Left wing commie motherfucker!