US Constitution

[Larkinn]

It's not as simple as not wanting or not wanting to "play". You've said this several times and it is an uneducated argument involving no historical background.

Actually no I haven't. Its a simplistic argument rebutting your point that the South had some moral problem with the Union. It didn't. It was represented fine. It just didn't want to be involved for its own reasons. Call them slavery, a feeling of states rights, whatever.

But that in a democracy the minority doesn't always win doesn't make it tyranny. That is an absurd argument.

 

[BrianH]

Your intent was clear, you are attempting to claim the "north" and Lincoln were to blame for and allowed Brown to act. A simple straight forward lie. Claiming the Republican party was responsible for Brown is a hoot indeed, intended to do one thing, taint Lincoln and the entire north. Do tell us some more whoppers about how the North "invaded" the South because private citizens did something and were put down BY THE FEDERAL Government.

First of all, how the hell do you know what such "intent" was. That makes about as much sense as your retarded ass way of interpreting the Constitution.
First thing, smartness, Lincoln wasn't president during Harper's Ferry and John Brown attempted slave revolution....but I'm sure you knew that since your such a smart guy.
Second, John Brown was an outspoken Republican and claimed to have support from the northern Republicans.

So the only "whopper" here isn't a "whopper" at all, only that "Milk Dud" brain of yours.

 

[Shogun]

there Will Be No Ill Words Spoken Against Tasty Chocolaty Confections, Young Man.

 

[BrianH]

Actually no I haven't. Its a simplistic argument rebutting your point that the South had some moral problem with the Union. It didn't. It was represented fine. It just didn't want to be involved for its own reasons. Call them slavery, a feeling of states rights, whatever.

But that in a democracy the minority doesn't always win doesn't make it tyranny. That is an absurd argument.

Yeah, I'd like to see you hold up that argument in front of a bunch of historical intellectuals. "Yeah, the South seceded cause they didn't want to play anymore." That'll boost your image. You're correct, it's a very simplistic argument indeed. Which is fine if you're talking about different ways that dogs can take a dump, but not about why the south seceded from the Union. The South was getting the short end of the stick, economically, and politically. It hit their last nerve when Lincoln became president and had no regard for state's rights. Read Amendment 10 and try to find somewhere in the Constitution that prohibits secession, and you can say that you've won your simplistic argument.

 

[BrianH]

there Will Be No Ill Words Spoken Against Tasty Chocolaty Confections, Young Man.

Nice.

 

[Shogun]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Larkinn]

Yeah, I'd like to see you hold up that argument in front of a bunch of historical intellectuals. "Yeah, the South seceded cause they didn't want to play anymore." That'll boost your image. You're correct, it's a very simplistic argument indeed. Which is fine if you're talking about different ways that dogs can take a dump, but not about why the south seceded from the Union. The South was getting the short end of the stick, economically, and politically.

Which is very different from saying, as the argument I was rebutting said, that the South seceded because it felt the Union was "wrong". Yes, it was simplistic because I didn't feel like getting into the reasons that the South seceded since they are extremely complex, varied, and differ from state to state.

It hit their last nerve when Lincoln became president and had no regard for state's rights. Read Amendment 10 and try to find somewhere in the Constitution that prohibits secession, and you can say that you've won your simplistic argument.

The simplistic argument was that they didn't want to play anymore. That has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment. Do try and not horribly conflate different issues.

 

[BrianH]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Good luck with that one. I've posted it several times, and amazingly enough, it has failed to persuade the stubborn. I'm glad to see your position on this though.

 

[Shogun]

I wouldnt say that I am declaring a side, necessarily. I just wanted to post what you were making reference too.


i have never really dived into the civil war too deep. I plan on remedying that soon.


GAMEON

 

[BrianH]

Which is very different from saying, as the argument I was rebutting said, that the South seceded because it felt the Union was "wrong". Yes, it was simplistic because I didn't feel like getting into the reasons that the South seceded since they are extremely complex, varied, and differ from state to state.

Then what the hell are you doing posting here if you "don't want to get into things becasue they're very complex??? That's what these boards are about. Not stating your opinion and then saying you don't want to get into the reasons behind your opinion.





The simplistic argument was that they didn't want to play anymore. That has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment. Do try and not horribly conflate different issues.

What different issues? Apparently you are in a differend thread. Because the issue here is whether or not the Constitution allows secession. The 10th Amendment is in the Constitution, and allows secession, because it is not a prohibited power or delegated to the Fed. Gov. Do try and keep up with the thread.

 

[BrianH]

I wouldnt say that I am declaring a side, necessarily. I just wanted to post what you were making reference too.


i have never really dived into the civil war too deep. I plan on remedying that soon.


GAMEON

LOL. I'm not declaring a side either. I know slavery was wrong, and I know the North won and I'm glad the way that the country has turned out. No problem with it, and I don't intend on having a Supreme Court decision over-turned. But my whole argument was that the states seceding was legal based on the Constitution. You know what the 10th Amendment says...and there is not other mention or prohibition of secession in the rest of the Constitution.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Here's another monkey wrench for the North was right side. Virginia, Rhode Island and New York had a clause written into their ratification of the Constitution. This clause allowed those three states to leave the Union if the new government became oppressive.

The Constitution states that the rights one state has is extended to all states by equal protection under the law. So, if Virginia had the right to secede, so did South Carolina and the rest of the southern states.

 

[Larkinn]

Then what the hell are you doing posting here if you "don't want to get into things becasue they're very complex???
That's what these boards are about.

Getting into complex issues? Not quite. Most issues discussed here are vast oversimplifications of complex issues.

Not stating your opinion and then saying you don't want to get into the reasons behind your opinion.

My opinion was that the reason the South seceded was NOT because they thought the Union was morally wrong. Have a problem with that opinion? No? Then shut the hell up.

What different issues? Apparently you are in a differend thread. Because the issue here is whether or not the Constitution allows secession. The 10th Amendment is in the Constitution, and allows secession, because it is not a prohibited power or delegated to the Fed. Gov. Do try and keep up with the thread.

Are you really that stupid? There are a series of issues being discussed here. It seemed to start with the legality of secession. Once you guys brutally lost that argument you turned to whether the Constitution allows secession, and at various times the point of WHY the South seceded and what justification there was for that was discussed. Further there have been some talk over who started the war, and why the USSC ruled as it did.

Or did you somehow miss all of that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

First of all, how the hell do you know what such "intent" was. That makes about as much sense as your retarded ass way of interpreting the Constitution.
First thing, smartness, Lincoln wasn't president during Harper's Ferry and John Brown attempted slave revolution....but I'm sure you knew that since your such a smart guy.
Second, John Brown was an outspoken Republican and claimed to have support from the northern Republicans.

So the only "whopper" here isn't a "whopper" at all, only that "Milk Dud" brain of yours.

You are amazing. I bet you argue against blaming Arab Muslims for terrorist acts? Or Muslims in General?

You are attempting to portray an illegal act put down by the Government as some how supported by that Government. Lincoln was clear, he would take no action against slavery. Now unless you can prove otherwise apply your standards to your ignorant claims.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here's another monkey wrench for the North was right side. Virginia, Rhode Island and New York had a clause written into their ratification of the Constitution. This clause allowed those three states to leave the Union if the new government became oppressive.

The Constitution states that the rights one state has is extended to all states by equal protection under the law. So, if Virginia had the right to secede, so did South Carolina and the rest of the southern states.

Except those additions are irrelevant and unenforceable. The ratification was either yes or no, one does not get to make it conditional, so your argument fails, just as the attempts by States to put conditions on amendments is not binding. '

But thanks for playing.

 

[LOki]

Read Amendment 10 and try to find somewhere in the Constitution that prohibits secession, and you can say that you've won your simplistic argument.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

But my whole argument was that the states seceding was legal based on the Constitution. You know what the 10th Amendment says...and there is not other mention or prohibition of secession in the rest of the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment does not confer the right to secede. There's no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession. "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

Here's another monkey wrench for the North was right side. Virginia, Rhode Island and New York had a clause written into their ratification of the Constitution. This clause allowed those three states to leave the Union if the new government became oppressive.

The Constitution states that the rights one state has is extended to all states by equal protection under the law. So, if Virginia had the right to secede, so did South Carolina and the rest of the southern states.

The 14th expresses no right to secede. The clause written into Virginia's, Rhode Island's, and New York's ratification of the Constitution is not part of the Constitution of the U.S. (more like a contract, between these States and the new Government), thus maybe not so widely applicable as you wish to assert.

 

[BrianH]

The 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War. So it was not in the COnstitution when the South seceded.

The 10th Amendment Reads:

"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 there was no prohibition to secession in the Constitution as of 1861, the power/right to seced was "reserved to the States respectively."

 

[BrianH]

You are amazing. I bet you argue against blaming Arab Muslims for terrorist acts? Or Muslims in General?

You are attempting to portray an illegal act put down by the Government as some how supported by that Government. Lincoln was clear, he would take no action against slavery. Now unless you can prove otherwise apply your standards to your ignorant claims.

I'll tell you what, when you find one of my post that says that the Government was behind it, then you have a valid case. Until then, putting words in my mouth, or having a dumbass way of comprehending posts, is your problem. Bring significant discussion to the board and quit dancing around something I may or may not have meant based on your misinterpretation. Last I checked, the North meant north, not just the Government. Just like you all refer to the South doing things, doesn't necessarily mean it's the government now does it. Cyber High-five on that one, your fresh. LMAO

 

[LOki]

The 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War. So it was not in the COnstitution when the South seceded.

Yes. Another reason that the 14th does not apply.

The 10th Amendment Reads:

"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 there was no prohibition to secession in the Constitution as of 1861, the power/right to seced was "reserved to the States respectively."

The Tenth Amendment does not confer the power to secede. There's no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union. "The People" (also to whom powers not delegate are reserved) of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

 

[BrianH]

Yes. Another reason that the 14th does not apply.



The Tenth Amendment does not confer the power to secede. There's no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union. "The People" (also to whom powers not delegate are reserved) of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

A power to do something does not have to be directly stated in the constitution.

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."

The Constitution, in 1861, did not specifically deny or prohibit secession. Therfore, "powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

We've got an "either/or" situation going on here. In this case, the people that made up that state, felt the right to seceed, according to the Constitution, which does not prohibit secession. Going through majority northern Congress would have not done them any good.

The law doesn't state that I can clip my toe-nails by my bed, does that mean I can't do it? A power given to the states does not have to be directly given to them by the Fed. Gov. This is the purpose of the 10th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights.