Where do you stand on State succession?

[JakeStarkey]

Slavery, as I posted above, citing the Veep of the CSA, was the cause of the rupture.

Any other yacking is just yacking.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Naw, eventually your kind will fade away and in 200 years the conservatives of that time will be bitching about the same things only society will be far more socially liberal than it is today.

Is that what a study of history shows? Rome was more socially liberal 200 years after Caligula?

You might want to recheck your assumptions, sparky. In the history of civilizations on Earth, collapse of social and moral codes is ALWAYS followed by the establishment of authoritarianism.

Anarchy is not a viable system, it is introduced to create chaos, so that power may be seized. The war on the moral and social structure of this nation is conducted for the purpose of seizing power - not to create a determinant state of anarchy. Are you really too dull witted to grasp this?

 

[BlindBoo]

You either didn't comprehend what I wrote or you didn't bother reading it. If you want to take a swag at actually addressing my point rather than repeating your superficial view then that would be cool. Else you can just stay willfully shallow and uninformed.

Slavery was a necessary evil in the pre-industrialized labor intense agricultural world. Since slavery was directly tied to the economy of course the Southern Gentry felt that they had to preserve it. It was not a effect, it was the cause. States rights was an excuse not a cause.

So now that you actually read my post you realize I was right...

Lincoln had no plans to take the institution of slavery from the Southern elite. Their fears were based on bold and often told lies. Kind of like todays' fear-mongering of the right-wing talking heads.

Gotta get that little Marxist propaganda in there. I'll give you that one.

You were incorrect. I bolded the parts I disagreed with. It is simply what I addressed in my original post.

Truth is not propaganda. Manipulating the minds of the masses with lies is as old as politics itself. Right up there with denigration of the opposition.

 

[SwimExpert]

He's right, "sound" is the last word I would use to describe your argument. You can't tell someone to come "up to date" and then insist they are bound by a so-called "contract" that is 250 years old. At least, you can't if you don't want to sound like someone who lacks the ability to commit logic.

That's not at all what I said, but go ahead and tear down the straw man if it makes you feel like a big, strong man.

The "hypocrisy" argument is problem. Saying that it's hypocritical for a person to support the United States being a perpetual union is no different than calling a person hypocritical for supporting the United States adopting strict immigration laws and opposing illegal immigration. The events from centuries ago do not obligate a 21st century person's moral consistency.

As always, you are nothing more than an anarchist who simply hates being part of any society larger than yourself. You hate any and all obligations that are imposed upon you by virtue of being a part of society. You wish you could live your life completely free from all government and rules whatsoever, save those you choose for yourself.

And what that really means, is that you wish you could impose your own rules and will upon everyone you might ever encounter.

 

[kaz]

Slavery, as I posted above, citing the Veep of the CSA, was the cause of the rupture.

Any other yacking is just yacking.

Let's say this is true for a moment. The war was over slavery. Only a small percent of Southerners actually owned slaves, most whites in the south were poor.

However, those poor, non-slave owning whites were the ones who comprised most of the Rebel troops.

The Rebel troops were very committed and very effective, the South man for man, dollar for dollar clearly outperformed the North in the war. The North won because compared to the South their troop supply and funding was limitless.

So, why did all those poor white southerners do that exactly? They just rallied to the cause of the rich white Southerners? We want them to own slaves, damn it! And we'll fight to the death (literally) to make sure they can!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Exactly. Without the ability to leave you do not have a union.

The states entered into a perpetual union, of their own accord. It's no different than you entering into a contract to lease a piece of real estate for the next 150 years. You entered on your own accord, and therefore your own free will.

Also, every state has the ability to leave the union. They simply need to acquire the consent of the several states. If that doesn't work, they can execute a revolution.

What you have is slavery.

That's an amazingly stupid thing to say.

How anyone could possibly advocate for force and violence against a state that wanted to peacefully leave federal control is ironically hypocritical.

People also say the same thing about Americans who oppose illegal immigrants or strict immigration policies. And I say to you now what I say to them. Stop living hundreds of years in the past. This is the 21st century. It is pointless to dictate modern day policy based on century's old political points.

He's right, "sound" is the last word I would use to describe your argument. You can't tell someone to come "up to date" and then insist they are bound by a so-called "contract" that is 250 years old. At least, you can't if you don't want to sound like someone who lacks the ability to commit logic.

That's not at all what I said, but go ahead and tear down the straw man if it makes you feel like a big, strong man.

The "hypocrisy" argument is problem. Saying that it's hypocritical for a person to support the United States being a perpetual union is no different than calling a person hypocritical for supporting the United States adopting strict immigration laws and opposing illegal immigration. The events from centuries ago do not obligate a 21st century person's moral consistency.
As always, you are nothing more than an anarchist who simply hates being part of any society larger than yourself. You hate any and all obligations that are imposed upon you by virtue of being a part of society. You wish you could live your life completely free from all government and rules whatsoever, save those you choose for yourself.

And what that really means, is that you wish you could impose your own rules and will upon everyone you might ever encounter.

All the blathering on aside, you'll notice that you did, in fact, contradict yourself about "coming up to date". On the one hand, you're saying I, or anyone else entered a contract with the Federal "Union", and then turn around and tell me to get with the now about policy.

Then even have the nerve to insert the last bolded statement about being obligated over events from centuries ago.

 

[kaz]

Slavery was a necessary evil in the pre-industrialized labor intense agricultural world. Since slavery was directly tied to the economy of course the Southern Gentry felt that they had to preserve it. It was not a effect, it was the cause. States rights was an excuse not a cause.

So now that you actually read my post you realize I was right...

Lincoln had no plans to take the institution of slavery from the Southern elite. Their fears were based on bold and often told lies. Kind of like todays' fear-mongering of the right-wing talking heads.

Gotta get that little Marxist propaganda in there. I'll give you that one.

You were incorrect. I bolded the parts I disagreed with. It is simply what I addressed in my original post.

Truth is not propaganda. Manipulating the minds of the masses with lies is as old as politics itself. Right up there with denigration of the opposition.

So which statement do you agree with.

1) The end goal of the south was to support themselves eonomically, and slaves were required (at that time in their minds at least) to accomplish that.

2) The end goal of the south was to own slaves, it got their rocks off. And as long as they had them they might as well work in fields.

You don't know what cause and effect are.

 

[SwimExpert]

you'll notice that you did, in fact, contradict yourself about "coming up to date". On the one hand, you're saying I, or anyone else entered a contract with the Federal "Union", and then turn around and tell me to get with the now about policy.

Then even have the nerve to insert the last bolded statement about being obligated over events from centuries ago.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're being intentionally stupid. I mean, you can't possibly be too stupid to understand the difference between a perpetual union that continues to obligate member states, and some asinine idea that historical events from centuries ago obligate the moral opinions of individuals in the present.

 

[Redfish]

OK, lets get off the civil war BS and get back to the original question.

Should a state or states be allowed to secede from the USA? Yes, but if they do they should not expect any funding from the remaining states of the USA.

The new country, or countries, would have to be self sufficient in every way and completely separate from the USA.

Worked when the soviet union broke up, no reason it could not work here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slavery, as I posted above, citing the Veep of the CSA, was the cause of the rupture.

Any other yacking is just yacking.

Let's say this is true for a moment. The war was over slavery. Only a small percent of Southerners actually owned slaves, most whites in the south were poor.

However, those poor, non-slave owning whites were the ones who comprised most of the Rebel troops.

The Rebel troops were very committed and very effective, the South man for man, dollar for dollar clearly outperformed the North in the war. The North won because compared to the South their troop supply and funding was limitless.

So, why did all those poor white southerners do that exactly? They just rallied to the cause of the rich white Southerners? We want them to own slaves, damn it! And we'll fight to the death (literally) to make sure they can!

It is true for ever as for a moment. Anything else is yacking for yacking's sake.

I do not discuss matters that are not so.

 

[bripat9643]

Abraham Lincoln.




Gettysburg Address - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gettysburg Address is the biggest lie ever uttered by a U.S. President. If anyone was fighting for government "of the people, by the people and for the people," it was the Confederacy. Lincoln was a tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. The entire purpose of the war was to prevent people from having the government they wanted.

Really you sound like the poor men who charged into canister fire at Gettysburg. .

Plenty of Yankee carpet baggers endured canon fire, and they weren't even doing it to protect their homes. They were doing it solely so A tyrant could impose his rule on people who didn't want to be ruled.

Men talked into a war by the rich southern democrat aristocrats. Why? To protect their 4 billion dollar slavery industry. Anyone who claims that the war was about freedom either is deluding themselves, doesn't know the definitions, or think black men are not men.

You're using the same arguments that libturds use to justify raising taxes and more spending. The fact that plenty of non-slave owners enlisted for service in the Confederacy is the proof that the war was not only about slavery. One thing the war wasn't about was freeing the slaves. For one thing, there were a number of slave states fighting on the Union side. For another, Lincoln stated many times he had no desire to abolish slavery. He even promised to support and amendment that would have enshrined slavery in the Constitution. The Gettysburg address was a big fat lie.

The war was about nothing but slavery it is in their state constitution and their reasoning for seceding. As soon as an abolitionists president was elected the states parted company it wasn't for any other reason.

Wrong. That may have been one of the reasons Southern states seceded, but it wasn't the only reason, and it wasn't the reason Lincoln invaded the Confederacy. As I mentioned above, Lincoln did not oppose slavery. He was by no means an abolitionist. He said many times that his reason for invading was to "preserver the union." In other words, his purpose was to impose Northern hegemony on the Confederate states.

 

[bripat9643]

you'll notice that you did, in fact, contradict yourself about "coming up to date". On the one hand, you're saying I, or anyone else entered a contract with the Federal "Union", and then turn around and tell me to get with the now about policy.

Then even have the nerve to insert the last bolded statement about being obligated over events from centuries ago.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're being intentionally stupid. I mean, you can't possibly be too stupid to understand the difference between a perpetual union that continues to obligate member states, and some asinine idea that historical events from centuries ago obligate the moral opinions of individuals in the present.

No matter how much you waffle and dance, you can't get around the fact that you contradicted yourself. A rational person would just concede the point and come up with better arguments. Of course, there are no good arguments to justify the claim that secession Is somehow illegal.

 

[BlindBoo]

Secession of the Southern States started the war. They seceded to preserve Slavery.

The rich needed to preserve Slavery because they had so much money tied up in Slaves.

Normally, I would write your statement off as the meandering of an ignorant and uneducated fool - but I'm going to call bullshit because I suspect you know your statement is shit, and made it for partisan reasons.

The agrarian South had a nearly feudal structure, with a landed gentry wielding enormous political and economic power, while the majority lived as virtual serfs. The fact that 90% of whites in the Antebellum South lived in abject poverty, makes the claim of slavery as a root cause utterly absurd. Only the larger land owners could afford slaves.

The greater fear of the serf class was the competition posed by slaves. Often it was free whites who suffered most from slavery, as the agricultural jobs were filled by slaves, leaving them to literally starve to death.

The Antebellum South was not a pretty place for most people, black and white.

Contrast this with the North that was well into the industrial revolution. Despite the bullshit the leftists spew, industry was the salvation of the masses. Suddenly, the question of survival no longer depended on a healthy crop, but instead just labor at a factory. These masses became consumers who increased the fortunes of the remaining agrarian community in the North. To make matters worse, animosity toward the South, by the North, led to the importation of goods for manufacture from Europe. Particularly cotton, which was imported from France. The North was waging a form of economic warfare on the South long before the shooting war.

The socioeconomic situation in the Antebellum South was not viable, if left alone, it was destined to collapse. This went way beyond slavery, into the structure of the states, who could not sustain the existing infrastructure.

The war was between a fading agrarian society structured into virtual feudalism, and an emerging industrial powerhouse. Slavery was at best an ancillary issue.

That's funny because all the speeches and hubris the Southern politician were spewing at the time were all about how the Republicans were going to not allow slavery in new States, abolish interstate slave trade, and take away slavery in all existing states.

For the South, it was all about keeping the institution of slavery intact.

As soon as they lost the election of 1860 most of the Confederate state seceded.

 

[bripat9643]

you'll notice that you did, in fact, contradict yourself about "coming up to date". On the one hand, you're saying I, or anyone else entered a contract with the Federal "Union", and then turn around and tell me to get with the now about policy.

Then even have the nerve to insert the last bolded statement about being obligated over events from centuries ago.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're being intentionally stupid. I mean, you can't possibly be too stupid to understand the difference between a perpetual union that continues to obligate member states, and some asinine idea that historical events from centuries ago obligate the moral opinions of individuals in the present.

The "perpetual union" evaporated when the Founding Fathers threw the Articles of Confederation into the waste bin and drew up the Constitution. Furthermore, there's no such thing as a perpetual contract or a perpetual treaty. Both treaties and contracts are only valid so long as all parties agree to abide by them.

 

[SwimExpert]

No matter how much you waffle and dance, you can't get around the fact that you contradicted yourself.

No I didn't. You're just too stupid to understand that two separate things are not related.

A rational person would just concede the point and come up with better arguments. Of course, there are no good arguments to justify the claim that secession Is somehow illegal.

I already told you. The United States is a perpetual union. Do you understand this word, perpetual? Each state agreed to be a part of this perpetual union. Therefore, leaving the Union requires the consent of said Union. Or a revolution.

 

[BlindBoo]

Slavery, as I posted above, citing the Veep of the CSA, was the cause of the rupture.

Any other yacking is just yacking.

Let's say this is true for a moment. The war was over slavery. Only a small percent of Southerners actually owned slaves, most whites in the south were poor.

However, those poor, non-slave owning whites were the ones who comprised most of the Rebel troops.

The Rebel troops were very committed and very effective, the South man for man, dollar for dollar clearly outperformed the North in the war. The North won because compared to the South their troop supply and funding was limitless.

So, why did all those poor white southerners do that exactly? They just rallied to the cause of the rich white Southerners? We want them to own slaves, damn it! And we'll fight to the death (literally) to make sure they can!

Less than a year after the first major battle of the war the South imposed a draft or conscription.

President Jefferson Davis authorized the first Conscription Act on April 16, 1862. This legislation required all white males aged eighteen to thirty-five to serve three years of Confederate service if called. Soldiers already in the military would now be obligated to serve an additional twenty-four months. Five days later, the Confederate government passed the Exemption Act, which excused from military service select government employees, workers deemed necessary to maintain society (such as teachers, railroad workers, skilled tradesmen, and ministers), and owners of twenty or more slaves.

Conscription (Civil War) - Encyclopedia of Arkansas

 

[kaz]

Slavery, as I posted above, citing the Veep of the CSA, was the cause of the rupture.

Any other yacking is just yacking.

Let's say this is true for a moment. The war was over slavery. Only a small percent of Southerners actually owned slaves, most whites in the south were poor.

However, those poor, non-slave owning whites were the ones who comprised most of the Rebel troops.

The Rebel troops were very committed and very effective, the South man for man, dollar for dollar clearly outperformed the North in the war. The North won because compared to the South their troop supply and funding was limitless.

So, why did all those poor white southerners do that exactly? They just rallied to the cause of the rich white Southerners? We want them to own slaves, damn it! And we'll fight to the death (literally) to make sure they can!

It is true for ever as for a moment. Anything else is yacking for yacking's sake.

I do not discuss matters that are not so.

I see, so what you have is, run away, run away!!!

 

[kaz]

Slavery, as I posted above, citing the Veep of the CSA, was the cause of the rupture.

Any other yacking is just yacking.

Let's say this is true for a moment. The war was over slavery. Only a small percent of Southerners actually owned slaves, most whites in the south were poor.

However, those poor, non-slave owning whites were the ones who comprised most of the Rebel troops.

The Rebel troops were very committed and very effective, the South man for man, dollar for dollar clearly outperformed the North in the war. The North won because compared to the South their troop supply and funding was limitless.

So, why did all those poor white southerners do that exactly? They just rallied to the cause of the rich white Southerners? We want them to own slaves, damn it! And we'll fight to the death (literally) to make sure they can!

Less than a year after the first major battle of the war the South imposed a draft or conscription.

President Jefferson Davis authorized the first Conscription Act on April 16, 1862. This legislation required all white males aged eighteen to thirty-five to serve three years of Confederate service if called. Soldiers already in the military would now be obligated to serve an additional twenty-four months. Five days later, the Confederate government passed the Exemption Act, which excused from military service select government employees, workers deemed necessary to maintain society (such as teachers, railroad workers, skilled tradesmen, and ministers), and owners of twenty or more slaves.

Conscription (Civil War) - Encyclopedia of Arkansas

And what conclusion do you draw from this?

 

[Contumacious]

you'll notice that you did, in fact, contradict yourself about "coming up to date". On the one hand, you're saying I, or anyone else entered a contract with the Federal "Union", and then turn around and tell me to get with the now about policy.

Then even have the nerve to insert the last bolded statement about being obligated over events from centuries ago.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're being intentionally stupid. I mean, you can't possibly be too stupid to understand the difference between a perpetual union that continues to obligate member states, and some asinine idea that historical events from centuries ago obligate the moral opinions of individuals in the present.

The "perpetual union" evaporated when the Founding Fathers threw the Articles of Confederation into the waste bin and drew up the Constitution. Furthermore, there's no such thing as a perpetual contract or a perpetual treaty. Both treaties and contracts are only valid so long as all parties agree to abide by them.

Exactly.


“These United Colonies Are, And Of Right Ought To Be, Free And Independent States


Declaration Of Independence

 

[SwimExpert]

The "perpetual union" evaporated when the Founding Fathers threw the Articles of Confederation into the waste bin and drew up the Constitution.

False. The constitution affirms that it was ordained to improve the Union.

Furthermore, there's no such thing as a perpetual contract or a perpetual treaty. Both treaties and contracts are only valid so long as all parties agree to abide by them.

That's so stupid I'd expect Rdean to say it.