Who was the worst traitor in U.S. history?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You fail to address the issue of such a system being ungovernable. If that is what you want, then, yes, you are an anarchist.

If I am an anarchist, then so was James Madison. (who was thus accused by Anti-Federalist George Clinton.)

The federal government was never intended to rule the states. Each state was sovereign and made it's own laws. The constitution provides a framework within which each member state must operate, but laws were the purvey of the many states. Note that no federal law enforcement agency existed. The Marshals were established as officers of the court, to enforce the will of the federal courts in judgement of disputes between the many states and to apprehend interstate criminals on the request of states. But no federal police force was created.

and yes, there are federal elections, which are for federal positions.

You are incorrect.

When you cast your vote for Barack Obama next week, you will be establishing the desire for your representative to the electoral college to vote for Obama. You do not elect the president, nor do I. When you vote for Senate and congress, you vote for a STATE representative to those bodies, you have no say in the federal government.

There are no federal elections, and never have been.



The election is run purely by the state. Senators were appointed by governors, but were never responsible to state government. They are representatives of the people of the state.



If you were to join Steel Workers Local #9, would you expect that a vote of all members would be required for you to leave and become a lawyer or other professional?

Another point to be made is that the northern states themselves could have stopped the Federal government cold by not giving support to Lincoln, nor answering the callup for state regiments. It wasnt the feds only who disagreed with secesssion, it was the other states involved in the compact.

In fact many voices in the North did oppose Lincoln. They were dragged to prison and sometimes locked out of congress.

If the states decide together to break up, then it would be acceptable. For a minority of states to decide to leave is like any other party trying to weasel out of its contract when they decide it is not in thier interests, with no compensation for the other parties.

Not at this point. We are a captive people. Nothing short of open revolt would allow any state to secede under any circumstance.

Another good point. Lincoln imprisoned hundreds of northern newspaper editors, and even deported an Ohio Congressman.

 

[martybegan]

You fail to address the issue of such a system being ungovernable. If that is what you want, then, yes, you are an anarchist.

If I am an anarchist, then so was James Madison. (who was thus accused by Anti-Federalist George Clinton.)

The federal government was never intended to rule the states. Each state was sovereign and made it's own laws. The constitution provides a framework within which each member state must operate, but laws were the purvey of the many states. Note that no federal law enforcement agency existed. The Marshals were established as officers of the court, to enforce the will of the federal courts in judgement of disputes between the many states and to apprehend interstate criminals on the request of states. But no federal police force was created.



You are incorrect.

When you cast your vote for Barack Obama next week, you will be establishing the desire for your representative to the electoral college to vote for Obama. You do not elect the president, nor do I. When you vote for Senate and congress, you vote for a STATE representative to those bodies, you have no say in the federal government.

There are no federal elections, and never have been.



The election is run purely by the state. Senators were appointed by governors, but were never responsible to state government. They are representatives of the people of the state.



If you were to join Steel Workers Local #9, would you expect that a vote of all members would be required for you to leave and become a lawyer or other professional?



In fact many voices in the North did oppose Lincoln. They were dragged to prison and sometimes locked out of congress.

If the states decide together to break up, then it would be acceptable. For a minority of states to decide to leave is like any other party trying to weasel out of its contract when they decide it is not in thier interests, with no compensation for the other parties.

Not at this point. We are a captive people. Nothing short of open revolt would allow any state to secede under any circumstance.

Another good point. Lincoln imprisoned hundreds of northern newspaper editors, and even deported an Ohio Congressman.

I hate using Tu Quoque but so did Davis when it came to unionist sentiment.

 

[martybegan]

So you're going back to the old standby of repeating the same mantra over and over without addressing the points other people have brought up?

Yes, sometimes fighting for your rights is necessary. However, to say that there is a right to revolution is to admit that there's a right to secession, and there's no inherent reason that it must be fought over. Only if the right is not recognized does it have to be fought for. Fighting, in and of itself, offers no legitimacy whatsoever. Either the right exists or it doesn't. Fighting doesn't change that.

Fighting is what happens when two sides cannot agree on something. In statecraft, its called war. A right to seccession makes representative government at the level seccesion is allowed impossible, as each party can then threaten to leave any time it does not get its way. It was this impossibility that led to the Civil War. At that point the question was if secession can be unilateral, as the northern states clearly did not want it. If they had, any attempt by Lincoln to quell the insurrection would have met with failure, due to lack of ability to enforce his will (troops). That question was also answered by war.

Once it came to a fight, even the southerners saw thier creation of a new government as a second revolution. In fact they even quashed counter-revolutionaries in eastern tenessee, who desired to remain in the union. If states can seceede from the federal government, why cant counties seccede from state governments? or towns from counties? or cities from towns?

The answer is that they can, but they require the consent of all parties involved in the level of joining that is being severed.

If you and I are talking and you try to stifle my freedom of speech, it doesn't necessarily follow that if you beat me up my right to say what I want never existed. The right existed, and still exists, but is merely be quashed by the use of force. That's exactly what happened with secession, as you basically admitted when you said there's a right to revolution. You think violence grants some legitimacy, but I see no reason for that to be the case. As for the north not agreeing with secession, that's incorrect. The north clearly believed there was a right to secession, as the 1814 Hartford Convention clearly shows. However, even in the case of the south the north was completely uninterested in forcing them to remain in the Union until Fort Sumter. Even then the war fever was more about them attacking the Union than in forcing them to stay in the Union.

Of course the Confederates put down secessionist plots within their borders, as they were no less hypocritical than the Union. Though it should be pointed out that the relationship of counties to states, or cities to states is not the same as the relationship of the states to the federal government, you're absolutely correct on this point. They should have every right to secede if they so choose.

And again, you keep stating that in order to secede one must have the permission of everybody else, but you can't back it up. Where is that stated? Is it in the Federalist Papers? The Declaration of Independence? The Constitution?

The right to speech is enshrined in the consitution, and backed by law that would punish someone from attacking you for it. There is and was no law regarding seccession.

And where is it stated explicity that they can seceede on thier own, not from a tyranical crown, but from a representative republic where all parties have a voice?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If I am an anarchist, then so was James Madison. (who was thus accused by Anti-Federalist George Clinton.)

The federal government was never intended to rule the states. Each state was sovereign and made it's own laws. The constitution provides a framework within which each member state must operate, but laws were the purvey of the many states. Note that no federal law enforcement agency existed. The Marshals were established as officers of the court, to enforce the will of the federal courts in judgement of disputes between the many states and to apprehend interstate criminals on the request of states. But no federal police force was created.



You are incorrect.

When you cast your vote for Barack Obama next week, you will be establishing the desire for your representative to the electoral college to vote for Obama. You do not elect the president, nor do I. When you vote for Senate and congress, you vote for a STATE representative to those bodies, you have no say in the federal government.

There are no federal elections, and never have been.



The election is run purely by the state. Senators were appointed by governors, but were never responsible to state government. They are representatives of the people of the state.



If you were to join Steel Workers Local #9, would you expect that a vote of all members would be required for you to leave and become a lawyer or other professional?



In fact many voices in the North did oppose Lincoln. They were dragged to prison and sometimes locked out of congress.



Not at this point. We are a captive people. Nothing short of open revolt would allow any state to secede under any circumstance.

Another good point. Lincoln imprisoned hundreds of northern newspaper editors, and even deported an Ohio Congressman.

I hate using Tu Quoque but so did Davis when it came to unionist sentiment.

Of course he did, as I've already said the Confederacy was hardly any better than the Union. The point was that the north was not united as you claimed in wanting to force the south back into the Union.

 

[martybegan]

Another good point. Lincoln imprisoned hundreds of northern newspaper editors, and even deported an Ohio Congressman.

I hate using Tu Quoque but so did Davis when it came to unionist sentiment.

Of course he did, as I've already said the Confederacy was hardly any better than the Union. The point was that the north was not united as you claimed in wanting to force the south back into the Union.

Considering the hundreds of thousands of soliders who participated in the fight to do what you say was not so popular, I think it was. And before you trot out conscription the total of conscripted soliders was minimal and later in the war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Fighting is what happens when two sides cannot agree on something. In statecraft, its called war. A right to seccession makes representative government at the level seccesion is allowed impossible, as each party can then threaten to leave any time it does not get its way. It was this impossibility that led to the Civil War. At that point the question was if secession can be unilateral, as the northern states clearly did not want it. If they had, any attempt by Lincoln to quell the insurrection would have met with failure, due to lack of ability to enforce his will (troops). That question was also answered by war.

Once it came to a fight, even the southerners saw thier creation of a new government as a second revolution. In fact they even quashed counter-revolutionaries in eastern tenessee, who desired to remain in the union. If states can seceede from the federal government, why cant counties seccede from state governments? or towns from counties? or cities from towns?

The answer is that they can, but they require the consent of all parties involved in the level of joining that is being severed.

If you and I are talking and you try to stifle my freedom of speech, it doesn't necessarily follow that if you beat me up my right to say what I want never existed. The right existed, and still exists, but is merely be quashed by the use of force. That's exactly what happened with secession, as you basically admitted when you said there's a right to revolution. You think violence grants some legitimacy, but I see no reason for that to be the case. As for the north not agreeing with secession, that's incorrect. The north clearly believed there was a right to secession, as the 1814 Hartford Convention clearly shows. However, even in the case of the south the north was completely uninterested in forcing them to remain in the Union until Fort Sumter. Even then the war fever was more about them attacking the Union than in forcing them to stay in the Union.

Of course the Confederates put down secessionist plots within their borders, as they were no less hypocritical than the Union. Though it should be pointed out that the relationship of counties to states, or cities to states is not the same as the relationship of the states to the federal government, you're absolutely correct on this point. They should have every right to secede if they so choose.

And again, you keep stating that in order to secede one must have the permission of everybody else, but you can't back it up. Where is that stated? Is it in the Federalist Papers? The Declaration of Independence? The Constitution?

The right to speech is enshrined in the consitution, and backed by law that would punish someone from attacking you for it. There is and was no law regarding seccession.

And where is it stated explicity that they can seceede on thier own, not from a tyranical crown, but from a representative republic where all parties have a voice?

It's enshrined in the Constitution as a right that already exists. It's not artificially granted by the government, but merely something that the government promises not to infringe upon. Of course it breaks this promise all the time, but that's another story.

The 10th Amendment, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is where I find the right to secession. You say it's vague, but what's vague about it? The intent is clear. As for the "tyrannical crown" versus a "representative republic," it's an irrelevant point. The issue is whether the right to secession exists, not whether this particular instance was justified. Now, I've pointed out, repeatedly, where I find the right to secession in the Constitution. Can you point out where you find this idea that to secede a state has to get the permission of the other states?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I hate using Tu Quoque but so did Davis when it came to unionist sentiment.

Of course he did, as I've already said the Confederacy was hardly any better than the Union. The point was that the north was not united as you claimed in wanting to force the south back into the Union.

Considering the hundreds of thousands of soliders who participated in the fight to do what you say was not so popular, I think it was. And before you trot out conscription the total of conscripted soliders was minimal and later in the war.

I won't mention the conscription, because it's unnecessary. I'll simply point out the fact that the war didn't start when the southern states seceded, but only after they took over Fort Sumter. The majority feeling in the north, prior to Fort Sumter, was "good riddance." Lincoln orchestrated Fort Sumter because he needed northern sentiment on his side for his war, which he did not have up to that point. When the south attacked he was able to whip up the northern citizens into a war fever.

 

[thanatos144]

Enough with the hero worship of slave owning traitors!

This is a serious problem. Too many think that examining the constitutionality of the acts of Lincoln is to "side" with the Antebellum South.

The South was a miserable place, a feudal shit hole that denied opportunity and hope to all but a tiny elite. Slavery was abhorrent, yet the treatment of free whites who were not of the landed gentry was far worse than that which the slave endured.

Hero worship? Far from it. But the fact is that Lincoln was a traitor and violated the constitution, ending the pact that the founding fathers had created.

Yes hero worship......The fact is the union didn't start the war!Fact is the confederates did when they learned that slavery would not be allowed in the new settlements. The civil war was never about the poor freedom loving south it was about them wanting to spread slavery to more and more lands....When they were denied???? They attacked bases ....several times.....Of course the union should have seen that coming since they couldn't seem to be able to keep to their agreements.

 

[Unkotare]

F.d.r.

 

[whitehall]

Lee Harvey Oswald. Shortly after Oswald, who worked in the U-2 program in Japan, renounced his citizenship and defected to the USSR the U-2 spy plane was shot down and Powers was captured. For some reason known only to the CIA Oswald was welcomed back to the USA with his Russian wife who was the daughter of a KGB officer and the rest is history.

 

[Politico]

How the hell did you get into another secession argument?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's the idea that "might makes right," but I think we can look at plenty of historical examples where the winning side wasn't "right."

Also, the tenth amendment disagrees with your last assertion.

"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."

Secession is not prohibited by the United States Constitution to the States.

If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?

A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them.

The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.

You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.

And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.

And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?

This was settled in 1869. Texas sued and lost, the Supreme Court ruled that indeed one must have congressional approval to leave the Union. Last I checked the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator. Or are you claiming the States can ignore that abortion is legal now?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.

And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.

And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?

If Virginia and Rhode Island truly wanted the right to seceede they would have put it in the document, and not left it up to the vagarities of the 10th amendment.

And secession is not a check, it is a knife held at the throat of the very concept of federalism. A system were secession without consent of the whole is allowed is unworkable, again as I said, denegrating into a bunch of micro-nations.

So then where is the idea that any state who wants to secede has to be permitted to do so from the other states? You claim the 10th Amendment is vague, though it seems pretty straight forward to me, but your claim is nonexistent.

Of course secession is a check, and that's how it worked up until South Carolina finally used it. The system, of course, was designed to favor the states over the federal government, because this was a people who wanted to jealously guard their liberty from a powerful centralized government the likes of which they had just broken away from. You say that this idea is a "knife at the throat of federalism," but you're using the wrong term. This idea was the bedrock of federalism, it was merely a knife at the throat of the federal government. Which is exactly what was intended.

The Supreme Court ruled one needs Congressional approval to leave the Union, case closed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Enough with the hero worship of slave owning traitors!

This is a serious problem. Too many think that examining the constitutionality of the acts of Lincoln is to "side" with the Antebellum South.

The South was a miserable place, a feudal shit hole that denied opportunity and hope to all but a tiny elite. Slavery was abhorrent, yet the treatment of free whites who were not of the landed gentry was far worse than that which the slave endured.

Hero worship? Far from it. But the fact is that Lincoln was a traitor and violated the constitution, ending the pact that the founding fathers had created.

Absolutely WRONG. The Supreme Court which is the final arbitrator on what is and is not Constitutional ruled that the ONLY way a State can leave the Union is with the approval of the Congress.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?

A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them.

The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.

You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.

And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.

And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?

This was settled in 1869. Texas sued and lost, the Supreme Court ruled that indeed one must have congressional approval to leave the Union. Last I checked the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator. Or are you claiming the States can ignore that abortion is legal now?

Yes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If Virginia and Rhode Island truly wanted the right to seceede they would have put it in the document, and not left it up to the vagarities of the 10th amendment.

And secession is not a check, it is a knife held at the throat of the very concept of federalism. A system were secession without consent of the whole is allowed is unworkable, again as I said, denegrating into a bunch of micro-nations.

So then where is the idea that any state who wants to secede has to be permitted to do so from the other states? You claim the 10th Amendment is vague, though it seems pretty straight forward to me, but your claim is nonexistent.

Of course secession is a check, and that's how it worked up until South Carolina finally used it. The system, of course, was designed to favor the states over the federal government, because this was a people who wanted to jealously guard their liberty from a powerful centralized government the likes of which they had just broken away from. You say that this idea is a "knife at the throat of federalism," but you're using the wrong term. This idea was the bedrock of federalism, it was merely a knife at the throat of the federal government. Which is exactly what was intended.

The Supreme Court ruled one needs Congressional approval to leave the Union, case closed.

Then why are you concerned about abortion? Or Obamacare? The Court ruled. You lost. Case closed.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself. My nominee is Harry Dexter White.

quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war.
2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union.
3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.
5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe.

LINK

FDR

your guy worked for fdr

 

[whitehall]

Come on you freaking historical deprived union educated alleged Americans. The Country was different when Arnold decided the Revolution might not be a good idea and when the States were more powerful than the foggy bottom based federal government that advocated slavery for two hundred years. It was the United State's Flag that flew off slave ships not the Confederate flag. The world changed after the turn of the 20th century. Can we restrict the argument to relevant issues like real traitors? Lee Harvey Oswald defected to Russia and returned with his KGB wife and murdered the president.

 

[Unkotare]

Can we restrict the argument to relevant issues like real traitors? .

Like I said, FDR.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Can we restrict the argument to relevant issues like real traitors? .

Like I said, FDR.

ditto

fdr should have been arrested, tried and given life w/o parole for the horrors he visited upon American citizens.

hell, just what's easy to point at should have gotten him the chair.

jailing innocent citizens b/c they didn't have a good last name or had yellow faces.
Taking property
confiscating wealth
wasted billions and knew it was failing
got us into WW2 to save his ass.
3rd term