PDA

View Full Version : Local Keep Stone Mountain carving a Confederate Memorial


Pages : [1] 2

Comrade Crapski
05-03-2013, 06:31 PM
A young man asked me why do they want to change the carving at Stone Mountain Park?



The question should also be why do some people continue to try erasing history? There is a petition drive to change the beautiful historic carving at Stone Mountain Memorial Park near Atlanta, Georgia? See news story from 11 Alive of Atlanta, Georgia including their interview with me. A special thank you to Mr. Dan Coleman who participated in the debate that followed.

Read what I said including, “Like previous campaigns criticizing other Confederate Memorials, he sees the petition to remove the carving of Jefferson, Lee and Jackson as an attack on the truth.”

A online poll currently shows 95 percent of the people want to keep the Stone Mountain Carving of our heroes Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson as it is.

Let me caution you with this poll that we also won most of the polls for the 1956 Georgia “Soldier’s Memorial flag” our official State flag of Georgia conceived by Judge John Sammons Bells that was unceremoniously taken down in 2001. They did not listen to the people of Georgia back then.

Mississippian’s however, were allowed to vote on their 1890s State flag, that also includes the Confederate Battle flag in the design, and they chose to keep it. Georgian’s were allowed to vote on a State flag but their 1956 flag with the Confederate flag it its design, was excluded in the vote. Democracy was at work in Mississippi but not Georgia.

Stone Mountain has been filmed many times including in the 1954 movie “A Man called Peter” starring Richard Todd as Reverend Peter Marshall and Jean Peters as his wife.

Take the time to learn about the South’s President Jefferson Davis, Gen. Robert E. Lee and Gen. Stonewall Jackson who died 150 years ago on May 10, 1863 and share with your family.

Jefferson and wife Varina Davis adopted a Black child, Jim Limber Davis, in February 1864 and…

Booker T. Washington, America’s great Black-American Educator wrote in 1910, ‘The first white people in America, certainly the first in the South to exhibit their interest in the reaching of the Negro and saving his soul through the medium of the Sunday-school were Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.”

Let’s not erase history!


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54938


A native of Georgia, Calvin Johnson, Chairman of the National and Georgia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Confederate History Month Committee—-Scv.org lives near the historic town of Kennesaw and he’s a member of the Chattahoochee Guards Camp, Sons of Confederate Veterans. He is the author of the book “When America Stood for God, Family and Country.” Calvin can be reached at: cjohnson1861@bellsouth.net

BucEyedPea
05-03-2013, 06:34 PM
To my knowledge Robert E. Lee did not own slaves. He was also torn as to joining the south in the Civil War. Ultimately, defending his home is what broke his indecision.

Prison Bitch
05-03-2013, 07:01 PM
As much as I like Southerners, they did take up arms against the US and that's a big no-no. I don't see a big problem with the flag but I don't really hold Lee in high esteem.

Fairplay
05-03-2013, 07:08 PM
Robert E. Lee had some prime real estate in Virginia.

cosmo20002
05-03-2013, 07:09 PM
http://cfp.canadafreepress.com/calvin050313.jpg



Three losers.

BucEyedPea
05-03-2013, 07:14 PM
As much as I like Southerners, they did take up arms against the US and that's a big no-no. I don't see a big problem with the flag but I don't really hold Lee in high esteem.

No they did not take up arms. There was no rebellion or insurrection. The southern states left the Union peacefully via secession. They offered to pay for all federal installations remaining in the southern states and even their portion of debt.

Contrary, to what school history books claim, Fort Sumter did not need to be resupplied. That was done deliberately to provoke the south into the first shot because he entered their territorial waters. No one was hurt or killed. The previous president considered such an act, should the south secede, in those areas to be an act of war. After Fort Sumter Lincoln thanked Naval Commander Gustavus Fox for helping him orchestrate the attack and to generate Northern support for a war. Afterwards, it was Lincoln who invaded the south. Lincoln's war strategy involved waging war on Southern civilians even though such tactics were denounced by the Geneva Convention of 1863 and per Lincoln's own military code.

Secession by the south was no different than our secession from Great Britain. It's as American as apple pie. The Framers considered the Union to be voluntary. They scratched the idea of using force should a state leave at the Constitutional Convention.

The average Johnny Reb, as was Lee, were defending their homes. It's a natural reaction. Most southerners did not even own slaves.

HonestChieffan
05-03-2013, 07:16 PM
Here we go again.

BucEyedPea
05-03-2013, 07:19 PM
Here we go again.

Well, he hasn't heard it before. Be patient for newcomers.

Prison Bitch
05-03-2013, 07:21 PM
No they did not take up arms. There was no rebellion or insurrection. The southern states left the Union peacefully via secession. They offered to pay for all federal installations remaining in the southern states and even their portion of debt.

Contrary, to what school history books claim, Fort Sumter did not need to be resupplied. That was done deliberately to provoke the south into the first shot because he entered their territorial waters. No one was hurt or killed. The previous president considered such an act, should the south secede, in those areas to be an act of war. After Fort Sumter Lincoln thanked Naval Commander Gustavus Fox for helping him orchestrate the attack and to generate Northern support for a war. Afterwards, it was Lincoln who invaded the south. Lincoln's war strategy involved waging war on Southern civilians even though such tactics were denounced by the Geneva Convention of 1863 and per Lincoln's own military code.

Secession by the south was no different than our secession from Great Britain. It's as American as apple pie. The Framers considered the Union to be voluntary. They scratched the idea of using force should a state leave at the Constitutional Convention.

The average Johnny Reb, as was Lee, were defending their homes. It's a natural reaction. Most southerners did not even own slaves.


You'll have to explain what the end o the Articles of Confederation meant when it closed with "The Union shall be perpetual."

Der Flöprer
05-03-2013, 07:24 PM
This is shaping up to be a decent conversation. I don't expect it too last...

cosmo20002
05-03-2013, 07:25 PM
No they did not take up arms. There was no rebellion or insurrection. The southern states left the Union peacefully via secession. They offered to pay for all federal installations remaining in the southern states and even their portion of debt.

Contrary, to what school history books claim, Fort Sumter did not need to be resupplied. That was done deliberately to provoke the south into the first shot because he entered their territorial waters. No one was hurt or killed. The previous president considered such an act, should the south secede, in those areas to be an act of war. After Fort Sumter Lincoln thanked Naval Commander Gustavus Fox for helping him orchestrate the attack and to generate Northern support for a war. Afterwards, it was Lincoln who invaded the south. Lincoln's war strategy involved waging war on Southern civilians even though such tactics were denounced by the Geneva Convention of 1863 and per Lincoln's own military code.

Secession by the south was no different than our secession from Great Britain. It's as American as apple pie. The Framers considered the Union to be voluntary. They scratched the idea of using force should a state leave at the Constitutional Convention.

The average Johnny Reb, as was Lee, were defending their homes. It's a natural reaction. Most southerners did not even own slaves.

The Confederacy didn't fire the first shots of the Civil War, at Fort Sumter? JFC, you are a freaking kook.

Fairplay
05-03-2013, 07:26 PM
This is shaping up to be a decent conversation. I don't expect it too last...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/oShTJ90fC34?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Prison Bitch
05-03-2013, 07:30 PM
The Confederacy didn't fire the first shots of the Civil War, at Fort Sumter? JFC, you are a freaking kook.

The Founders knew quite well what they were risking when they served Old George the divorce papers. "We pledge our lives" is a pretty serious consideration. Had they lost the Revolutionary War they'd have been hung. Frankly the US was very conciliatory to Lee and the other traitors (an unarguable moniker) at the conclusion. Abe gets a lot of credit for shepherding in a fair reunion. Many Northerners wanted execution fr war crimes.

LiveSteam
05-03-2013, 07:33 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wpVHWWHNpV4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:rockon::rockon::rockon::rockon:

RedNeckRaider
05-03-2013, 07:35 PM
This is shaping up to be a decent conversation. I don't expect it too last...

Sadly it will not. I live in the south and the PC nonsense is trying to erase history. That said there is a very ugly history related Stone Mountain so that plays into this discussion~

Fairplay
05-03-2013, 07:41 PM
I found it interesting that both the north and the south built armored ships, which is quite ingenious btw.

And they happened to come out and attack each other practically at the same time, what are the odds of that happening?

One of those ships in that time could tear apart an entire navy's fleet back in those days, crazy.

HonestChieffan
05-03-2013, 07:43 PM
I found it interesting that both the north and the south built armored ships, which is quite ingenious btw.

And they happened to come out and attack each other practically at the same time, what are the odds of that happening?

One of those ships in that time could tear apart an entire navy's fleet back in those, crazy.

And some were built by the French but were never delivered to the confederates. Interesting stuff really

LiveSteam
05-03-2013, 07:44 PM
the monitor and the merrimack

BucEyedPea
05-03-2013, 08:01 PM
You'll have to explain what the end o the Articles of Confederation meant when it closed with "The Union shall be perpetual."

The Articles established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states. They were perpetual...but could be amended. In fact that was the original plan when the Founders met in Philly. Instead we got a runaway convention. I don't know why you're bringing the Articles up because it what was done at the CC resulted in a breach of contract. The Articles also provided for what was considered a weak central govt. I doubt the south would have had a problem under it.

Bewbies
05-03-2013, 08:04 PM
Whether it was good, or bad, erasing your history is a bad idea.

Prison Bitch
05-03-2013, 08:15 PM
The Articles established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states. They were perpetual...but could be amended. In fact that was the original plan when the Founders met in Philly. Instead we got a runaway convention. I don't know why you're bringing the Articles up because it what was done at the CC resulted in a breach of contract.

You're rarely wrong, so I find your historical revisionism here so....peculiar. The words "Union" and "perpetual" are simple words that have no alternative meanings. Trying to wiggle out of such plainspeak is tortured logic. The Founders knew what that said and they knew what it meant. Then they signed it.


The Articles also provided for what was considered a weak central govt. I doubt the south would have had a problem under it.

That only strengthens my point further. They didn't object to perpetuity in the weak version, and then they agreed to an even stronger one after.

Prison Bitch
05-03-2013, 08:16 PM
Whether it was good, or bad, erasing your history is a bad idea.

Was it a bad idea for the Germans to erase the period of 1933-1945 via de-Nazification?

RedNeckRaider
05-03-2013, 08:20 PM
the monitor and the merrimack

Is your sig real? If it is that is too funny. That would fit the pompous little shit perfectly LMAO

cosmo20002
05-03-2013, 08:26 PM
Whether it was good, or bad, erasing your history is a bad idea.

Erase, no. But some parts of it don't exactly need to be celebrated.

BucEyedPea
05-03-2013, 08:27 PM
You're rarely wrong, so I find your historical revisionism here so....peculiar. The words "Union" and "perpetual" are simple words that have no alternative meanings. Trying to wiggle out of such plainspeak is tortured logic.The Founders knew what that said and they knew what it meant. Then they signed it.

You can read the notes from the convention. It's not twisted logic at all it's what was discussed. Then there's the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence.

That only strengthens my point further. They didn't object to perpetuity in the weak version, and then they agreed to an even stronger one after.

No, it doesn't because it was discussed at the convention. I've studied this. They debated the use of force if a state wanted to leave and scrapped it. It was considered a voluntary union. Even the papers during the Civil War discussed the union being voluntary.

LiveSteam
05-03-2013, 08:28 PM
Is your sig real? If it is that is too funny. That would fit the pompous little shit perfectly LMAO

Ya it's a Quote from La la la

RedNeckRaider
05-03-2013, 08:31 PM
Ya it's a Quote from La la la

LMAO ROFL

Prison Bitch
05-03-2013, 08:31 PM
No, it doesn't because it was discussed at the convention. I've studied this. They debated the use of force if a state wanted to leave and scrapped it. It was considered a voluntary union. Even the papers during the Civil War discussed the union being voluntary.


Fair enough, no sense debating this. The Supreme Court already ruled in the 1880s in Texas v White that states (in that case Texas) have no right to secede. So it really doesn't even matter what you or I believe the Founders wanted since it's now Constitutional Law.

Going forward any attempt to secede will be viewed as a violation of a contract and will not be allowed. Peaceful breaks can and do happen but it's not a unilateral decision.

BucEyedPea
05-03-2013, 08:38 PM
Fair enough, no sense debating this. The Supreme Court already ruled in the 1880s in Texas v White that states (in that case Texas) have no right to secede. So it really doesn't even matter what you or I believe the Founders wanted since it's now Constitutional Law.

I don't care what the SC said. They can make errors and they do. I don't expect the courts who work for the state to protect our natural rights. They always expand their powers. If that's the case on this, then they have trashed the Declaration of Independence too. It's like saying we have to put up with tyranny in perpetuity. That's what the Second Amendment was for as well. This is what you're defending.

Going forward any attempt to secede will be viewed as a violation of a contract and will not be allowed. Peaceful breaks can and do happen but it's not a unilateral decision.
Tell me, do you feel this also applies to the break up of the Soviet Union too?

Prison Bitch
05-03-2013, 08:45 PM
I don't care what the SC said. They can make errors and they do. I don't expect the courts who work for the state to protect our natural rights. They always expand their powers. If that's the case on this, then they have trashed the Declaration of Independence too. It's like saying we have to put up with tyranny in perpetuity. That's what the Second Amendment was for as well. This is what you're defending.

I'm speaking of secession in legal context. You are bringing in "tyranny" and other justifications for the act. That's outside the scope of what I'm discussing. Focus on the topic we began with - what the Founders intended. We disagree on that. Moving onward we see the SC make the next decision. And it's not been debated in the past 130 years since. That's the scope.



Tell me, do you feel this also applies to the break up of the Soviet Union too?

Kinda weird tangent here.

Fairplay
05-03-2013, 09:12 PM
Change the faces of the riders on the monument to Obama, Ried and Pelosi ushering in a new era to America. Like the opening of the seals in the bible.

ThatRaceCardGuy
05-03-2013, 09:38 PM
Not at all surprise to find out so many of you are southern sympathizers. ..

Bewbies
05-03-2013, 09:46 PM
Was it a bad idea for the Germans to erase the period of 1933-1945 via de-Nazification?

Yes. History should always been known. That's why progressives work so hard to erase ours.

LiveSteam
05-03-2013, 09:47 PM
Not at all surprise to find out so many of you are southern sympathizers. ..

Queer




















































































































































































sympathizer

Cannibal
05-03-2013, 09:55 PM
Queer

sympathizer

The redeck pothead bringing up "queers" again. This is becoming a trend. You must like getting it in the can.

KC native
05-03-2013, 09:57 PM
The redeck methhead bringing up "queers" again. This is becoming a trend. You must like getting it in the can.

FYP

cosmo20002
05-03-2013, 09:59 PM
No they did not take up arms. There was no rebellion or insurrection. The southern states left the Union peacefully via secession. They offered to pay for all federal installations remaining in the southern states and even their portion of debt.

Contrary, to what school history books claim, Fort Sumter did not need to be resupplied. That was done deliberately to provoke the south into the first shot because he entered their territorial waters. No one was hurt or killed. The previous president considered such an act, should the south secede, in those areas to be an act of war. After Fort Sumter Lincoln thanked Naval Commander Gustavus Fox for helping him orchestrate the attack and to generate Northern support for a war. Afterwards, it was Lincoln who invaded the south. Lincoln's war strategy involved waging war on Southern civilians even though such tactics were denounced by the Geneva Convention of 1863 and per Lincoln's own military code.



The Confederacy didn't fire the first shots of the Civil War, at Fort Sumter? JFC, you are a freaking kook.

BEP, if you decide to take me off ignore, maybe you will correct your revisionist history here.

Cannibal
05-03-2013, 10:02 PM
FYP

He's a worthless human being. It's pathetic.

Comrade Crapski
05-03-2013, 10:06 PM
All the moonbats got their panties in a knot.

LMAO

KC native
05-03-2013, 10:08 PM
All the moonbats got their panties in a knot.

LMAO

You are a delusional person if you think any one really gives a shit about your bullshit.

cosmo20002
05-03-2013, 10:08 PM
He's a worthless human being. It's pathetic.

Might be more meth than man at this point.

Comrade Crapski
05-03-2013, 10:10 PM
You are a delusional person if you think any one really gives a shit about your bullshit.

So why don't you get your ass back to Taco Bell before it closes?

Cannibal
05-03-2013, 10:15 PM
Might be more meth than man at this point.

Yeah, he says it's weed, but you're probably right, it's straight up meth. His teeth are probably falling out of his dome while he's laying bricks.

Cannibal
05-03-2013, 10:16 PM
When shitswallower has his inevitable coronary, no one is going to give a fuck, in fact, they'll probably throw a fuckin party.

Comrade Crapski
05-03-2013, 10:21 PM
When Barry has his inevitable coronary, no one is going to give a ****, in fact, they'll probably throw a ****in party.

Aint no "probably".

Prison Bitch
05-03-2013, 10:38 PM
You are a delusional person if you think any one really gives a shit about your bullshit.

Please don't derail the topic. We're trying to have an adult conversation in here.

LiveSteam
05-03-2013, 11:29 PM
I love this song. Its so fucking racist

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DavdKjepuQg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ThatRaceCardGuy
05-04-2013, 06:54 AM
Please don't derail the topic. We're trying to have an adult conversation in here.

Nothing about you is "adult."

ThatRaceCardGuy
05-04-2013, 06:54 AM
I love this song. Its so ****ing racist

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DavdKjepuQg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Attention whore wants more attention. ^^^^^^

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 09:15 AM
Word Dump ongoing..... But educational....

What was the Confederate flag?

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9619/fauxflag.png

If you looked at this picture and the first phrase that came to mind was something along the lines of "The Confederate Flag," you would be wrong. This was never the Flag of the Confederate States of America. Furthermore, this flag is not nicknamed Stars and Bars. It was neither the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, nor was it the Confederate Navy Jack (although it's close to both).

The Confederacy actually went through three official flags during its short life. The first such flag looked like this:

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/4946/starsandbars.png

When the Confederate Congress got around to the business of creating a flag for themselves, public opinion was in the favor of modeling it after the American flag. This flag was what came out of their efforts.

The first version of the flag had seven stars, representing the seven states that had seceded by the time of the flag's creation: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas. The remaining stars were added with the secession of Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina, and the pseudo-secession of Missouri and Kentucky. (I say "pseudo-secession" because they each had two governments, one claiming to represent their state in the Confederacy and one claiming to represent it in the Union.)

This, by the way, is the flag that is properly referred to as Stars and Bars.

Now, during the First Battle of Bull Run (that's the First Battle of Manassas for you southerners), the Stars and Bars caused a bit of confusion thanks to its resemblance to the Stars and Stripes.

One of the Confederate commanders at the battle, Brigadier General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard expressed his frustration to his personal aide, a man by the name of William Porcher Miles.

When not hanging around with Beauregard, Miles was a member of the Confederate Congress. In fact, he had been on the committee that approved the Stars and Bars flag. He wasn't a fan of the Stars and Bars for the same reason that most people at the time were for it: It was similar to the American flag.

He told Beauregard that when they were debating the matter of the flag, he had designed an alternative flag of his own, which was rejected:

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/3876/battleflag.png

Beauregard liked it so much, that he petitioned the Congress to make it the official flag of the Confederacy.

Congress said no.

Beauregard sought a compromise: He suggested that the Confederacy fly the Stars and Bars as its official flag, but adopt Miles' flag as their Battle Flag -- something that could be flown on the battlefield without generating confusion.

Congress didn't say anything.

Well, they didn't say anything because he didn't ask them: They were adjourned at the time. He took up the issue with the War Department, and they approved of his idea.

Later, the Confederate Navy decided to use a modified version of the flag as their Jack -- that's the flag flown on the front of a ship, usually for ceremonial reasons.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/8610/secondnavyjack.png

The popularity of the Battle Flag convinced the government of the Confederacy to eventually incorporate it when they redesigned the official flag, nicknamed the Stainless Banner:



Over time, a clamor grew about the fact that the flag might be confused for a white flag of surrender when the wind was just right. So, it was slightly modified into what is called the Blood-Stained Banner:

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2893/bloodstainedbanner.png

The concern about surrender is rather ironic, because the Confederacy surrendered about a month after adopting the Blood-Stained Banner.

The flag that most people think of as the Confederate Flag was never flown by the Confederacy at all -- it was invented by southerners in the 20th century and, depending on who you ask, symbolizes anything ranging from white power to southern pride.

But whatever you think of the flag, one thing is certain: It was never flown by the Confederate States of America. It uses the colors of the Battle Flag and the shape of the Navy Jack, but it's not exactly either one.

To conclude, this symbolizes treason:

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/4946/starsandbars.png

And this symbolizes racism:

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9619/fauxflag.png

/Don't argue with BEP on the civil war
//http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

ILChief
05-04-2013, 10:27 AM
Let's have a Benedict Arnold shrine too

Fairplay
05-04-2013, 10:34 AM
Who is buried in Grant's tomb?

Frazod
05-04-2013, 10:35 AM
Let's have a Benedict Arnold shrine too

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/2807178.jpg

PunkinDrublic
05-04-2013, 10:35 AM
Word Dump ongoing..... But educational....

What was the Confederate flag?

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9619/fauxflag.png

If you looked at this picture and the first phrase that came to mind was something along the lines of "The Confederate Flag," you would be wrong. This was never the Flag of the Confederate States of America. Furthermore, this flag is not nicknamed Stars and Bars. It was neither the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, nor was it the Confederate Navy Jack (although it's close to both).

The Confederacy actually went through three official flags during its short life. The first such flag looked like this:

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/4946/starsandbars.png

When the Confederate Congress got around to the business of creating a flag for themselves, public opinion was in the favor of modeling it after the American flag. This flag was what came out of their efforts.

The first version of the flag had seven stars, representing the seven states that had seceded by the time of the flag's creation: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas. The remaining stars were added with the secession of Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina, and the pseudo-secession of Missouri and Kentucky. (I say "pseudo-secession" because they each had two governments, one claiming to represent their state in the Confederacy and one claiming to represent it in the Union.)

This, by the way, is the flag that is properly referred to as Stars and Bars.

Now, during the First Battle of Bull Run (that's the First Battle of Manassas for you southerners), the Stars and Bars caused a bit of confusion thanks to its resemblance to the Stars and Stripes.

One of the Confederate commanders at the battle, Brigadier General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard expressed his frustration to his personal aide, a man by the name of William Porcher Miles.

When not hanging around with Beauregard, Miles was a member of the Confederate Congress. In fact, he had been on the committee that approved the Stars and Bars flag. He wasn't a fan of the Stars and Bars for the same reason that most people at the time were for it: It was similar to the American flag.

He told Beauregard that when they were debating the matter of the flag, he had designed an alternative flag of his own, which was rejected:

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/3876/battleflag.png

Beauregard liked it so much, that he petitioned the Congress to make it the official flag of the Confederacy.

Congress said no.

Beauregard sought a compromise: He suggested that the Confederacy fly the Stars and Bars as its official flag, but adopt Miles' flag as their Battle Flag -- something that could be flown on the battlefield without generating confusion.

Congress didn't say anything.

Well, they didn't say anything because he didn't ask them: They were adjourned at the time. He took up the issue with the War Department, and they approved of his idea.

Later, the Confederate Navy decided to use a modified version of the flag as their Jack -- that's the flag flown on the front of a ship, usually for ceremonial reasons.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/8610/secondnavyjack.png

The popularity of the Battle Flag convinced the government of the Confederacy to eventually incorporate it when they redesigned the official flag, nicknamed the Stainless Banner:



Over time, a clamor grew about the fact that the flag might be confused for a white flag of surrender when the wind was just right. So, it was slightly modified into what is called the Blood-Stained Banner:

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2893/bloodstainedbanner.png

The concern about surrender is rather ironic, because the Confederacy surrendered about a month after adopting the Blood-Stained Banner.

The flag that most people think of as the Confederate Flag was never flown by the Confederacy at all -- it was invented by southerners in the 20th century and, depending on who you ask, symbolizes anything ranging from white power to southern pride.

But whatever you think of the flag, one thing is certain: It was never flown by the Confederate States of America. It uses the colors of the Battle Flag and the shape of the Navy Jack, but it's not exactly either one.

To conclude, this symbolizes treason:

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/4946/starsandbars.png

And this symbolizes racism:

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9619/fauxflag.png

/Don't argue with BEP on the civil war
//http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

Great article you posted at the end. Really explains why so many southerners have a revisionist view of the civil war.

Fairplay
05-04-2013, 10:37 AM
Jefferson Davis had a tv show named in his honor in the 1970's.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 11:00 AM
Great article you posted at the end. Really explains why so many southerners have a revisionist view of the civil war.

ALL history telling is based on viewpoints. Revisionist is a bogus term for this, as it implies a fabrication in any changes. Oftentimes, it's adding information that has been omitted. Afterall, history is always written by the victors.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 11:02 AM
Not at all surprise to find out so many of you are southern sympathizers. ..
:LOL:Can't wait to see this:
http://www.copperheadthemovie.com/

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 11:06 AM
I'm speaking of secession in legal context. You are bringing in "tyranny" and other justifications for the act. That's outside the scope of what I'm discussing. Focus on the topic we began with - what the Founders intended. We disagree on that. Moving onward we see the SC make the next decision. And it's not been debated in the past 130 years since. That's the scope.

The legal context? Our system is based on natural rights. These are inherent and precede govt's or legal systems. This is focusing on what the Founders intended. They gave us a negative rights document.


"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." ~ From opening of Declaration of Independence


In a letter to William Crawford in 1816, Jefferson stated that if a state wanted to leave the Union, he would not hesitate to say “Let us separate,” even if he didn’t agree with the reasons the state wanted to leave (Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Crawford, June 20, 1816).

President James Buchanan admitted in his last State of the Union address that the federal government did not have the right to force seceded states back into the Union, and that framers rejected the idea of allowing the federal government to use force to compel the obedience of a state:

The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy?
(Answer along with what Madison said at the original Convention and what was scrapped for using military force against a state should they secede in this link http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/voluntary.htm)


Kinda weird tangent here.

I mentioned it because it was a secession too. I'm hoping the EU breaks up next. Power needs to be diffused....we're all safer that way.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 11:10 AM
This is shaping up to be a decent conversation. I don't expect it too last...

Me two.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 11:19 AM
I love this song. Its so ****ing racist

That's a great song (like so many GnR songs), except I can't stand Axl's voice. :(

patteeu
05-04-2013, 11:25 AM
Great idea!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7ndwNgeYMQU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:shake:

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 11:35 AM
Let's destroy the three pyramids at Giza since the Egyptians held slaves at certain times and because it was totalitarian.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 11:40 AM
Let's destroy the three pyramids at Giza since the Egyptians held slaves at certain times and because it was totalitarian.

We should bring down Independence Hall too. They drafted a Constitution there that counted blacks as only 3/5ths of whites and that didn't allow women to vote. The latter is not enough to make up for the former.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Amer0024_-_Flickr_-_NOAA_Photo_Library.jpg

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 11:53 AM
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

Fairplay
05-04-2013, 12:00 PM
The Colosseum in Italy should be torn down with a shopping mall put in its place.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 12:05 PM
The Colosseum in Italy should be torn down with a shopping mall put in its place.

Or have races, wrestling matches or games of physical strength. Just no lions.

Prison Bitch
05-04-2013, 12:30 PM
ALL history telling is based on viewpoints. Revisionist is a bogus term for this, as it implies a fabrication in any changes. Oftentimes, it's adding information that has been omitted. Afterall, history is always written by the victors.

In your case on this thread, it's ignoring 200 years of generally-agreed facts. Not even Rush Limbaugh would follow the arguments you've put forth on this thread, sorry to say.

Prison Bitch
05-04-2013, 12:35 PM
The legal context? Our system is based on natural rights. These are inherent and precede govt's or legal systems. This is focusing on what the Founders intended. They gave us a negative rights document.

You're losing me with every successive post. No, the Constitution is a LAW. It is a legal document Buc. There is no esoteric stuff about "natural law" in there. The States signed a legally binding contract, and they knew what they were doing. You are not allowed to secede and the LAW says so.



You're trying to re-write history to fit your worldview. A worldview I largely share. But I can't ignore facts sorry. If Texas or New Hampshire wants to leave they must get permission from the US. If they leave without permission they have violated clear contract law.




I mentioned it because it was a secession too. I'm hoping the EU breaks up next. Power needs to be diffused....we're all safer that way.


No we're not. There's strength in numbers. America is able to afford its military because 300 million Americans produce 1/4 of the entire planets economic output. That scale is critical to keeping the county safe. (Yes it is mis-used in empire building but that's another topic). 50 state armies would be tremendously inefficient and a mess.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 12:51 PM
You're losing me with every successive post. No, the Constitution is a LAW. It is a legal document Buc. There is no esoteric stuff about "natural law" in there. The States signed a legally binding contract, and they knew what they were doing. You are not allowed to secede and the LAW says so.



You're trying to re-write history to fit your worldview. A worldview I largely share. But I can't ignore facts sorry. If Texas or New Hampshire wants to leave they must get permission from the US. If they leave without permission they have violated clear contract law.







No we're not. There's strength in numbers. America is able to afford its military because 300 million Americans produce 1/4 of the entire planets economic output. That scale is critical to keeping the county safe. (Yes it is mis-used in empire building but that's another topic). 50 state armies would be tremendously inefficient and a mess.

Even under the SCOTUS decision you cited, the "law" as you call it wasn't decided until the latter half of the 19th century. Your assertion that the founding fathers wanted to create a union in which the states required permission to leave is dubious at best. Afterall, they had just seceded from Great Britain and declared that to do so was the God given natural right of all men in 1776.

Prison Bitch
05-04-2013, 12:56 PM
Even under the SCOTUS decision you cited, the "law" as you call it wasn't decided until the latter half of the 19th century. Your assertion that the founding fathers wanted to create a union in which the states required permission to leave is dubious at best. Afterall, they had just seceded from Great Britain and declared that to do so was the God given natural right of all men in 1776.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for secession and if the Founders thought it was such an important concept it'd have been there. Bringing up England is a tangent bearing zero relevance to what the Founders agreed to in written law for the US. Plus as I said before they knew their lives were in jeopardy when they left England so that's a clear understanding that future States who did it might face the same fate. (Which they did)


You and Buc are the ones using "dubious" arguments.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 01:18 PM
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for secession and if the Founders thought it was such an important concept it'd have been there. Bringing up England is a tangent bearing zero relevance to what the Founders agreed to in written law for the US. Plus as I said before they knew their lives were in jeopardy when they left England so that's a clear understanding that future States who did it might face the same fate. (Which they did)


You and Buc are the ones using "dubious" arguments.

The Constitution was written to restrain the federal government, not it's subjects.

I find it pretty incredible that you think the Declaration of Independence has zero relevance when it comes to informing us about the views of our founding fathers on the principles of freedom and government on which they erected our country.

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 01:45 PM
The Constitution was written to restrain the federal government, not it's subjects.

I find it pretty incredible that you think the Declaration of Independence has zero relevance when it comes to informing us about the views of our founding fathers on the principles of freedom and government on which they erected our country.

Well, Lincoln was attacked by the south for using the Declaration of the Independence as an argument against slavery. Guess things come full circle.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 01:56 PM
Well, Lincoln was attacked by the south for using the Declaration of the Independence as an argument against slavery. Guess things come full circle.

That's a pretty uninteresting contribution. I'm left wondering why I should care.

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 02:03 PM
That's a pretty uninteresting contribution. I'm left wondering why I should care.

I'm glad you cared enough to comment.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 02:07 PM
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for secession and if the Founders thought it was such an important concept it'd have been there.

There is nothing in the Constitution barring secession either. It need not have been stated by the Founders since it's a negative rights document and only confers delegated powers specifically enumerated.


You and Buc are the ones using "dubious" arguments.

I think you don't understand the issue of natural rights and negative rights along with delegated powers. If there is no delegated power, specifically enumerated then the feds have no authority to act in that area. As a fellow conservative, I would think you'd understand this idea as it's original intent and strict construction that conservatives claim to adhere to.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 02:12 PM
I'm glad you cared enough to comment.

I read at least the first parts of most of the posts in the threads in which I participate. I frequently skip much of the longer posts when it's clear to me that it's off topic, uninteresting, or otherwise full of shit. If you can keep it short, there's a good chance I'll read it.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 02:12 PM
I think you don't understand the issue of natural rights and negative rights along with delegated powers.

That's pretty clear.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 02:12 PM
You're losing me with every successive post. No, the Constitution is a LAW. It is a legal document Buc. There is no esoteric stuff about "natural law" in there. The States signed a legally binding contract, and they knew what they were doing. You are not allowed to secede and the LAW says so.



You're trying to re-write history to fit your worldview. A worldview I largely share. But I can't ignore facts sorry. If Texas or New Hampshire wants to leave they must get permission from the US. If they leave without permission they have violated clear contract law.


No, I am not rewriting history to fit my worldview. I used to think like you but changed my mind with new information that added to my education. It's a common misconception passed down through our schools, media and pundits. It simply is not based on fact—as in what the Framers discussed and the understanding of the people of that time and even up to the War for Southern Independence.

It's a contract that primarily restrains the Federal govt. Should the Federal govt abuse it's authority or expand it beyond the words—then there is a right to separate from it. The question here is who is in breach?

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 02:14 PM
Well, Lincoln was attacked by the south for using the Declaration of the Independence as an argument against slavery. Guess things come full circle.

Lincoln was just a political opportunist who used what he could to preserve the Union. He didn't even oppose slavery or want to end it.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 02:16 PM
In your case on this thread, it's ignoring 200 years of generally-agreed facts. Not even Rush Limbaugh would follow the arguments you've put forth on this thread, sorry to say.

I am NOT a Rush Limbaugh fan. I don't consider him a true conservative. He's a NeoConservative.
He is wrong about some things, even if he is right about others.

Same with Marc Levin, who also rewrites the Constitution when it suits him, such as war powers.

This idea of generally-agreed can include false ideas which get accepted. You're using herd mentality to make it correct.
Doesn't fly in my book.

Unfortunately, some big govt ideas have seeped into today's right and have been unquestioned by them. This is one.
Because secession, as is nullification by states of some laws and by juries, are another check and balance on the Feds and govt.

It seems to me, you hail from what would have been the Federalist wing from the old days aka the Hamiltonian/Whig parties
as opposed to the Jeffersonian and later Madison, who changed later throwing his side to the Jefferson wing which was anti-Federalist. I mean even, Revolutionary war hero, Patrick Henry refused to endorse the new Constitution. RI refused to ratify it....while ships were sent to put pressure on them. So much for voluntary consent.

Prison Bitch
05-04-2013, 02:55 PM
There is nothing in the Constitution barring secession either. It need not have been stated by the Founders since it's a negative rights document and only confers delegated powers specifically enumerated.


I feel almost sorry for you that you're now in the position of imputing "rights' that aren't spelled out. You're now at the level of the Libs who imputed the "right" to privacy in Roe V Wade....the "right" to birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment....and that the 2nd Amendment really implies "well regulated" to allow gun control. Sad.




I think you don't understand the issue of natural rights and negative rights along with delegated powers. If there is no delegated power, specifically enumerated then the feds have no authority to act in that area. As a fellow conservative, I would think you'd understand this idea as it's original intent and strict construction that conservatives claim to adhere to.


You and Patteu are trying to set a land speed record for non-sequitors. There's only 1 topic here: the legality (or lack thereof) for secession. I've explained multiple times that it's not there and all you can do is go on wild goose chases of semi-relevant tangents and guesstimate what the Founders "probably believed deep down inside".


Strict Constructionists read the Constitution as it's written - not how they wish it was.

Prison Bitch
05-04-2013, 03:02 PM
Well, Lincoln was attacked by the south for using the Declaration of the Independence as an argument against slavery. Guess things come full circle.

The Revolutionary War actually taught the Founders about the dangers of being a Confederation of independent states. It forced them to become a Nation. The War was fought all throughout the entire land mass of the Colonies so nobody was spared. Had the war been concentrated around Bunker Hill or Ticonderoga, it's very possible the South would've been less interested in forming the strong central government they agreed to immediately afterwards.


Another interesting fact is that the Colonies only had 2.5million people and 25,000 of them were killed in the war. In today's proportions, that is equivalent to over 3million Americans dying in a War!

patteeu
05-04-2013, 03:03 PM
I feel almost sorry for you that you're now in the position of imputing "rights' that aren't spelled out. You're now at the level of the Libs who imputed the "right" to privacy in Roe V Wade....the "right" to birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment....and that the 2nd Amendment really implies "well regulated" to allow gun control. Sad.







You and Patteu are trying to set a land speed record for non-sequitors. There's only 1 topic here: the legality (or lack thereof) for secession. I've explained multiple times that it's not there and all you can do is go on wild goose chases of semi-relevant tangents and guesstimate what the Founders "probably believed deep down inside".


Strict Constructionists read the Constitution as it's written - not how they wish it was.

:facepalm:

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 04:00 PM
I feel almost sorry for you that you're now in the position of imputing "rights' that aren't spelled out. You're now at the level of the Libs who imputed the "right" to privacy in Roe V Wade....the "right" to birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment....and that the 2nd Amendment really implies "well regulated" to allow gun control. Sad.

Nice argumentum ad hominem there by putting me into the dubious category of "Libs".

I have imputed nothing nor am I at the level of "Libs" which is a false label for the Progressive left. They are not classical liberals, which is what our Framers were generally 'cept for the Hamiltonian wing. I am a classical liberal and my argument is based on the Framers discussions at the original Constitutional Convention. You are making an argument for force and violence of govt, what our Founders rebelled against and what the left is all about. Of course this includes the current crop of NeoConservatives and BIG govt conservatives.

Your other claims are also false. I support second Amendment rights having argued that "militia" in the vernacular of the time of the founding meant the "people." I have regularly argued against the expansion of the 14th Amendment's substantive due process and incorporation doctrine as bogus if the Federal govt did not infringe a right. So, I do not support the Roe v Wade decision, nor believe it is valid under the Ninth Amendment, which mentions without listing them other rights being held. This is a fact.

I feel birthright citizenship should be done away with. However, I am not aware of any arguments I made for it either.
I simply feel, an amendment is needed on birthright citizenship. I've also argued for repeal of the 14th, and rewriting it to limit its scope because it was written for the newly freed slaves. Nor for privacy as in abortion or sodomy, when the feds didn't make any law on those things.

You don't understand the concept of natural rights or negative rights which is why you're making such arguments.

I support Federalism and the rights of the states to pass laws including laws on public morality. I support restraint of the Federal govt for a much smaller govt, low taxes and free markets. I support the right to secede from any tyranny or repeat abuses of the Constitution including against the states.

Lincoln's war against the Southern States may have kept the nation together geographically, but he destroyed it philosophically. For it was after that war, that we had an expansion of power at the Federal level and an expansion of the 14th Amendment right up through the 1920s and even longer. If anything the arguments you are making fall under that philosophical destruction. I suspect you are also assuming that, because I support the right of secession, that I prefer to not see the union hold. I actually do prefer it to hold but as a limited form of federal action. I think the southern states would have returned because it would be seen to be in their best interests. But it would also have made the federal govt proceed with caution regarding the sovereignty of the states. They were still supposed to remain mini sovereignties even under the new Constitution.

You and Patteu are trying to set a land speed record for non-sequitors.
Seriously, you've got to be kidding here. There are no non-sequiters. You're making this claim is more evidence you do not understand natural rights and a negative rights document. You are unable to duplicate the claim being made is all.

There's only 1 topic here: the legality (or lack thereof) for secession. I've explained multiple times that it's not there and all you can do is go on wild goose chases of semi-relevant tangents and guesstimate what the Founders "probably believed deep down inside".

I've provided the evidence that you are wrong about this alleged legality: Language from the original Constitution Convention and the Constitution itself. Just read the Tenth Amendment:

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.

That's what it says. There are no powers conferred on the Federal govt to use military force to keep any state in the union against its will. It's absence makes that case.

I'll give you another example of a natural right being exercised. Texas leaving Mexico when it became its own republic—then later joined the Union. They did not like how they were being governed by Mexico. By your reasoning, they should have never been allowed to do that and don't belong to the United States. Are you willing to give it back to Mexico?

Strict Constructionists read the Constitution as it's written - not how they wish it was.
Asserting this does not make it so. It's your opinion. I say that's what I am doing and it's not what you're doing. In fact, what I am doing is called originalism, as in original intent. You've shown me no passages or any evidence except to assert it as being so, because it's the law. That's authoritarianism. You are being no different than King George the III. Afterall, most didn't fight the revolution either, because it was led and brought on by the few who had a different set of ideas from others.

Sorry, respectfully I disagree. Your claims are for big govt conservatism.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 04:20 PM
:facepalm:

I know. I am just blown away by his arguments. Fancy, you and I agreeing here as well.:hmmm:

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 04:25 PM
The Revolutionary War actually taught the Founders about the dangers of being a Confederation of independent states. It forced them to become a Nation. The War was fought all throughout the entire land mass of the Colonies so nobody was spared. Had the war been concentrated around Bunker Hill or Ticonderoga, it's very possible the South would've been less interested in forming the strong central government they agreed to immediately afterwards.


Another interesting fact is that the Colonies only had 2.5million people and 25,000 of them were killed in the war. In today's proportions, that is equivalent to over 3million Americans dying in a War!

This is more evidence that you would have been a Federalist back in the day. Having a central govt that was stronger than the Articles was desired but not to the degree they've become or you seem to think.

Madison's Federalist #45 disagrees with you.

Federalist #45: The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered"

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa45.htm

I like the comment in wikipedia on this:

A literal interpretation of Federalist No. 45 would indict much of the federal government's activities at that point as unconstitutional.[3] Madison's view is all but unknown among Americans, although that could be said about many or most of the detailed positions presented in the Federalist Papers.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 04:29 PM
Prison Bitch,
Pick up a copy of the fighting between Hamilton and Jefferson and how Hamilton increased the powers of the Federal govt immediately, and against it language. So much so that Madison, who was actually a Federalist during the Convention, threw his side to Jefferson he was so alarmed by Hamilton's actions.

Hamilton's Curse focuses on this exclusively.

http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382850

Book Description:

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were without question two of the most important Founding Fathers. They were also the fiercest of rivals. Of these two political titans, it is Jefferson—–the revered author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president—–who is better remembered today. But in fact it is Hamilton’s political legacy that has triumphed—–a legacy that has subverted the Constitution and transformed the federal government into the very leviathan state that our forefathers fought against in the American Revolution.

Another description here:

Court historians have long praised the glories of Alexander Hamilton as the greatest of the founding fathers. This view is back in vogue as U.S. economic policy becomes ever more statist...

Hamilton was the master of the political lie. He used his rhetorical powers and elite connections to invent the myth of the Constitution’s “implied powers.” He established the imperial presidency. He devised a national banking system that imposes boom-and-bust cycles on the American economy. He saddled Americans with a massive national debt and oppressive taxation. He pushed economic policies that lined the pockets of the wealthy and created a government system built on graft, spoils, and patronage. He transformed state governments from Jeffersonian bulwarks of liberty to beggars for federal crumbs.

Moreover, DiLorenzo shows that Hamilton, as compared with Jefferson, was an economic ignoramus. Whereas Jefferson was schooled in a classical liberal tradition and revered the legacy of A.R.J. Turgot, Hamilton was an old-fashioned mercantilist who thought that barriers and debt were the keys to prosperity.

The Civil War and post Civil War was basically a return of the Whigs like Hamilton.



https://mises.org/store/Hamiltons-Curse-P534.aspx

Prison Bitch
05-04-2013, 06:35 PM
Absolutely none of that addresses the topic of secession.

cockeyes
05-04-2013, 06:51 PM
Robert E. Lee - 12/27/1856


There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 07:20 PM
Absolutely none of that addresses the topic of secession.

Yes it does. All one needs to say is secession is justified under natural law, absence of any enumerated power or action by the new federal govt in the Constitution on a state that secedes, and lastly what was discussed at the original ConCon to not use any military force against a seceding state because it would be violating the very essence of what the Revolution was fought on. That's all you need.

The parts that don't are in response to your claims on my stands regarding privacy, Roe v Wade etc. that are quoted.
Nice try though.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 07:23 PM
Robert E. Lee - 12/27/1856

Excellent quote from the man who married the great-step granddaughter of George Washington and the great great-granddaughter of Martha Washington—both of whom freed their slaves in their wills upon their deaths. George toyed with many ways to free his slaves including providing them training first otherwise they would not make it in life outside of slavery.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 07:25 PM
Yes it does. The parts that don't are in response to you claims on my stands regarding privacy, Roe v Wade etc.

On the one hand, Prison Bitch cites a SCOTUS ruling as definitive proof that the Constitution prohibits secession from the Union, but on the other hand he criticizes the SCOTUS for "imputing rights" in Roe v Wade. I'd say he's experiencing some cognitive dissonance.

Prison Bitch
05-04-2013, 07:26 PM
Yes it does. The parts that don't are in response to you claims on my stands regarding privacy, Roe v Wade etc.

I just wish you'd apply strict constructionist theory to all matters and not pick and choose the ones that you like best.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 07:27 PM
I just wish you'd apply strict constructionist theory to all matters and not pick and choose the ones that you like best.

I did.

Oh and I edited that post.

Prison Bitch
05-04-2013, 07:27 PM
On the one hand, Prison Bitch cites a SCOTUS ruling as definitive proof that the Constitution prohibits secession from the Union, but on the other hand he criticizes the SCOTUS for "imputing rights" in Roe v Wade. I'd say he's experiencing some cognitive dissonance.

Wow that's dumb. Roe and secession are not defined in the Constitution as rights therefore both lack any explicit justification. You're smarter than this.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 07:28 PM
On the one hand, Prison Bitch cites a SCOTUS ruling as definitive proof that the Constitution prohibits secession from the Union, but on the other hand he criticizes the SCOTUS for "imputing rights" in Roe v Wade. I'd say he's experiencing some cognitive dissonance.

Yup! So much for strict construction.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 07:30 PM
Wow that's dumb. Roe and secession are not defined in the Constitution as rights therefore both lack any explicit justification. You're smarter than this.

No but Roe would be covered as being something for a state to decide under the Tenth Amendment. The SC should have never taken the case.

Secession need not be defined is what you're not getting. Only the powers of the Federal govt are defined in the Constitution.
There is no defined, enumerated or delegated power to stop a state from leaving—particularly peacefully.

The TENTH Amendment
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.

Also the Ninth.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 07:35 PM
From The Tenth Amendment Center


...
This article will talk about the moral and legal basis of secession – which is addressed pointedly in the Declaration of Independence under the section which lists the sovereign rights held by the individual and which is NOT addressed anywhere in the Constitution. Thus, the right is left to the People and the States, under the 9th and 10th Amendments, respectively. Even more fundamentally, the right of secession comes from the “Compact Theory of Government,” the doctrine that holds members of society together in a government system and gives it a legal basis.

That compact theory is a term that was used commonly in the days of our founding, up until the time of the Civil War. It was addressed in the Declaration (governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed”), in the Debates in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in the various state ratification conventions, and in the various articles and declarations of secession adopted by the 11 southern states. In fact, if you read the North Carolina Ratifying Convention notes, the approximately 300 delegates specifically take note of certain fundamental government principles before deliberating on the Constitution drafted in Philadelphia. The first principle is the Compact Theory of government. Our Declaration, while defining our nation’s ideals, is actually a secessionist document. It makes the case for the right of the American colonies to sever its political bonds with Great Britain. And what theory did our Founding Fathers use to support their case? The Compact Theory (“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends” – ie, it’s obligation to protect the rights of the people – “it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.”) Furthermore, the states’ rights’ doctrines of Nullification and Interposition, articulated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively, are based on the compact theory. as well as on our federal system (10th Amendment) and the Supremacy Clause.

Read the entire thing. Secession is a Natural Right

http://northcarolina.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/11/secession-does-a-state-have-a-right-to-secede-from-the-union/

Prison Bitch
05-04-2013, 07:40 PM
No but Roe would be covered as being something for a state to decide under the Tenth Amendment. The SC should have never taken the case.

Obviously.



Secession need not be defined is what you're not getting. Only the powers of the Federal govt are defined in the Constitution.
There is no defined, enumerated or delegated power to stop a state from leaving—particularly peacefully.


Other than the Supreme Court? You might want to re-read the section on the Judiciary powers. It will prevent simple mistakes such as this.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

cosmo20002
05-04-2013, 07:48 PM
Excellent quote from the man who married the great-step granddaughter of George Washington and the great great-granddaughter of Martha Washington—both of whom freed their slaves in their wills upon their deaths. George toyed with many ways to free his slaves including providing them training first otherwise they would not make it in life outside of slavery.

ROFLROFLROFL

cosmo20002
05-04-2013, 07:51 PM
Excellent quote from the man who married the great-step granddaughter of George Washington and the great great-granddaughter of Martha Washington—both of whom freed their slaves in their wills upon their deaths. George toyed with many ways to free his slaves including providing them training first otherwise they would not make it in life outside of slavery.

Quote:
The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence.

Yes, excellent. :facepalm:

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 07:56 PM
Obviously.






Other than the Supreme Court? You might want to re-read the section on the Judiciary powers. It will prevent simple mistakes such as this.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nope. That doesn't do it. The courts err. If that's correct than Roe v Wade was correct. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Remember lawyers are trained in positivist law more than anything. Anyone can place a judicial activist or a judge with an agenda on the courts.

Prison Bitch
05-04-2013, 08:08 PM
Nope. That doesn't do it. The courts err. If that's correct than Roe v Wade was correct. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Remember lawyers are trained in positivist law more than anything. Anyone can place a judicial activist or a judge with an agenda on the courts.


Am I really reading this nonsense? I provide the enumerated power of the Court in the Constitution to regulate disputes between States. You ignore the Constitution based on.....potential bias of lawyers?


You cannot possibly be this unserious.

Prison Bitch
05-04-2013, 08:09 PM
Let's have a Benedict Arnold shrine too

Under the definition of treason as per the Constitution (which Buc hasn't read yet), Arnold and Lee were both guilty.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2013, 08:42 PM
Am I really reading this nonsense? I provide the enumerated power of the Court in the Constitution to regulate disputes between States. You ignore the Constitution based on.....potential bias of lawyers?


You cannot possibly be this unserious.

So if going by the Court, then I take it you support its judicial activism.

I don't need the court to interpret for me. I just need to read it.

mlyonsd
05-04-2013, 10:00 PM
Low life's like JFK should be ripped off walls, monuments, airports and such since he invaded Cuba and got us involved with Vietnam. Same goes for that POS LBJ.

Prison Bitch
05-04-2013, 10:15 PM
So if going by the Court, then I take it you support its judicial activism.

I don't need the court to interpret for me. I just need to read it.

It's not activism if its enumerated Buc. If the Court reverses their prior ruling on secession would that be activism too?

Psyko Tek
05-04-2013, 10:18 PM
fuck the politics
do not destroy art

Amnorix
05-05-2013, 12:20 AM
To my knowledge Robert E. Lee did not own slaves.

:spock:

Seriously?

Amnorix
05-05-2013, 12:23 AM
The Articles established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states. They were perpetual...but could be amended. In fact that was the original plan when the Founders met in Philly. Instead we got a runaway convention. I don't know why you're bringing the Articles up because it what was done at the CC resulted in a breach of contract. The Articles also provided for what was considered a weak central govt. I doubt the south would have had a problem under it.


A contract amendment that is adopted/ratified by all parties is fully enforceable, regardless of what the original plan was for the amendment.

This whole line of argument makes no sense. Never has, and never will.

Amnorix
05-05-2013, 12:31 AM
He didn't even oppose slavery or want to end it.

This is a classic case of you taking a fact and then taking it about 82 steps too far.

Since he emancipated the slaves, it's totally fucking obvious that he DID oppose slavery and wanted to end it. That isn't why he fought the war, but he took advantage of eliminating slavery when he thought it was politically feasible and advantageous to do so.

cosmo20002
05-05-2013, 01:25 AM
This is a classic case of you taking a fact and then taking it about 82 steps too far.

Since he emancipated the slaves, it's totally ****ing obvious that he DID oppose slavery and wanted to end it. That isn't why he fought the war, but he took advantage of eliminating slavery when he thought it was politically feasible and advantageous to do so.

In BEP's revisionist history tonight, I've learned that many slaveholders, including George Washington and Robert E. Lee, were actually opposed to slavery, but recognized that it was best for the slaves to continue on as slaves, because that way they would learn the discipline and skills needed for later, if a day ever came when they weren't slaves.

I suppose they could have freed their slaves and paid them to do the work. but that propabaly would have been a hassle with paperwork and such.

RubberSponge
05-05-2013, 05:48 AM
Low life's like JFK should be ripped off walls, monuments, airports and such since he invaded Cuba and got us involved with Vietnam. Same goes for that POS LBJ.

I just don't understand some of the right's insistance through the years that JFK got us involved in Vietnam. It's like they completely lose an obvious chunk of verifiable history. Same goes with Afghanistan and Obama. I can't tell you how many times I have heard Afghanistan is Obama's war from Republicans. When we invaded the damn place a full 7 years before he was was elected to President. Shift in operations doesn't make it his war in the same sense Nixon's shift in strategy in Vietnam didn't make it his war as well.

FTR...

November 1, 1955 — President Eisenhower deploys the Military Assistance Advisory Group to train the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. This marks the official beginning of American involvement in the war as recognized by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Loneiguana
05-05-2013, 07:30 AM
The majority of the population in the 1860's, north and south, did not agree that secession was constitutional. Of course, BEP knows better than the people who actually lived the history.

Robert E. Lee, January 1861: "Secession is nothing but revolution. The Framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will."

Loneiguana
05-05-2013, 07:33 AM
This is a classic case of you taking a fact and then taking it about 82 steps too far.

Since he emancipated the slaves, it's totally ****ing obvious that he DID oppose slavery and wanted to end it. That isn't why he fought the war, but he took advantage of eliminating slavery when he thought it was politically feasible and advantageous to do so.

This has been pointed out to BEP time and time again. Actual Lincoln quotes, votes Lincoln took in Congress, none of the matters in the Fanatical(closed minded revisionism) history of BEP. Ignore everything that disagrees with the Fanatical viewpoint.

Loneiguana
05-05-2013, 07:40 AM
This has been pointed out to BEP time and time again. Actual Lincoln quotes, votes Lincoln took in Congress, none of the matters in the Fanatical(closed minded revisionism) history of BEP. Ignore everything that disagrees with the Fanatical viewpoint.

Here is a specific example BEP will ignore for Fanatical revisionism. Lincoln introduced a bill in end slavery in D.C.

Lincoln, Abraham. A Bill to Abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia January 1849, manuscript.

Abraham Lincoln, A Bill for Abolishing Slavery in the District of Columbia [Draft]1, [January 1849]

A bill for an act to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, by the consent of the free white people of said District, and with compensation to owners--

http://condor.depaul.edu/tps/Abraham_Lincoln_Presidential/A_Bill_Abolish_Slavery_the_District_Columbia01.gif

From: http://condor.depaul.edu/tps/Abraham_Lincoln_an_Abolitionist_A_Lincoln_bill_AbolishSlavery.htm

/BEP doesn't read primary sources.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-05-2013, 10:31 AM
It should be kept. People need to remember essential parts of our history, which includes the stupidity of defending and celebrating a shameful system of apartheid.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 11:37 AM
The majority of the population in the 1860's, north and south, did not agree that secession was constitutional.

Marjority opinion is irrelevant....particularly after Lincoln ginned up support for the war with Ft Sumter. There were still editorials written saying the union was voluntary. No wonder Lincoln shut down printing presses. That's the act of a tyrant. Other than that, our system was designed to prevent the majority from stomping on the minority. Thus, the words of Madison at the Constitutional Convention and the final decision on using force on a seceding state were scrapped.

Bottom line: No authority for the federal govt to use force to prevent secession. I provided the words and the link. You choose to ignore it. Most statists do.

As usual Progs love the force and violence of the state to force people into doing what they think is right.

In the meantime loneiguana, ignores the fact that Lincoln said different things to different people, (by citing selectively) because he was a lying politician. This is why historians are not in agreement on where he really stood on slavery. But he definitely didn't fight the war for slavery....only when it was a means to an end.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 11:41 AM
It's not activism if its enumerated Buc. If the Court reverses their prior ruling on secession would that be activism too?

There's no enumeration on the feds using force to prevent secession.
The SC is not the sole arbiter of what is constitutional....that's why nullification has been used.

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 11:58 AM
There's no enumeration on the feds using force to prevent secession.
The SC is not the sole arbiter of what is constitutional....that's why nullification has been used.

You're getting desperate now, since you weren't aware the Constitution granted Judiciary this power. So you're reduced to admitting the Constitution itself doesn't really matter after all, what with all that "bias" and potential for errors.



Why don't you just tap out, cry uncle and admit you want to trash the Constitution every bit as much as the Libs do?

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 11:58 AM
Abraham Lincoln on defending slave owners’ right to own their property-

"when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives" (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850)."

That the war was to preserve the union-
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

On Emancipation Proclamation (applied only to states in rebellion not those states that were in open rebellion)-

"The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure."

Was used just to weaken the rebellious states. Meanwhile, Union commanders owned slaves.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 12:00 PM
"Honest" Abe is just a lot of propaganda:

(1) He ruled like a thug and a dictator: shot and killed war protestors ( Gangs of NY movie is about this)...jailed the rest of them even if they were in Congress! He arrested tens of thousands of political opponents, and the shut down of hundreds of opposition newspapers. Telegraph communication was censored. He squashed all dissent.
(2)He also suspended the writ of habeus corpus and even issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger B. Taney the judge issued an opinion that only Congress, not the president, can suspend the writ of habeas corpus under the Constitution. Lincoln declared the writ null and void and ordered the military to begin imprisoning thousands of political dissenters.
(3) He was actually a lawyer for large powerful corporate interests--a wealthy railroad lawyer, before being elected president. He believed in corporate welfare.
(4) He passed the first income tax that was later declared unconstitutional.
(5) He nationalized the money supply.
(6) He only wrote the Gettysburg address to keep England from coming to aid of the South in which case they might have won the war.
(7) He did not oppose slavery in all states.
(8) Lincoln was an extreme white supremacist:
(a) As early as 1840 he "denounced the Democratic presidential candidate Martin Van Buren for supporting black voting rights in New York."
(b) Lincoln had lifelong obsession with "colonization," and deportation of all black people from America.
(c) He favored the creation of an all-white America. This was one of the main reasons Lincoln gave for his opposition to the extension of slavery into the Territories – to keep them all white. It was his well-known white-supremacist views, that explains his rise politically as a leader of the Free Soil movement whose goal was a white West.
(9) Elections were rigged, and new states were created illegally to add to the incumbent government’s electoral college vote count.
(10) Fourteenth Amendment was illegally passed without the necessary votes.
(11) He failed to end slavery peacefully like other nations of his time did (such as England and Spain).
(12) Hitler himself invoked Lincoln’s first inaugural address in Mein Kampf, when he made the case for destroying states’ rights and federalism in Germany.
(13)He was an advocate of a centralized banking monopoly, and of corporations that were closely associated with and subsequently controlled by the state. Mussolini later adopted the same policies, as did imperial Japan. Good ole "honest" Abe of the 19th Century set the stage for the idea of facism in the 20th Century.

Yet court historians ( those annointed by the state) have made Lincoln out as some kind of hero of the Constitution. The most whitewashed president in US History.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 12:01 PM
Force always attracts men of low morality." ~Albert Einstein

"In war, truth is the first casualty."~Aeschylus

"People do not make wars; governments do."~Ronald Reagan

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 12:07 PM
Here's another fact:

Some 300 opposition newspapers in the North were shut down by Lincoln. Some journalists and even congressmen were jailed for being opposed to his war.

This is the context that loneiguana uses to claim Lincoln's war was valid and supported. LMAO

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 12:08 PM
Also there's no such thing as "nullification" of the Supreme Court. Where on earth did you conjure up such a dream?

patteeu
05-05-2013, 12:16 PM
You're getting desperate now, since you weren't aware the Constitution granted Judiciary this power. So you're reduced to admitting the Constitution itself doesn't really matter after all, what with all that "bias" and potential for errors.



Why don't you just tap out, cry uncle and admit you want to trash the Constitution every bit as much as the Libs do?

The constitution doesn't grant the judiciary the power to decide what constitutes a case or controversy between the states, that's a legislative function. It just gives them to power to deal with cases and controversies that arise "under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties".

That means the constitution has to either say that secession is forbidden or grant Congress the power to say whether or not it's forbidden (leaving aside the treaty option for simplicity). It does neither of those things.

Better get back to your prison law library and brush up some more.

Aries Walker
05-05-2013, 12:25 PM
I'm no big fan of the Civil War South, and I'm certainly not getting in to the Lincoln argument, but I will never support the erasing of historical monuments or destruction of antiquities because they're not popular any more. When Egypt was rioting a few years ago, combatants from both sides (mostly) left the museums intact, thankfully, and those that smash-and-grabbed a few things were treated as pariahs by everyone, as they should have been. The Taliban was universally scolded for destroying the Buddha statues in Afghanistan, and the more recent Al-Qaeda targeting of Timbuktu is shameful. No one here is advocating blasting the faces off of Mount Rushmore, even though carving the images of our leaders into the Sioux's holy lands is seriously insensitive.

This would be a violation in the highest order, regardless of how we feel now about the South and slavery and whether or not Davis and Lee and Jackson were good people. Flags can be reverted, if we someday want to; mountain-sized statues are gone for good.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 12:34 PM
The founding fathers' fears about the federal government using force against a state can be seen in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution itself, wherein they stipulated that there could be no federal intervention in a state to "protect" the state against "domestic violence" unless the state's legislature or governor requested such intervention:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union 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 cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Constitutional scholar and former law professor John Remington Graham discusses the framers' refusal to allow the federal government to use force against a state and the reflection of this refusal in IV:4:

It is an historical fact that, on two occasions during their deliberations, the framers in the Philadelphia Convention voted to deny Congress the power of calling forth military forces of the Union to compel obedience of a state, and on two further occasions they voted to deny Congress the power of sending the Federal army or navy into the territory of any state, except as allowed under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution--to repel a foreign invasion or at the request of its legislature or governor to deal with domestic violence. (A Constitutional History of Secession, Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, 2002, p. 287)


To make the case even more concrete, we find the following explanation of IV:4 by James Madison in the Records of the Federal Convention, where Madison specified that state application was necessary before the federal government could intervene to protect a state against "internal commotion":

2. The guarantee [of IV:4] is

1. to prevent the establishment of any government, not republican

3. to protect each state against internal commotion: and

2. against external invasion.

4. But this guarantee shall not operate in the last Case without an application from the legislature of a state. (Records of the Federal Convention, 2:182, 188; Madison, 6 Aug. 1787)

Reposted link:
http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/voluntary.htm

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 12:55 PM
The constitution doesn't grant the judiciary the power to decide what constitutes a case or controversy between the states, that's a legislative function. It just gives them to power to deal with cases and controversies that arise "under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties".

That means the constitution has to either say that secession is forbidden or grant Congress the power to say whether or not it's forbidden (leaving aside the treaty option for simplicity). It does neither of those things.

Better get back to your prison law library and brush up some more.



Since you were asleep during the actual conversation, Buc said that there were no "enumerated rights" to prevent secession. Article III of the Constitution absolutely dismisses her idea without debate. Any attempt to secede would be met with a court challenge and the Judiciary would decide it (just as they did in Texas v. White).


Stay focused Patteu. Stay focused.

patteeu
05-05-2013, 01:22 PM
I'm no big fan of the Civil War South, and I'm certainly not getting in to the Lincoln argument, but I will never support the erasing of historical monuments or destruction of antiquities because they're not popular any more. When Egypt was rioting a few years ago, combatants from both sides (mostly) left the museums intact, thankfully, and those that smash-and-grabbed a few things were treated as pariahs by everyone, as they should have been. The Taliban was universally scolded for destroying the Buddha statues in Afghanistan, and the more recent Al-Qaeda targeting of Timbuktu is shameful. No one here is advocating blasting the faces off of Mount Rushmore, even though carving the images of our leaders into the Sioux's holy lands is seriously insensitive.

This would be a violation in the highest order, regardless of how we feel now about the South and slavery and whether or not Davis and Lee and Jackson were good people. Flags can be reverted, if we someday want to; mountain-sized statues are gone for good.

:thumb:

patteeu
05-05-2013, 01:23 PM
Since you were asleep during the actual conversation, Buc said that there were no "enumerated rights" to prevent secession. Article III of the Constitution absolutely dismisses her idea without debate. Any attempt to secede would be met with a court challenge and the Judiciary would decide it (just as they did in Texas v. White).


Stay focused Patteu. Stay focused.

That's what my post (that you apparently didn't understand) was about. Your position is ludicrous.

Chief Faithful
05-05-2013, 01:43 PM
Since Stone Mountain is owned by the same group that owns Dollywood and Silver Dollar City I'm curious if the petition has any meaning at all.

Loneiguana
05-05-2013, 05:01 PM
Abraham Lincoln on defending slave owners’ right to own their property-

"when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives" (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850)."

That the war was to preserve the union-
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

On Emancipation Proclamation (applied only to states in rebellion not those states that were in open rebellion)-

"The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure."

Was used just to weaken the rebellious states. Meanwhile, Union commanders owned slaves.


Here class is a great example of how a history hack with an agenda distorts facts for their gain.

With the first example, BEP completely ignores the fact that slavery was constitutional, and Lincoln wished to end slavery through the States. The quote doesn't at all say Lincoln favored slavery, only that Lincoln understood the constitution.

BEP lies about history.

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 05:12 PM
That's what my post (that you apparently didn't understand) was about. Your position is ludicrous.

Secession has been decided doofus. Don't get mad at me for it.

Loneiguana
05-05-2013, 05:23 PM
"Honest" Abe is just a lot of propaganda:

(1) He ruled like a thug and a dictator: shot and killed war protestors ( Gangs of NY movie is about this)...jailed the rest of them even if they were in Congress! He arrested tens of thousands of political opponents, and the shut down of hundreds of opposition newspapers. Telegraph communication was censored. He squashed all dissent.
(2)He also suspended the writ of habeus corpus and even issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger B. Taney the judge issued an opinion that only Congress, not the president, can suspend the writ of habeas corpus under the Constitution. Lincoln declared the writ null and void and ordered the military to begin imprisoning thousands of political dissenters.
(3) He was actually a lawyer for large powerful corporate interests--a wealthy railroad lawyer, before being elected president. He believed in corporate welfare.
(4) He passed the first income tax that was later declared unconstitutional.
(5) He nationalized the money supply.
(6) He only wrote the Gettysburg address to keep England from coming to aid of the South in which case they might have won the war.
(7) He did not oppose slavery in all states.
(8) Lincoln was an extreme white supremacist:
(a) As early as 1840 he "denounced the Democratic presidential candidate Martin Van Buren for supporting black voting rights in New York."
(b) Lincoln had lifelong obsession with "colonization," and deportation of all black people from America.
(c) He favored the creation of an all-white America. This was one of the main reasons Lincoln gave for his opposition to the extension of slavery into the Territories – to keep them all white. It was his well-known white-supremacist views, that explains his rise politically as a leader of the Free Soil movement whose goal was a white West.
(9) Elections were rigged, and new states were created illegally to add to the incumbent government’s electoral college vote count.
(10) Fourteenth Amendment was illegally passed without the necessary votes.
(11) He failed to end slavery peacefully like other nations of his time did (such as England and Spain).
(12) Hitler himself invoked Lincoln’s first inaugural address in Mein Kampf, when he made the case for destroying states’ rights and federalism in Germany.
(13)He was an advocate of a centralized banking monopoly, and of corporations that were closely associated with and subsequently controlled by the state. Mussolini later adopted the same policies, as did imperial Japan. Good ole "honest" Abe of the 19th Century set the stage for the idea of facism in the 20th Century.

Yet court historians ( those annointed by the state) have made Lincoln out as some kind of hero of the Constitution. The most whitewashed president in US History.


1) The Confederates did that too. Davis did everything you accuse Lincoln of doing.
2)The confederates suspended Corpus too. You also Lie about the extent of it. Lincoln was the reason a majority was released.
3)lol, citation please
4)The Confederates pass an income tax too
5)The Confederates attempted to nationalize their money supply too (War is expensive) They printed a large amount of paper money that was completely worthless.
6)LOL, England was never coming to the Confederates Aid. There certianly weren't coming after Lee's Defeat.
7) No he opposed all slavery. More lying.
8)LOL. You have absolutely no historical context of racism. More lies.
A) see 8. You supply no context
b) You attack him for colonization, but that is meaningless. Colorization was the most popular avenue for dealing with slavery during that time. You don't attack someone for not having 21st century ideals.
c)Complete lies
9)More lies
10) Lol. More lies.
11) Slavery could have been ended peacefully, but the south withdrew from the Union instead. Slavery was in our Constitution, it could not have been ended peacefully without the South themselves ending it. You also, in a another point, said that Lincoln didn't go to war to end slavery.
12)LMAO Hitler quoted Lincoln. OMG this changes everything!
13)The Confederates did the same thing

Confederate Tyranny:
1)Went to war to protect enslaving other humans
2) passed the first draft in the nation, using the federal government to force people to fight
3)The Confederate Government outright took goods and slaves from southerns for the War effort
4)the Confederate Government dictated to private ships (blockade runners) what cargo they are allowed to carry
5)Widespread taxation

Loneiguana
05-05-2013, 05:28 PM
To make the case even more concrete, we find the following explanation of IV:4 by James Madison in the Records of the Federal Convention, where Madison specified that state application was necessary before the federal government could intervene to protect a state against "internal commotion":

2. The guarantee [of IV:4] is

1. to prevent the establishment of any government, not republican

3. to protect each state against internal commotion: and

2. against external invasion.

4. But this guarantee shall not operate in the last Case without an application from the legislature of a state. (Records of the Federal Convention, 2:182, 188; Madison, 6 Aug. 1787)

Reposted link:
http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/voluntary.htm


James Madison never supported secession. Your lying has no shame. You'll just pull anything out of the air to try to support you fanatical fringe revisionism. All you have are Lies.

"James Madison in his old age lived through the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833. He was against nullification and secession, which he saw lurking clearly in the background of the Crisis. As the author of the Virginia Resolution of 1798 which contended that Congress had no power to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, Madison had his own words thrown back at him, and he took pains in his letters to explain the differences between his Virginia Resolution and the revolution South Carolina was attempting to initiate. I find his words on secession to be of great interest in light of the battle over the right to secede fought after Madison was long in his grave. Here is a letter to Nicholas Trist on December 23, 1832 in which Madison makes his position clear."

Read the Letter at: http://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/james-madison-on-secession/

Loneiguana
05-05-2013, 05:32 PM
Financing The Confederacy

Confederate Secretary of the Treasury Christopher G. Memminger assumed his duties in February 1861 by floating government loans and creating an instant national debt. In 1861 the Confederacy sold bonds worth $150 million in the so-called Bankers Loan, which secured much-needed specie. The government also tapped agricultural staples through the Produce Loan, in which planters pledged their produce in exchange for government paper. Against the receipts of these loans, Memminger issued Treasury notes, circulating paper money with which the government paid its bills. In August, 1861 the Confederate Congress passed a War Tax on various kinds of property to increase government resources. Unfortunately Memminger's department was inefficient in collecting the produce subscribed to the Produce Loan, and he allowed taxes to be paid in inflated state currency. Consequently government paper money fed inflation, which served as an inverse tax on Confederate citizens.
By 1863 Memminger realized that inflation was threatening the government's ability to support itself and the war. Accordingly he proposed and Congress passed a graduated Income Tax and a 10% Tax In Kind on agricultural products. In March, 1863 the Confederacy accepted a $15 million loan from the French banking house of Emile Erlanger that yielded much less than its face value (about $8.5 million), but given the tenuous nature of Southern nationhood, the Confederates made the best deal possible. Still, Memminger's printing presses moved faster than the government could collect revenue, and inflation accelerated. In desperation, in 1864 Memminger imposed a Compulsory Funding Measure, which devalued those Treasury notes not exchanged for noncirculating government bonds. This failed too, as Confederates continued to exchange government paper for goods and services.
In July 1864 Jefferson Davis replaced Memminger with another South Carolinian, George A. Trenholm, but there was little Trenholm could do. The Confederacy never had more than $27 million of specie. The national debt ran over $700 million and the overall inflation was about 6,000%. That the Confederacy persisted as long as it did amid this financial chaos was a wonder.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederatefinance.htm

patteeu
05-05-2013, 05:43 PM
Secession has been decided doofus. Don't get mad at me for it.

OK, I won't. Don't get mad at me for pointing out how poor your grasp of constitutional concepts is.

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 05:53 PM
James Madison never supported secession. Your lying has no shame. You'll just pull anything out of the air to try to support you fanatical fringe revisionism. All you have are Lies.

"James Madison in his old age lived through the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833. He was against nullification and secession, which he saw lurking clearly in the background of the Crisis. As the author of the Virginia Resolution of 1798 which contended that Congress had no power to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, Madison had his own words thrown back at him, and he took pains in his letters to explain the differences between his Virginia Resolution and the revolution South Carolina was attempting to initiate. I find his words on secession to be of great interest in light of the battle over the right to secede fought after Madison was long in his grave. Here is a letter to Nicholas Trist on December 23, 1832 in which Madison makes his position clear."

Read the Letter at: http://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/james-madison-on-secession/



She is shameless no doubt. Nobody "nullifies" the Supreme Court, not sure where she pulled that one out. Maybe it was in a novel she read.

Fairplay
05-05-2013, 05:56 PM
You ever notice that you can't say Robert Lee it has to be Robert E. Lee when referring to the late great general?

Loneiguana
05-05-2013, 06:17 PM
Here's another fact:

Some 300 opposition newspapers in the North were shut down by Lincoln. Some journalists and even congressmen were jailed for being opposed to his war.

This is the context that loneiguana uses to claim Lincoln's war was valid and supported. LMAO

One of the single most talked about case is Copperhead Clement Vallandigham, of Ohio. :

"Vallandigham continued his public criticism of the war effort. In May 1863, he was arrested for violating General Ambrose Burnside’s General Order No. 38, which subjected persons expressing sympathy for the enemy to possible imprisonment. Vallandigham’s conviction by a military tribunal was upheld by President Lincoln, but the prison term was put aside and the war critic was banished to the Confederacy.

Vallandigham remained only a short time in the South before heading to Canada by way of Bermuda. He reentered the United States in disguise from Windsor, Ontario, in June 1864. When learning of his return, Federal officials ignored him."

From: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h790.html

/some tyrant

In fact, the majority of these cases never made it to trail, most of people were released after taking an oath of loyalty. This was very popular in MO, with the shifting partisan warfare within the state. Moreover, the majority of arrests took place in occupied Confederate territory or border states, where the line between dissent and treason was murky.

Another example of BEP distorting history. BEP never gives context or explanation to the fringe insight.

teedubya
05-05-2013, 06:19 PM
Visited here today... It's very "confederate-y"... You totally get that "the south will rise again" vibe here as you drive down Jefferson Davis Drive and Stonewall Jackson Road.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 07:11 PM
She is shameless no doubt. Nobody "nullifies" the Supreme Court, not sure where she pulled that one out. Maybe it was in a novel she read.

No but states have and do nullify federal laws. Real ID is one.

And of course, any state is free to leave. That is if it's really a free country.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 07:13 PM
James Madison never supported secession. Your lying has no shame. You'll just pull anything out of the air to try to support you fanatical fringe revisionism. All you have are Lies.

"James Madison in his old age lived through the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833. He was against nullification and secession, which he saw lurking clearly in the background of the Crisis. As the author of the Virginia Resolution of 1798 which contended that Congress had no power to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, Madison had his own words thrown back at him, and he took pains in his letters to explain the differences between his Virginia Resolution and the revolution South Carolina was attempting to initiate. I find his words on secession to be of great interest in light of the battle over the right to secede fought after Madison was long in his grave. Here is a letter to Nicholas Trist on December 23, 1832 in which Madison makes his position clear."

Read the Letter at: http://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/james-madison-on-secession/

Nope. Madison was against the use of force on a seceding state. Lincoln had no right to invade any state.

Explanation of IV:4 by James Madison in the Records of the Federal Convention, where Madison specified that state application was necessary before the federal government could intervene to protect a state against "internal commotion":

2. The guarantee [of IV:4] is

1. to prevent the establishment of any government, not republican

3. to protect each state against internal commotion: and

2. against external invasion.

4. But this guarantee shall not operate in the last Case without an application from the legislature of a state. (Records of the Federal Convention, 2:182, 188; Madison, 6 Aug. 1787)

The "last case" is item 3, "to protect each state against internal commotion" (which was Madison's alternative term for "domestic violence"), although the list is out of order (2 and 3 are in reverse order). So Madison said this could not be done "without an application from the legislature" of the state.


The Southern states still had republican forms of government and had not requested federal intervention, despite Abe's bizarre claims they were still part of the Union. The Southern states had no desire to overthrow the federal government—they wanted to leave and be left alone.

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/voluntary.htm

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 07:28 PM
From loneiguana's link on Madison:

"The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created."


Sounds like a Declaration of Independence reference here.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 07:34 PM
The power and independent authority of the states were essential elements in the mixed, balanced government formed in 1787.

The respect for them extended even to non-coercion. In the Convention that framed the Constitution it was proposed to give the government power to call out the army to force a wayward state to fulfill its duty.

Madison said:

"The more he reflected on the use of force the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and efficacy of it when applied the people collectively and not individually. -- A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."


A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia and New York -- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 07:40 PM
"Secession is a deeply American principle. This country was born through secession."~ Ron Paul

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 07:48 PM
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union . . . let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."~ Thomas Jefferson


"God bless them both, & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."~ Thomas Jefferson, August 12, 1803 letter to John C. Breckenridge on the New England secession


"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in the union," then "I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate’" ~ June 20, 1816, Jefferson letter to Mr. W. Crawford (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 15, p. 27).

John Quincy Adams believed that if a state or states wanted to secede, then "a more perfect Union" could be formed "by dissolving that which could no longer bind . . ." (John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution, p. 66). In Democracy in America (p. 381)

"To coerce the States [to remain in the Union] is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised" and thought of "a government that can only exist by the sword," with "Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another" a moral abomination (Jonathan Elliot’s Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, p. 232).~ Alexander Hamilton [ Okay, he was different when seeking ratification. ]

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality . . . . If one of he states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right."~ Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America


The American Tradition of Secession (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo243.html)

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 08:00 PM
Four Significant Secession Movements in America
From same link above.

I.The First Secession
America's secession from Great Britain

II.The Second Secession Movement
New England Federalists who by 1814 at the Hartford Secession Convention, decided to remain.
All during this 14 year ordeal they considered the Union voluntary though.

III.The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland.
On the eve of the War to Prevent Southern Independence leading opinion makers in these states advocated either allowing the Southern states to secede in peace; seceding and joining the Southern Confederacy; or seceding to form a separate nation comprised of the Middle Atlantic states.

IV. Southern Secession Movement
Belief that the American union was voluntary and that it would be a war crime and a moral abomination for the federal government to force any state to remain in the union was strong throughout America on the eve of the war.

Northern Editorials on Secession (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0844613479?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0844613479&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell) edited by Howard C. Perkins, describes how the majority of Northern newspapers advocated peaceful secession of the Southern states in 1860-61:


Bangor Daily Union editorialized on November 13, 1860 that
"The Union depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone."

The New York Journal of Commerce condemned "the meddlesome spirit" of Northern "Yankees" who "seek to regulate and control people in other communities."

The New York Tribune wrote on December 17, 1860 that "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."

The Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat editorialized on January 11, 1861 that "Secession is the very germ of liberty . . . the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state."

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 08:07 PM
Here class is a great example of how a history hack with an agenda distorts facts for their gain.

With the first example, BEP completely ignores the fact that slavery was constitutional, and Lincoln wished to end slavery through the States. The quote doesn't at all say Lincoln favored slavery, only that Lincoln understood the constitution.

BEP lies about history.

Of course, you alter my argument first, to make it look like you're taking it down when you're not.
Strawman King.

For one, I know slavery was Constitutional. So look who is lying. Project much?

But again, Lincoln didn't fight the war to save the slaves. He also said different things to different groups of people about slavery a la Bill Clinton as a politician. Even historians agree that he said contradictory things about it.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 08:09 PM
Here is a specific example BEP will ignore for Fanatical revisionism. Lincoln introduced a bill in end slavery in D.C.

Lincoln, Abraham. A Bill to Abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia January 1849, manuscript.

Abraham Lincoln, A Bill for Abolishing Slavery in the District of Columbia [Draft]1, [January 1849]

A bill for an act to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, by the consent of the free white people of said District, and with compensation to owners--



/BEP doesn't read primary sources.
I know of the DC attempt. Doesn't disprove anything I've stated though. Keep strawmanning.
The District of Columbia was the district of Columbia. It's just the district for the Capital. BFD!

I provided quotes of Lincoln—those are primary sources no matter how much you want to make a strawman out of them.

Aries Walker
05-05-2013, 08:13 PM
Nine posts in a row. That might be a new record.

Then again, it might not.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 08:15 PM
Nine posts in a row. That might be a new record.

Then again, it might not.

Hey, I'm backing up my case. If longeiguana hadn't arrived to challenged I needn't have to do this.
But he's wrong.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 08:22 PM
South Carolina bill declares ObamaCare “null and void,” criminalizes implementation

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/03/south-carolina-bill-declares-obamacare-null-and-void-criminalizes-implementation/

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 08:35 PM
"Secession is a deeply American principle. This country was born through secession."~ Ron Paul

I'm sure Dr Paul is aware that England didn't allow the secession. And that's the whole point.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 08:37 PM
I'm sure Dr Paul is aware that England didn't allow the secession. And that's the whole point.

England was a monarchy. Monarchies are like that. Our system was designed to be different.
However, your point really goes to show that government is really force. The idea there's some sort of social contract is bogus. Governments, especially when they amass more power, never like to give any up.

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 08:39 PM
The Constitution isn't a "social" contract.

cosmo20002
05-05-2013, 08:44 PM
Hey, I'm backing up my case. If longeiguana hadn't arrived to challenged I needn't have to do this.
But he's wrong.

Care to back up your endorsements of the comments about slaves needing to remain slaves for their own good--so they could learn discipline and skills?

I know you really don't care to, since you ignored me before, but I just wanted to call you out again for being a coward and freak show.

CrazyPhuD
05-05-2013, 08:46 PM
South Carolina bill declares ObamaCare “null and void,” criminalizes implementation

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/03/south-carolina-bill-declares-obamacare-null-and-void-criminalizes-implementation/

The governor should sign the bill at Ft Sumter.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 08:47 PM
The Constitution isn't a "social" contract.

I didn't say the Constitution was. I said that because many claim there is a social compact with govt.
I think you need to read what I posted a bit more carefully.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 08:47 PM
The governor should sign the bill at Ft Sumter.

That'd be so awesome. I'd even drive up to go to that.

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 08:48 PM
I didn't say the Constitution was. I said that because many claim there is a social compact.

You said secession would be allowed if we really were a free country. We aren't- we have a set of laws to abide by. That's your mistake here

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 08:53 PM
You said secession would be allowed if we really were a free country. We aren't- we have a set of laws to abide by. That's your mistake here

You don't understand my point. My point is natural law and the right to separate when there has been tyranny. This is the act of free men—not men held in bondage.

THAT'S your mistake.

Now as to laws, there is no law stating the Federal govt can use force on a state wishing to leave. But this is re-arguing the same points again. I don't care to make a circular argument.

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 08:57 PM
Sure they can. The Executive branch has the full authority to put down rebellions. They can use force to ensure desegregation and other laws, ie removing the Ten Commandments from the Alabama court house. Federal law trumps state laws so your argument is incorrect


You can't call anything you disagree with "tyranny"

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 09:02 PM
Sure they can. The Executive branch has the full authority to put down rebellions. They can use force to ensure desegregation and other laws, ie removing the Ten Commandments from the Alabama court house. Federal law trumps state laws so your argument is incorrect


You can't call anything you disagree with "tyranny"

No, I am saying when there is a series of abuses or what people see as tyranny, they have a right under natural law to dissolve those bonds.

BTW, while we're at it, the states preceded the federal govt. The states created it because they ratified the Constitution. Thus getting out of it is implicit. At least Jefferson recognized state's rights above the Union.

I consider Judge Napolitano to be well schooled in constitutional history and even he says Lincoln's "actions were unconstitutional and he knew it." Judge Napolitano also repeated that the issue of using force to keep a state in the union was in fact debated — and rejected — at the Constitutional Convention as part of the "Virginia Plan." ( I posted this earlier.)

Lincoln destroyed the Union of our Founding Fathers and replaced it with an even stronger centralized government.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 09:05 PM
Sure they can. The Executive branch has the full authority to put down rebellions.

This is also a re hash of points already discussed. There was no rebellion. Return to the earlier part of the thread. I've no intention of reposting a full response to this.

They can use force to ensure desegregation and other laws, ie removing the Ten Commandments from the Alabama court house. Federal law trumps state laws so your argument is incorrect.

Nope. I see that your a Progressive, not a conservative with this statement.


You can't call anything you disagree with "tyranny"

I don't. You're generalizing now.

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 09:08 PM
Judge Napolitano? I just spit out my coke laughing.


Why don't we let Antonin Scalia weigh in on this one:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/02/17/justice-scalias-thoughts-on-state-secession-penned-to-one-man/

Aries Walker
05-05-2013, 09:14 PM
I'm curious, BEP, if you have a BA or an MA in History. If you don't, you should consider getting one - you certainly have no problem doing a ton of reading, which is most of the degree. If you can consent to reading outside of your Libertarian comfort zone and having your beliefs challenged, you could potentially do pretty well.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 09:16 PM
Judge Napolitano? I just spit out my coke laughing.

He is a great proponent of liberty, limited govt and the Constitution. He had a program called Freedom Watch on Fox and you're spitting out a coke?

BTW why would anyone drink coke?

Why don't we let Antonin Scalia weigh in on this one:


He's wrong and he's a disgrace to strict construction ( which he has claimed to not be) and more so to original intent. Although, I generally respect him, I've disagreed with him even on some current points he's made. He's also said there is more that can be done regarding guns. There is ZERO authority in the Constitution for the Federal govt to infringe on gun rights. The states can make reasonable laws. He said gun for a "lawful" purpose only. That flies in the face of needing guns to prevent tyranny which any govt who has gone that routed will consider unlawful.


He's not a historian either. Lawyers are trained in positivist law, like I said before.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 09:17 PM
I'm curious, BEP, if you have a BA or an MA in History. If you don't, you should consider getting one - you certainly have no problem doing a ton of reading, which is most of the degree. If you can consent to reading outside of your Libertarian comfort zone and having your beliefs challenged, you could potentially do pretty well.

I'm not a libertarian. I'm a paleo Conservative. I don't need to pay for a degree when I can read about it on my own.

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 09:17 PM
I figured you'd just brush off Scalia as "biased"

Fairplay
05-05-2013, 09:20 PM
Sherman is underrated as a general, his march to the sea destroying supplies, industry and military was the death knell to the south. He destroyed them from behind enemy lines and decimated what little hope was left.

I credit him for his ruthlessness to end the worst war in American history.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 09:21 PM
Charles Dickens could see through the charade, as did many Britons of that time:

Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel. ~ Charles Dickens



The London press made this argument:

The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 09:21 PM
I credit him for his ruthlessness to end the worst war in American history.

sick

He could have just gone home too.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 09:24 PM
I figured you'd just brush off Scalia as "biased"

Scalia has been wrong on a number of things in recent years. He's moved away from law and into politics, particularly under Bush.

Fairplay
05-05-2013, 09:26 PM
sick

He could have just gone home too.



This war needed to end, it just did.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 09:26 PM
This war needed to end, it just did.

It needn't have been started.

Fairplay
05-05-2013, 09:29 PM
It needn't have been started.



Yes, things were coming to a head big time, a matter of time before shit hit the fan sadly.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 09:31 PM
For Prison Bitch:

Lew Rockwell on Scalia's claim there is no right to secede:

So many official conservatives fall into the category of double agents for the regime: Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Glenn Beck, and so on. And here Antonin Scalia denies secession. He is replying to a screenwriter's query about a possible court case on secession:

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.

Scalia is a reliable supporter of presidential dictatorship, the police state, the torture-warfare state, and the empire. He's also a close friend and ally of Dick Cheney's, whom he elected vice president. Now, Scalia says some good things. That is essential to being an effective double agent. But not on the core issues of state power. However, I do appreciate his clarity here, and his correct description of the purpose of the socialist pledge. (Thanks to Bret Moore)

cosmo20002
05-05-2013, 09:43 PM
For Prison Bitch:

Lew Rockwell on Scalia's claim there is no right to secede:

So many official conservatives fall into the category of double agents for the regime: Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Glenn Beck, and so on. And here Antonin Scalia denies secession. He is replying to a screenwriter's query about a possible court case on secession:



ROFL ROFL ROFL

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 09:51 PM
I'm not following Buc. The cite quotes Scalia but doesn't explain why he's wrong. It just calls him a double agent. Where is the counter to his comment??

patteeu
05-05-2013, 10:26 PM
I'm sure Dr Paul is aware that England didn't allow the secession. And that's the whole point.

That's not even *a* point. How can it be the whole point?

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 10:52 PM
I'm not following Buc. The cite quotes Scalia but doesn't explain why he's wrong. It just calls him a double agent. Where is the counter to his comment??
The point was that he's not always considered correct on the Constitution even by other limited govt types.

He, as well as you, are arguing positive law. I am arguing natural law.

teedubya
05-05-2013, 11:02 PM
Hey fuckers... I went here today.

http://i.imgur.com/k9Wfj0Y.png

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 11:03 PM
The point was that he's not always considered correct on the Constitution even by other limited govt types.

He, as well as you, are arguing positive law. I am arguing natural law.

But he didn't bother to explain why Scalia was wrong. You're arguing its all just philosophical, but we are discussing the law. If the author can't point out where Scalia erred, what's his (and your) point?

CrazyPhuD
05-06-2013, 12:12 AM
Hey fuckers... I went here today.

http://i.imgur.com/k9Wfj0Y.png
http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/665-thats-racist.gif

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 07:13 AM
Nope. Madison was against the use of force on a seceding state. Lincoln had no right to invade any state.

Explanation of IV:4 by James Madison in the Records of the Federal Convention, where Madison specified that state application was necessary before the federal government could intervene to protect a state against "internal commotion":

2. The guarantee [of IV:4] is

1. to prevent the establishment of any government, not republican

3. to protect each state against internal commotion: and

2. against external invasion.

4. But this guarantee shall not operate in the last Case without an application from the legislature of a state. (Records of the Federal Convention, 2:182, 188; Madison, 6 Aug. 1787)

The "last case" is item 3, "to protect each state against internal commotion" (which was Madison's alternative term for "domestic violence"), although the list is out of order (2 and 3 are in reverse order). So Madison said this could not be done "without an application from the legislature" of the state.


The Southern states still had republican forms of government and had not requested federal intervention, despite Abe's bizarre claims they were still part of the Union. The Southern states had no desire to overthrow the federal government—they wanted to leave and be left alone.

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/voluntary.htm

You are arguing against Madison (a Founder of the Country) own letters where he explains why you are wrong. You are a hack.

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 07:15 AM
I know of the DC attempt. Doesn't disprove anything I've stated though. Keep strawmanning.
The District of Columbia was the district of Columbia. It's just the district for the Capital. BFD!

I provided quotes of Lincoln—those are primary sources no matter how much you want to make a strawman out of them.

You provide quotes of Lincoln out of context and without and explanation for what he is saying. You use quotes by Lincoln dishonestly to lie about history.

You ignore all quotes by Lincoln that don't say what you want him to say.

You are a hack.

You also have no idea what strawman means. But I am sure that will be your argument since you don't actually address anything pointed out.

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 07:19 AM
But he didn't bother to explain why Scalia was wrong. You're arguing its all just philosophical, but we are discussing the law. If the author can't point out where Scalia erred, what's his (and your) point?

BEP doesn't bother to explain anything. Just drop a lot of nonsense in a thread (That I am sure BEP doesn't even understand) without any explanation of why it is important.

Look at how BEP uses Lincoln quotes.

BEP in one post attacks Lincoln for being pro slavery, though all quotes given are him attempting to peacefully end the Crisis. In another post, BEP attack Lincoln for not ending the Crisis peacefully, despite giving quotes of him trying. Its hypocritical, dishonest, and the biggest clue that BEP is fringe fanatical history hack with an agenda.

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 07:24 AM
[

I.The First Secession
America's secession from Great Britain [/INDENT]

This is the biggest lie you have ever told. Please explain why Britain did not have the right to force British colonies to stay a part of Britain, legally.


You fact that will lie about all history by thinking "revolution" and "secession" are interchangeable is completely agenda filled. You cannot willy nilly substitute secession for revolution.

patteeu
05-06-2013, 07:47 AM
This is the biggest lie you have ever told. Please explain why Britain did not have the right to force British colonies to stay a part of Britain, legally.


You fact that will lie about all history by thinking "revolution" and "secession" are interchangeable is completely agenda filled. You cannot willy nilly substitute secession for revolution.

She's right. It was a secession.

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 08:41 AM
BEP doesn't bother to explain anything. Just drop a lot of nonsense in a thread (That I am sure BEP doesn't even understand) without any explanation of why it is important.

Look at how BEP uses Lincoln quotes.

BEP in one post attacks Lincoln for being pro slavery, though all quotes given are him attempting to peacefully end the Crisis. In another post, BEP attack Lincoln for not ending the Crisis peacefully, despite giving quotes of him trying. Its hypocritical, dishonest, and the biggest clue that BEP is fringe fanatical history hack with an agenda.


On matters of opinion, it's hard to really argue with someone. If she doesn't like Lincoln that's fine - but she makes up history about him. If she doesn't like the fact secession is disallowed by our own Constitution that too is fine. But don't make up lies that it's actually truly deep-down-inside super-secret-double-probation legal in a "natural law" sorta way. That's where she goes from opionated to crazy.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:42 AM
But he didn't bother to explain why Scalia was wrong. You're arguing its all just philosophical, but we are discussing the law. If the author can't point out where Scalia erred, what's his (and your) point?
I didn't put up for that narrow reason. I put it up to show that Scalia has come down on the wrong side of some Constitutional issues. The ones listed in the post.

Other than that, thank you for undoing the American Revolution—which was philosophical. You act as if this doesn't matter. It does and it's important. Otherwise, there are no inherent or inalienable rights.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:45 AM
On matters of opinion, it's hard to really argue with someone. If she doesn't like Lincoln that's fine - but she makes up history about him. If she doesn't like the fact secession is disallowed by our own Constitution that too is fine. But don't make up lies that it's actually truly deep-down-inside super-secret-double-probation legal in a "natural law" sorta way. That's where she goes from opionated to crazy.

I have made up NOTHING about Lincoln. Now that loneiquana, has projected his own flaws onto me incorrectly, I should point out to you that his main source has been a man who was a Marxist who was opposed to the breakup of the Soviet Union. That tells me his source LOVES centralized power and tyranny ( which brings it about as there are no checks against any abuse ). Since we already know loneiguana is a Progressive, we know that he's in the same camp as his source.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:47 AM
BEP doesn't bother to explain anything. Just drop a lot of nonsense in a thread (That I am sure BEP doesn't even understand) without any explanation of why it is important.

Look at how BEP uses Lincoln quotes.

BEP in one post attacks Lincoln for being pro slavery, though all quotes given are him attempting to peacefully end the Crisis. In another post, BEP attack Lincoln for not ending the Crisis peacefully, despite giving quotes of him trying. Its hypocritical, dishonest, and the biggest clue that BEP is fringe fanatical history hack with an agenda.

LMAO Your outburst shows I got to you. Fact is Lincoln invaded the South. That's not an act of peace. You ignore plenty.

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 08:48 AM
Thank you for undoing the American Revolution—which was philosophical. You act as if this doesn't matter.


http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/28882724.jpg

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:52 AM
This is the biggest lie you have ever told. Please explain why Britain did not have the right to force British colonies to stay a part of Britain, legally.


You fact that will lie about all history by thinking "revolution" and "secession" are interchangeable is completely agenda filled. You cannot willy nilly substitute secession for revolution.

Where did I use the word "revolution?" It was a secession. There you go again, with another strawman.

Ya' know some prefer to call the first secession "The American War for Independence" for this reason. I am in that camp unless I don't feel like typing all that out.
And there would have been no physical fighting, had the King accepted the colonial's secession.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:53 AM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/28882724.jpg

Snarky this morning aren't you.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:53 AM
Prison Bitch,
Tell me, what a natural right and natural law are.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 09:13 AM
James Madison never supported secession. Your lying has no shame. You'll just pull anything out of the air to try to support you fanatical fringe revisionism. All you have are Lies.



You must love to waste time erecting strawman arguments. Where did I say Madison supported secession? I showed how he was against the use of force by the federal govt in such situations.

Your lying has no shame. Get thee to a psychiatrist for your insane projection.

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 09:16 AM
Prison Bitch,
Tell me, what a natural right and natural law are.

When I bought my coffee this morning I almost yelled out in anger about the "tyranny" of the 13 cents in tax I had to pay on it.

Fairplay
05-06-2013, 09:23 AM
And why do we still have Gettysburg as a national park to this war? It must offend people to have to drive by in disgrace of their country.:shake:


Build an airport there I say, tear down all the monuments and place a Starbucks where Lincoln's speech was given.

Fairplay
05-06-2013, 09:25 AM
Hey ****ers... I went here today.

http://i.imgur.com/k9Wfj0Y.png



One day I will check that place out also teedubya, I love checking out civil war sites no matter how offensive they are.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 09:29 AM
When I bought my coffee this morning I almost yelled out in anger about the "tyranny" of the 13 cents in tax I had to pay on it.

Being snarky suits you.

patteeu
05-06-2013, 09:35 AM
You must love to waste time erecting strawman arguments. Where did I say Madison supported secession? I showed how he was against the use of force by the federal govt in such situations.

Your lying has no shame. Get thee to a psychiatrist for your insane projection.

That's for sure.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 09:39 AM
I see Prison Bitch has now left the thread...once I asked him to define natural law and rights.
I think that gives a clue, as to why there was no duplication of the exact point being made.

I honestly, think he has doesn't know what those words mean. I already know the left doesn't believe in them.

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 09:41 AM
And why do we still have Gettysburg as a national park to this war? It must offend people to have to drive by in disgrace of their country.:shake:


Build an airport there I say, tear down all the monuments and place a Starbucks where Lincoln's speech was given.


Probably because people feel Gettysburg was a battle for the right side of History whereas the Stone Mountain etch features traitors who lost.


(I don't advocate it being removed. Just noting that they did in fact betray their country and they did in fact lose)

patteeu
05-06-2013, 09:42 AM
I see Prison Bitch has now left the thread...once I asked him to define natural law and rights.
I think that gives a clue, as to why there was no duplication of the exact point being made.

I honestly, think he has doesn't know what those words mean. I already know the left doesn't believe in them.

His posts in this thread support your theory.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 09:45 AM
Probably because people feel Gettysburg was a battle for the right side of History whereas the Stone Mountain etch features traitors who lost.


(I don't advocate it being removed. Just noting that they did in fact betray their country and they did in fact lose)

Well, then, we have numerous monuments and memorials built by traitors to the Crown sitting all over the colonial east coast of America: Bunker Hill Monument, Concord and Lexington Visitor's Center, the reenactment of that battle in Concord and Lexington each April, Saratoga, Yorktown et al. How dare those traitors!!!

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 09:46 AM
His posts in this thread support your theory.

Oh, I see. Yes in a certain way. I thought he actually preferred to still be under the British Crown, myself. Because, that's the law.

patteeu
05-06-2013, 09:48 AM
Well, then, we have numerous monuments and memorials built by traitors to the Crown sitting all over the colonial east coast of America: Bunker Hill Monument, Concord and Lexington Visitor's Center, the reenactment of that battle in Concord and Lexington each April, Saratoga, Yorktown et al. How dare those traitors!!!

He subscribes to the "might makes right" principle. Since those traitors won their war, they're not the same as the traitors who lost the Civil War in his mind (even though they both did the same thing).

I don't have a big problem with "might makes right", particularly in international affairs, but in this case, southerners are our brothers and I don't see any reason to continue to emasculate them after 150 years.

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 09:53 AM
He subscribes to the "might makes right" principle. Since those traitors won their war, they're not the same as the traitors who lost the Civil War in his mind (even though they both did the same thing).

I don't have a big problem with "might makes right", particularly in international affairs, but in this case, southerners are our brothers and I don't see any reason to continue to emasculate them after 150 years.

I'm glad you pointed out your hypocrisy about enforcing your will on people who don't welcome it. It's good to know that you too can spot your inconsistencies. Where's their "natural law"? Nothing a few hundred thousand US troops can't take care of.



Comparing leaving England to the South seceding is about the dumbest point I've read on this board. Some wars are legit, some are not. a 5th grader knows that.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 09:58 AM
Comparing leaving England to the South seceding is about the dumbest point I've read on this board.

Well, it is the same thing. Whether or not you think one secession is legit and the other not legit, they are still the same thing.

That any American would justify the slaughter of over 600,000 Americans to right a wrong is insanity. It was a tragedy.

ChiliConCarnage
05-06-2013, 10:11 AM
Hey ****ers... I went here today.


That's amazing looking; I can't imagine how much time and work that took. Way better than the pic in the OP. I vote to keep it. :thumb:

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 10:18 AM
Probably because people feel Gettysburg was a battle for the right side of History whereas the Stone Mountain etch features traitors who lost.


(I don't advocate it being removed. Just noting that they did in fact betray their country and they did in fact lose)

BTW, anyone can be for a war that takes place on the pages of a history book over a hundred years later. People look at such wars differently at the time they occur. When one reads of a war in a history book, they pay no price and of course, the narrative is always written by the victors.

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 10:22 AM
No, not all secessions are "the same thing". Your mental gymnastics are fun to observe on this. And yes, everyone thinks the Civil War was a tragedy. Who doesn't?

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 10:25 AM
No, not all secessions are "the same thing". Your mental gymnastics are fun to observe on this. And yes, everyone thinks the Civil War was a tragedy. Who doesn't?

Accusing one of that doesn't make it true. Asserting such doesn't make it so.

No, a secession is a secession. It has a definition Period! Keep it simple.

You're the one projecting mental gymnastics by getting your categories confused. Logic relies on accurate classification. What you are disagreeing with is whether or a not a secession is valid—in your eyes. That relies on who is doing the seceding and who isn't which is a different aspect of arguing about secession. Nevertheless, they are still secessions.

Now, are you going to tell me what natural law and natural rights are?

patteeu
05-06-2013, 10:47 AM
I'm glad you pointed out your hypocrisy about enforcing your will on people who don't welcome it. It's good to know that you too can spot your inconsistencies. Where's their "natural law"? Nothing a few hundred thousand US troops can't take care of.

Much like you, I'm sure, I don't know what you're talking about. What is it that you think is hypocrisy? Try to put it together in a coherent statement that describes what you're thinking.

Comparing leaving England to the South seceding is about the dumbest point I've read on this board. Some wars are legit, some are not. a 5th grader knows that.

The definition of secession isn't dependent on value judgments like that. Some wars are legit and some are not, but they're all still wars.

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 10:52 AM
You're the one projecting mental gymnastics by getting your categories confused. Logic relies on accurate classification. What you are disagreeing with is whether or a not a secession is valid—in your eyes. That relies on who is doing the seceding and who isn't which is a different aspect of arguing about secession. Nevertheless, they are still secessions.

Sure, and all shootings are still shootings. Justifications be damned.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 10:54 AM
Sure, and all shootings are still shootings. Justifications be damned.

Well, it's a fact this country was founded on secession and there is a tradition of resorting to it in language or in deed from time to time. In fact, there was a slew of petition to the WH seeking permission. As if they actually had to seek permission. LMAO

Now can you tell me what a natural right and natural law are?

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 10:57 AM
Now can you tell me what a natural right and natural law are?

Yes, but only when you admit that secession is disallowed by the Constitution and that you were wrong to say it wasn't.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 11:01 AM
Yes, but only when you admit that secession is disallowed by the Constitution and that you were wrong to say it wasn't.

That's not an answer.

I don't have to compromise my integrity to see if you know what a natural right and law are. You know I won't. You can't answer it, is what you're saying.

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 11:43 AM
That's not an answer.

I don't have to compromise my integrity to see if you know what a natural right and law are. You know I won't. You can't answer it, is what you're saying.

I don't know I'd call your ignorance here "integrity".

Fairplay
05-06-2013, 12:48 PM
Who won the battle of Bull Run?

http://i.imgur.com/MIhVm.jpg

cosmo20002
05-06-2013, 01:24 PM
That's not an answer.

I don't have to compromise my integrity to see if you know what a natural right and law are. You know I won't. You can't answer it, is what you're saying.

I wouldn't worry about it. You did that long, long ago.

You still believe that slaves needed to be slaves for their own good? ROFL :facepalm:

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 01:44 PM
I don't know I'd call your ignorance here "integrity".

That's snide.

Now what are natural rights and law?

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 02:16 PM
That's snide.

Now what are natural rights and law?

What about the Constitution?

patteeu
05-06-2013, 02:28 PM
That's snide.

Now what are natural rights and law?

I'd give up on him. It's clear from his posts that he doesn't understand the concept. If you ever do get him to answer the question, it will just be something he cuts and pastes after a google search anyway.

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 08:00 PM
Where did I use the word "revolution?" It was a secession. There you go again, with another strawman.

Ya' know some prefer to call the first secession "The American War for Independence" for this reason. I am in that camp unless I don't feel like typing all that out.
And there would have been no physical fighting, had the King accepted the colonial's secession.

You again don't explain any of your fringe views. How is it a secession? A secession implies that the Federal Government did not have the right to force keep the seceding parties within the Nation.

The British Monarchy had the legal right to put down a revolution within their colonies.

You are lying about history. This is just one of many examples

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 08:02 PM
LMAO Your outburst shows I got to you. Fact is Lincoln invaded the South. That's not an act of peace. You ignore plenty.

I just find it funny that you are so hypercritical.

You attack Lincoln for being for colonization, but that was the only peaceful avenue the south would have accepted. But then you attack Lincoln for not ending slavery peacefully, when he did attempt.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:03 PM
I don't need to explain what is obvious. Secession is a self-evident truth if you know the definition. It's reading comprehension and logic.

And you are the one who is lying and who is hypercritical. Progressives have been lying since the Industrial Revolution and they still are. And you spend just as much if not more time criticizing me. Often you even start it. This is why you're displaying a classic case of projection. As well as showing you're conceding the argument. TYVM.

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 08:05 PM
Accusing one of that doesn't make it true. Asserting such doesn't make it so.

No, a secession is a secession. It has a definition Period! Keep it simple.

You're the one projecting mental gymnastics by getting your categories confused. Logic relies on accurate classification. What you are disagreeing with is whether or a not a secession is valid—in your eyes. That relies on who is doing the seceding and who isn't which is a different aspect of arguing about secession. Nevertheless, they are still secessions.

Now, are you going to tell me what natural law and natural rights are?

This is dumb and you should feel dumb. You don't even know the definition of a word you just throw around. LMAO

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:05 PM
This is dumb and you should feel dumb. You don't even know the definition of a word you just throw around. LMAO

More proof of progressive scorn for natural law and rights. I always said you guys hate such concepts. Moreover this is more conceding the argument on display here.LMAO

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 08:08 PM
I don't need to explain what is obvious. Secession is a self-evident truth if you know the definition. It's reading comprehension and logic.

And you are the one who is lying and who is hypercritical. Progressives have been lying since the Industrial Revolution and they still are. And you spend just as much if not more time criticizing me. Often you even start it. This is why you're displaying a classic case of projection. As well as showing you're conceding the argument. TYVM.

No, it does need to be explained. Revolution and secession have very different definitions.

The whole point that the South calls it a Secession instead of a revolution is because secession implies the legal right to leave. The colonies did not have a legal right to leave. By any means.

Explain to me how the colonies had the legal right to leave the British Empire?

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 08:08 PM
More proof of progressive scorn for natural law and rights. I always said you guys hate such concepts. Moreover this is more conceding the argument on display here.LMAO

Then actually explain your view when challenged. Or is all you have is deflection?

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:11 PM
No, it does need to be explained. Revolution and secession have very different definitions.

I know that. But it only turned into a war for independence because secession was denied. So govts resort to force. Afterall, they are an institution of force.

The whole point that the South calls it a Secession instead of a revolution is because secession implies the legal right to leave. The colonies did not have a legal right to leave. By any means.
I never said the colonies had a legal right to leave. That's the point I've been truing to make to Prison Bitch. They had a natural right to leave under natural law because no one has to endure repeat abuses. And you call me dumb? Take a look in the mirror.

Explain to me how the colonies had the legal right to leave the British Empire?

I never made that claim about it being a legal right for leaving the British Empire.

You are the new strawman king. You're beating Amnorix now. I get it, progressives or authoritarians just cannot embrace the idea of natural rights that are inherent and do not come from any government. This is the key difference between our founding and other countries. You should move to Europe.

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 08:19 PM
I know that. But it only turned into a war for independence because secession was denied. So govts resort to force. Afterall, they are an institution of force.


I never said the colonies had a legal right to leave. That's the point I've been truing to make to Prison Bitch. They had a natural right to leave under natural law because no one has to endure repeat abuses. And you call me dumb? Take a look in the mirror.



I never made that claim about it being a legal right for leaving the British Empire.

You are the new strawman king. You're beating Amnorix now. I get it, progressives or authoritarians just cannot embrace the idea of natural rights that are inherent and do not come from any government. This is the key difference between our founding and other countries. You should move to Europe.

Strawman? Is that all you got? I'm sorry, I assumed you knew the definition of secession and apparently you don't. You shouldn't use a word you can't define BEP.

Natural Rights don't mean anything here. That is an abstract term that has no bearing on whether or not a group and leave a government within the realm of that Countries law. Natural Rights do not enter into the definition of secession. Secession is the leaving, lawfully, out of a country.

Natural rights also do not stop the British Empire from using force. Force is something that Secession implies is not needed. Legal rights, which secession requires, keep force from being used. The is the whole point of calling it secession.

The American Revolution was not a secession by any definition of the word.

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 08:21 PM
They had a natural right to leave under natural law because no one has to endure repeat abuses.
.

One last point, that is why it was called a Revolution, not a secession. The only had the natural right, not the legal right.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:26 PM
One last point, that is why it was called a Revolution, not a secession. The only had the natural right, not the legal right.

It was preceded by a secessionist document using natural rights and law.
If you want, one could say it's both. But I prefer calling it a war for independence.

Annotated text of the Declaration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

That right there invokes natural law and is a secessionist claim announcing thier independence.

Annotation:
The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions, and by necessity the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states.

If you still can't accept this as a secession, then there's no need to continue arguing it forever.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:30 PM
One last point, that is why it was called a Revolution, not a secession. The only had the natural right, not the legal right.

I realize that many calling it a revolution but it was still a secession as well. They severed their ties.

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 08:30 PM
It was preceded by a secessionist document using natural rights and law.
If you want, one could say it's both. But I prefer calling it a war for independence.

Annotated text of the Declaration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

That right there invokes natural law and is a secessionist claim.


Yes, Yes. I know the Declaration. Great stuff. Still not the legal right needed for the definition of secession. The fact that if failed proves this BEP.

Call it the War for Independence. That works. I like that. But it also means it was not a secession because force ("war") was needed. No force is needed for secession.

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 08:35 PM
The Constitution lays out rules for adding states and even dividing states - but nothing about allowing states to leave. Amazing stuff. Buc forgot to notice that part.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:35 PM
Strawman? Is that all you got?

No, that's ALL you've got.

I'm sorry, I assumed you knew the definition of secession and apparently you don't. You shouldn't use a word you can't define BEP.

You're the one who can't accept the definition and fit it to the facts or circumstances.

Natural Rights don't mean anything here. That is an abstract term that has no bearing on whether or not a group and leave a government within the realm of that Countries law. Natural Rights do not enter into the definition of secession. Secession is the leaving, lawfully, out of a country.

Nope.

Natural rights also do not stop the British Empire from using force.

Never said they did. Just because any govt violates them, doesn't mean they still don't exist.

Force is something that Secession implies is not needed.
Nope. Because secession, as I stated earlier, relates to power, something govt's don't like to give up.

Try telling this to Gandhi.

Legal rights, which secession requires, keep force from being used. The is the whole point of calling it secession.
Nope. Not required. That's just your opinion.

The American Revolution was not a secession by any definition of the word.

Yes it was. And there are many intelligent people and historians who feel it was a secession as well as a revolution. I mean, they didn't really overthrow the British govt. The mainly severed their own ties to it within it's empire. I realize your a prog, and you guys only believe in man made laws for one to have rights. That's the difference between the left and the right...and our Founders.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:37 PM
The Constitution lays out rules for adding states and even dividing states - but nothing about allowing states to leave. Amazing stuff. Buc forgot to notice that part.

May I ask what you feel natural rights and law are?

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:39 PM
Yes, Yes. I know the Declaration. Great stuff. Still not the legal right needed for the definition of secession. The fact that if failed proves this BEP.
I didn't say it was a "legal right" for it. I said repeatedly it's not required. See this is what you do to strawman. You put words in my mouth or alter my claim to suit your own antagonism. Then you take down a claim not made. That's lazy.

Call it the War for Independence. That works. I like that. But it also means it was not a secession because force ("war") was needed. No force is needed for secession.

It started as a secession. It is both. Force, only gets used when the one losing territory fights to prevent the secession.

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 08:40 PM
The Constitution lays out rules for adding states and even dividing states - but nothing about allowing states to leave. Amazing stuff. Buc forgot to notice that part.

That's what the Supreme Court eventually ruled.

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 08:43 PM
May I ask what you feel natural rights and law are?

The products of "corrupt lawyers"?

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:43 PM
That's what the Supreme Court eventually ruled.
So. That's not the point. It's missed again by a mile.


He's not taking down my actual argument, much like you haven't. I am arguing a natural right to leave a political union should abuses continue and not get resolved. You can reframe it however you want, but you are both altering my argument.

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 08:43 PM
I didn't say it was a "legal right" for it. I said repeatedly it's not required. See this is what you do to strawman. You put words in my mouth or alter my claim to suit your own antagonism. Then you take down a claim not made. That's lazy.



It started as a secession. It is both. Force, only gets used when the one losing territory fights to prevent the secession.

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am using the correct definition of secession, I am just using "legal right" is a spot you don't agree with.

"Force, only gets used when the one losing territory fights to prevent the secession" That is why it is not a secession. Both sides have to agree. Secession is a formal (agreed upon) leaving of a body.

Revolution is force.

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 08:45 PM
So. That's not the point. It's missed again by a mile.


He's not taking down my actual argument, much like you haven't. I am arguing a natural right to leave a political union should abuses continue and not get resolved. You can reframe it however you want, but you are both altering my argument.

You can have your natural rights all you want. I like them too. I am not arguing that the founders didn't have the right to do what the wanted. But wasn't secession. It was revolution.