Kansas Governor Brownback signs 2nd Amendment Protection Act into law

[Beef Supreme]

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...-act-into-law/

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

I am not minimizing it. I am putting in its proper context. It was a state's rights issue. Along with several other issues that fell under the the same scope.

Robert E. Lee did not walk away from a successful and brilliant career in the U.S. Army to fight for slavery. He fought for Virginia.

Yes, by saying slavery was "just one of several issues" you are minimizing the significance of its role in causing the Civil War. Your actual context is southern sympathizing.

A lot of southerners signed up in support of their state. That's not why the Civil War was fought.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Yes, by saying slavery was "just one of several issues" you are minimizing the significance of its role in causing the Civil War. Your actual context is southern sympathizing.

A lot of southerners signed up in support of their state. That's not why the Civil War was fought.

No, that is just your spin on it. Truth of the matter is that slavery was slowly dying out any way. It was not THE reason the war was fought. It was just the one that has always received the most publicity due to the nature of what it is.

History is written by the victors. Freeing slaves puts a polish on the victors' side that is hard to argue with. And tends to lend to the forgetting of other issues and aspects.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

No, that is just your spin on it. Truth of the matter is that slavery was slowly dying out any way. It was not THE reason the war was fought. It was just the one that has always received the most publicity due to the nature of what it is.

History is written by the victors. Freeing slaves puts a polish on the victors' side that is hard to argue with. And tends to lend to the forgetting of other issues and aspects.

It was the most significant cause of the division between the north and south. It was the most tense, most divisive issue the United States has ever had to deal with. Alexis de Tocqueville knew in the early 1800s that there was going to be a continued drift between the states because of the slavery issue.

Whether you think slavery's 'slow death' was inevitable is your own opinion that you have to hypothesize. Whether you think such a massive injustice is tolerable until that final death is a statement of your values. You're free to have either one.

But you're not free to minimize the role of slavery in ultimately causing the Civil War. It's not just ignorance, but a fueled ignorance.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

No, that is just your spin on it. Truth of the matter is that slavery was slowly dying out any way. It was not THE reason the war was fought. It was just the one that has always received the most publicity due to the nature of what it is.

Total Slave Population in United States 1790-1860
United States Census Bureau

Year
1790 697,681
1800 893,602
1810 1,191,362
1820 1,538,022
1830 2,009,043
1840 2,487,355
1850 3,204,313
1860 3,953,760

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by La literatura

It was the most significant cause of the division between the north and south. It was the most tense, most divisive issue the United States has ever had to deal with. Alexis de Tocqueville knew in the early 1800s that there was going to be a continued drift between the states because of the slavery issue.

Whether you think slavery's 'slow death' was inevitable is your own opinion that you have to hypothesize. Whether you think such a massive injustice is tolerable until that final death is a statement of your values. You're free to have either one.

But you're not free to minimize the role of slavery in ultimately causing the Civil War. It's not just ignorance, but a fueled ignorance.

Spin it however you want. Slavery was championed as a state's rights issue by the South. It was ultimately a war over who held the most power in the nation, states or fed.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Total Slave Population in United States 1790-1860
United States Census Bureau

Year
1790 697,681
1800 893,602
1810 1,191,362
1820 1,538,022
1830 2,009,043
1840 2,487,355
1850 3,204,313
1860 3,953,760

Does the census divulge how many were born into slavery on American soil versus how many were sold into it?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

Does the census divulge how many were born into slavery on American soil versus how many were sold into it?

What would be the difference? You said that "slavery was slowly dying out any way." Clearly, it wasn't. Maybe you meant the slave trade from Africa was slowly dying out. And maybe it was, but slavery itself clearly wasn't dying out.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

What would be the difference? You said that "slavery was slowly dying out any way." Clearly, it wasn't. Maybe you meant the slave trade from Africa was slowly dying out. And maybe it was, but slavery itself clearly wasn't dying out.

More or less. It was becoming less profitable. Granted, it would hang on for a while due to the cheaper form of having slaves born to you instead of having to purchase them but, it was still going to die out as not cost effective. The cotton gin gave it a temporary boost but, as technology continued to progress, slaves would become more and more un-needed.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

More or less. It was becoming less profitable. Granted, it would hang on for a while due to the cheaper form of having slaves born to you instead of having to purchase them but, it was still going to die out as not cost effective. The cotton gin gave it a temporary boost but, as technology continued to progress, slaves would become more and more un-needed.

And in 1875, manual labor ended, so clearly . . .

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

Spin it however you want. Slavery was championed as a state's rights issue by the South. It was ultimately a war over who held the most power in the nation, states or fed.

Oh, it was no doubt championed by the states as such. I just don't think you're naïve enough to not be able to see through the rhetorical façade. This is willful ignorance of underlying issues.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by La literatura

And in 1875, manual labor ended, so clearly . . .

You'll never completely lose manual labor, sure. But how many people do you see working fields today as opposed to back then? Tractors and combines kinda make the case that slavery was not going to last forever. At least not in the dominating fashion it did in the antebellum south.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

You'll never completely lose manual labor, sure. But how many people do you see working fields today as opposed to back then? Tractors and combines kinda make the case that slavery was not going to last forever. At least not in the dominating fashion it did in the antebellum south.

This argument is really so ridiculous, it's not worth going over. It's like you think that slaves can only work in fields picking cotton.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Oh, it was no doubt championed by the states as such. I just don't think you're naïve enough to not be able to see through the rhetorical façade. This is willful ignorance of underlying issues.

As I said previously, history is written by the victors. Sooooo, we know which side is putting up a rhetorical facade how?

The civil war was about who got the majority say in what takes place in this country, the states or the federal government. The issue of slavery fell squarely into that catagory.

It was so much about slavery that Lincoln didn't even declare slaves free at the on set. He waited until later in the war and then did it only as a strategic move.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by La literatura

This argument is really so ridiculous, it's not worth going over. It's like you think that slaves can only work in fields picking cotton.

It's not worth going over because you are trying to make a historical and political discussion about race.

[jettio]

Lincoln won the 1860 election and 7 southern states seceded before Lincoln was even inaugaurated in March 1861. The confederates took over military installations except for a few. One was Fort Sumter, which was blockaded from resupply by the confederates.

After inaugauration, Lincoln sent supply ships and troops to Fort Sumter and there was a battle. The other 4 seceding southern states seceded by June.

The decision to secede was made in the state legislatures. The best way to determine the reason for the decision would be to read what the legislators said during the debate. Historians say that the issue of slavery was far and away the major factor, in the debates in the states that seceded before Lincoln's inaugauration. Perhaps the effect of the Fort Sumter battle was to make the next 4 states to expand their rationale when debating the decision to secede, but Slavery was still the biggest reason cited by the people that voted for it.

The Slavery controversy was the reason for the Civil War and the election of Lincoln as the first Republican president was the triggering event for secession. The seceding states did not even let the newly elected President and Congress sit before seceding.

When the Southerners tried to muscle out Federal troops from military installations in their states, that is when the war began.

So it was Slavery Controversy, 1860 Election, Seceding states aggressive action against Federal troops, and then the North was willing to fight to preserve the Union.