GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-10-2012, 20:31   #401
EmbryRiddle
Senior Member
 
EmbryRiddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
The Furball Forum

It was under this flag that fast ships left Northern US ports, went to Africa, and packed the ship full of slaves and brought them back to the US to make a big profit. They didn't even care if many of the slaves packed like sardines died during the voyage. It was all about money for these Northern ships...

But lets not talk about this flag.
Dude, how old are you? Your argument is sounding nothing more than "I know you are, but what am I" like back in grade school....
EmbryRiddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 20:54   #402
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
The Furball Forum

It was under this flag that fast ships left Northern US ports, went to Africa, and packed the ship full of slaves and brought them back to the US to make a big profit. They didn't even care if many of the slaves packed like sardines died during the voyage. It was all about money for these Northern ships...

But lets not talk about this flag.
Was it now?

1. That Flag representing the United States Formed by the Constitution of 1787 Banned the importation of Slaves to take effect 1808. (And the twenty year grace period was a concession to SOUTHERN demands.)

2. As Historian William C. Davis has pointed out no one has ever done a study of southern port ship manifests to see whose ships were delivering slaves to southern ports. So the claim it was all Yankee's does not hold water.

3. Absent demand there would have been no supply. so your claims here are akin to blaming alcoholism on Liquor store owners.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 21:48   #403
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmbryRiddle View Post
Dude, how old are you? Your argument is sounding nothing more than "I know you are, but what am I" like back in grade school....
Probably older than you son.
But also better educated...
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 21:55   #404
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
Was it now?

1. That Flag representing the United States Formed by the Constitution of 1787 Banned the importation of Slaves to take effect 1808. (And the twenty year grace period was a concession to SOUTHERN demands.)

2. As Historian William C. Davis has pointed out no one has ever done a study of southern port ship manifests to see whose ships were delivering slaves to southern ports. So the claim it was all Yankee's does not hold water.

3. Absent demand there would have been no supply. so your claims here are akin to blaming alcoholism on Liquor store owners.
Since this thread is about the Confederate flag... Tell all of us here Dragoon how many slaves came here on Confederate flagged ships.

Then tell us how many slaves came here on US flagged ships.
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 22:19   #405
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,151
Quote:
Since this thread is about the Confederate flag... Tell all of us here Dragoon how many slaves came here on Confederate flagged ships.
None. Now why don't you tell us why that is significant? well, to you anyway.

Does that somehow excuse the Confederate states for trying to perpetuate the slavery of not only the 3.5 million slaves within it's borders but the desire to enslave their descendants as well?

How does that work? "Hey we didn't bring them here, we just intend to keep them and their descendants enslaved."

Quote:
Then tell us how many slaves came here on US flagged ships.
And how would I know that? if you have reliable info that states the number why don't you tell us?

Could not have been a huge number though since There was only a twenty year period before the Slave trade was closed down by the U.S.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 22:48   #406
EmbryRiddle
Senior Member
 
EmbryRiddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
Probably older than you son.
But also better educated...
older does not mean wiser buddy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
Since this thread is about the Confederate flag... Tell all of us here Dragoon how many slaves came here on Confederate flagged ships.

Then tell us how many slaves came here on US flagged ships.
Yes, this thread is about the confederate flag, which also happens to tie into slavery. The point everyone else is getting but you aren't, is the fact that there was slavery in the North and the South, however, the North ended it, but the South went to war over it to try and keep it forever. I don't seem to recall you mentioning that slavery was bad, just the same mantra over and over "that the North did it also"....

Last edited by EmbryRiddle; 03-10-2012 at 22:49..
EmbryRiddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 04:15   #407
clancy
Senior Member
 
clancy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmbryRiddle View Post
older does not mean wiser buddy



Yes, this thread is about the confederate flag, which also happens to tie into slavery. The point everyone else is getting but you aren't, is the fact that there was slavery in the North and the South, however, the North ended it, but the South went to war over it to try and keep it forever. I don't seem to recall you mentioning that slavery was bad, just the same mantra over and over "that the North did it also"....
Well said, sir.
clancy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 08:30   #408
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
Since this thread is about the Confederate flag...
Indeed it is. And through the thread, you've been reduced from "the glorious history" of that flag to a series of "well, what about the other guy?" logical fallacies. Pathetic.

America has some black marks in history, no doubt. But more people around the world have been set free by the Stars and Stripes than any other banner, ever. That's the difference in play.

One flag tries to live up to "all men are created equal". The other kills to defend "No law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Yeah, real proud history you're displaying there.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 13:01   #409
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Indeed it is. And through the thread, you've been reduced from "the glorious history" of that flag to a series of "well, what about the other guy?" logical fallacies. Pathetic.

America has some black marks in history, no doubt. But more people around the world have been set free by the Stars and Stripes than any other banner, ever. That's the difference in play.

One flag tries to live up to "all men are created equal". The other kills to defend "No law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Yeah, real proud history you're displaying there.
One flag fought for Freedom and Independence from a tyrannical government by using the Constitutional right to secede from the Union.

The other side, which also had slavery, invaded the other side in a war against Freedom and Independence. They won the war by waging war upon the Civilians.

Today the waging of war upon Civilians is a war crime, and we call that Terrorism. And our military is fighting a war against such Terrorism.
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 13:36   #410
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,151
Quote:
One flag fought for Freedom and Independence from a tyrannical government by using the Constitutional right to secede from the Union.
More Neo confederate BS, the seceding states had no complaints against the federal Govt. PERIOD. The Federal Govt. had done NOTHING to them. Their articles of secession make no claims of wrongs done them by the Federal Govt. their complaints were all directed towards other states not the Federal Govt.

Alexander Stephens ion the Georgia Secession debates pointed out this fact that the south had no valid complaints against the general Govt. And why would they? as he pointed out, the South had been in control of the national Govt. for more than fifty of it's 70 years of existence.

Even fire eater Robert Toombs declared that the Federal govt had never been more true to the south than it had been in the last several years.

Quote:
The other side, which also had slavery, invaded the other side in a war against Freedom and Independence. They won the war by waging war upon the Civilians.
The North took up arms to suppress rebellion and treason.

Quote:
Today the waging of war upon Civilians is a war crime, and we call that Terrorism. And our military is fighting a war against such Terrorism.
Confiscating property and destroying an enemies ability to wage war is not a war crime. Not then, not now.

So far you have demonstrated little or no knowledge of actual History, instead you simply regurgitate the claims of the lost cause mythology and that of the likes of the Kennedy Brothers and Thomas DiLorenzo. NONE of which are legitimate historians, and whose books are not history but political propaganda dressed up as history.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.

Last edited by Dragoon44; 03-11-2012 at 13:39..
Dragoon44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 14:13   #411
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
Gen. Sherman in a June 21, 1864, letter to Lincoln's Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton wrote, "There is a class of people men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order." Stanton replied, "Your letter of the 21st of June has just reached me and meets my approval."

Killing women and children was OK for the US army of Terrorists...

Anyone here who supports the killing of AMERICAN women and children go ahead and say so.. so you can be placed on the US Government Terrorist sympathizer **** list.


Last edited by Natty; 03-11-2012 at 14:37..
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 14:48   #412
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
Gen. Sherman in a June 21, 1864, letter to Lincoln's Secreatry of War, Edwin Station wrote, "There is a class of people men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order." Stanton replied, "Your letter of the 21st of June has just reached me and meets my approval."

Killing women and children was OK for the US army of Terrorists...

Anyone here who supports the killing of AMERICAN women and children go ahead and say so.. so you can be placed on the US Government Terrorist sympathizer **** list.

Another favorite of the Neo Confederate litany of half truths.

That quote is lifted out of context, the context of which deals with guerrilla's ,and the quote itself states Killed OR BANISHED. But of course the Banished part is ignored in favor of the Kill.

If the WHOLE letter and the one enclosed with it is read it is clear that Sherman is talking about killing the men operating as guerrillas and banishing the women and children.

Quote:
From the OR Ser. I, Vol.39, Part II pp. 131-132 :
HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
In the Field, Big Shanty, Ga., June 21, 1864.
Hon. E. M. STANTON,
Secretary of War, Washington, D. C. :
SIR: I inclose you herewith copy of a letter+ this day addressed to General Burbridge, who commands the District of Kentucky, an I have furnished a copy to all department commanders subject to my orders. I doubt whether the President will sustain me, but if he don't interfere is all I ask. I can get the malcontents on board ships at sea without traveling outside of my authority, but then the jurisdiction becomes doubtful. We will never have peace as long as we tolerate in our midst the class of men that we all know to be conspiring against the peace of the State, and yet who if tried by jury could not be convicted. Our civil powers at the South are ridiculously impotent, and it is as a ship sailing through sea - our armies traverse the land, and the waves, of disaffection, sedition, and crime close in behind, and our track disappears. We must make a beginning, and I am willing to try it, but to be effectual it should be universal. The great difficulty will be in selecting a place for the malcontents. Honduras, British or French Guiana, or San Domingo would be the best countries, but these might object to receive such a mass of restless democrats. Madagascar or Lower California would do. But one thing is certain, there is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order, even as far south as Tennessee. I would like to have your assent and to name the land to which I may send a few cargoes, but if you will not venture, but leave me to order, I will find some island where they will be safe as against the district of my command. It has now been raining nineteen days constantly, and taking the Flood as the only example in history, the rain squall is nearly half over. Fortunately we are at the apex of Georgia, which may prove the Ararat of our ark of safety against the flood.
I am, with respect, your obedient servant,
W. T. SHERMAN,
Major-General, Commanding.
If Sherman is advocating the killing of Women and children and all why is he requesting guidence from Stanton as to where he can deport the malcontents to?


Now lets talk about Jackson and his views.

Quote:
"The business of a soldier is to fight. Armies are not called out to dig trenches, to throw up breastworks, to live in camps, but to find the enemy and strike him; to invade his country, and do him all possible damage in the shortest possible time. This will involve great destruction of life and property while it lasts; but such a war will of necessity be of brief continuance, and so would be an economy of life and property in the end. To move swiftly, strike vigorously, and secure all the fruits of victory is the secret of successful war."

Thomas J Jackson
Quote:
"No quarter to the violators of our homes and firesides!"…But I see now clearly enough the people of the South were not prepared for such a policy. I have myself cordially accepted the policy of our leaders….President Davis and General Lee."

"I would give up, as circumstances might seem to require, many exposed points and all untenable positions, and gradually concentrate our choicest fighting men and most valuable material at a few strong interior camps, and at the same time, to protect our communications, defend our people and territory against invasions of the enemy and also keep up ceaseless aggression upon them. I would organize our whole available fighting force, so selected and located, into two, four, or more light movable columns, specially armed and trained and equipped for sudden moves and for long and rapid marches. These light movable columns I would hurl against the enemy as they entered our borders; but only when sure of victory, and when the loss of an army was impossible. But better, I would hurl these thunderbolts of war against the rich cities and teeming regions of our Federal friends. I would seek to avoid all regular battles….."
Oh oh, I guess the great Stonewall makes the terrorist list.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.

Last edited by Dragoon44; 03-11-2012 at 15:03..
Dragoon44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 17:20   #413
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,770
Ya know, it's not so much that you're outclassed, but that you're fighting against the reality of things. Let's pick on this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
One flag fought for Freedom and Independence from a tyrannical government by using the Constitutional right to secede from the Union.
The United States was formed, not by the Constitution, but by the Articles of Confederation. It begins, "agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia..."

Now one might be excused for thinking that South Carolina viewed the term "perpetual Union" as mere art, except for the fact that the paragraph on ratification declares this Union to be "perpetual" three more times:

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual.


In short, this was no "gentleman's club" that the members could leave at will. The United States was the 18th Century version of the Hotel California.

Of course, the Articles were superceeded by a document intended to "form a more perfect Union". But it wasn't a do-over, an abolition of the country. That's obvious from the very first words: "We the People of the United States...". That would be the same United States originally formed by the Articles. Not even the states that were involved in the AoC, but the people. So what we have is a mere alteration and evolution of the perpetual Union previously agreed to by all. That bears repeating. The perpetual Union enter into by South Carolina, Virginia and so on never went away. Words have meaning. "Perpetual" is a word. It has no wiggle clause for taking your ball and going home.

And it wasn't Lincoln who came up with a novel idea of this permanence. Andrew Jackson, born in (slave-owning) South Carolina and elected from (slave-owning) Tennessee figured it out decades earlier. I'll close with what he said:

Quote:
I, Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, have thought proper to issue this my PROCLAMATION, stating my views of the Constitution and laws applicable to the measures adopted by the Convention of South Carolina,...

The people of the United States formed the Constitution, acting through the State legislatures, in making the compact, to meet and discuss its provisions, and acting in separate conventions when they ratified those provisions; but the terms used in its construction show it to be a government in which the people of all the States collectively are represented. We are ONE PEOPLE in the choice of the President and Vice President. Here the States have no other agency than to direct the mode in which the vote shall be given. The candidates having the majority of all the votes are chosen. The electors of a majority of States may have given their votes for one candidate, and yet another may be chosen. The people, then, and not the States, are represented in the executive branch.

The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union...

To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure...

The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first instance to the government of the United States; they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States, and to laws made in conformity with the powers vested in Congress. This last position has not been, and cannot be, denied. How then, can that State be said to be sovereign and independent whose citizens owe obedience to laws not made by it, and whose magistrates are sworn to disregard those laws, when they come in conflict with those passed by another? What shows conclusively that the States cannot be said to have reserved an undivided sovereignty, is that they expressly ceded the right to punish treason-not treason against their separate power, but treason against the United States.

So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifice of interest and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the West, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State, and enormous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single State to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to engagements solemnly made. Everyone must see that the other States, in self-defense, must oppose it at all hazards.

Fellow-citizens of my native State ! let me not only admonish you, as the first magistrate of our common country, not to incur the penalty of its laws, but use the influence that a father would over his children whom he saw rushing to a certain ruin. In that paternal language, with that paternal feeling, let me tell you, my countrymen, that you are deluded by men who are either deceived themselves or wish to deceive you...

But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject-my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you-they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion, hut be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt?
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 17:54   #414
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
One flag fought for Freedom and Independence from a tyrannical government by using the Constitutional right to secede from the Union.
Next a quick look at this assertion.

If you were escaping tyranny, wouldn't you take steps to ensure that it couldn't re-establish itself? The American Founders, many of them Southeners, surely did. So what steps did the CSA take to ensure that the federal tyranny never pop up in their new nation?

Well, here's a side-by-side comparision of the US and CSA Constitution: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

Suppose you tell us what safeguards were put into place to ensure that the tyranny of Washington wasn't replaced by the tyranny of Richmond. I'd be particularly interested if you could show us the CSA's view of secession.

Here's the commentary from the linked site:

Quote:
States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit." When people champion the cause of reclaiming state power from the feds, are matters like these at the tops of their lists of priorities?

As previously noted, the CSA constitution does not modify many of the most controversial (from a states' rights perspective) clauses of the American constitution, including the "Supremacy" clause (6-1-3), the "Commerce" clause (1-8-3) and the "Necessary and Proper" clause (1-8-18). Nor does the CSA take away the federal government's right to suspend habeus corpus or "suppress insurrections."
Hmmm...maybe it wasn't about "state's rights" after all.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

Last edited by Sam Spade; 03-11-2012 at 17:57..
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 18:01   #415
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,151
James Madison The "Father of the constitution" states his views on secession.

Quote:
The Father of the Constitution, and its principal author, James Madison, said, "Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure." [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb 1830]

In his letter to Daniel Webster, Madison wrote, "I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. ... But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism." [James Madison to Daniel Webster, 15 Mar 1833]
SCOTUS Rulings BEFOE the war.

Quote:
Cohens v. Virginia the Court ruled, "That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. . .. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared, that in the exercise of all the powers given for these objects, it is supreme. . . . The constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one great empire." [19 U.S. 264, 413-414]

In that same ruling, the Court said "The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it." [19 US 264, 389]

And of course the final word on Secession from SCOTUS 1869


Texas v. White

"The doctrine of secession is a doctrine of treason, and practical secession is practical treason, seeking to give itself triumph by revolutionary violence. The late rebellion was without any element of right or sanction of law. The duration and magnitude of the war did not change its character. In some respects it was not unlike the insurrection of a county or other municipal subdivision of territory against the State to which it belongs. In such cases the State has inherently the right to use all the means necessary to put down the resistance to its authority, and restore peace, order, and obedience to law. If need be, it has the right also to call on the government of the Union for the requisite aid to that end. Whatever precautionary or penal measures the State may take when the insurrection is suppressed, the proposition would be a strange one to maintain, that while it lasted the county was not a part of the State, and hence was absolved from the duties, liabilities, and restrictions which would have been incumbent upon it if it had remained in its normal condition and relations. The power exercised in putting down the late rebellion is given expressly by the Constitution to Congress. That body made the laws and the President executed them. The granted power carried with it not only the right to use the requisite means, but it reached further and carried with it also the authority to guard against the renewal of the conflict, and to remedy the evils arising from it in so far as that could be effected by appropriate legislation. At no time were the rebellious States out of the pale of the Union. Their rights under the Constitution were suspended, but not destroyed. Their constitutional duties and obligations were unaffected and remained the same." [80 US 646, 650-651]

Lamar v. Micou, the Court ruled, "The so-called Confederate government was in no sense a lawful government, but was a mere government of force, having its origin and foundation in rebellion against the United States." [112 US 452. 476]
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 18:07   #416
RichardB
Silver Membership
Senior Member
 
RichardB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 1,357
"Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON."

Wow, President Jackson in 1832 did not mince words.

He was not the kind of guy to piss off. Certainly he would never issued a Lincoln like speech talking about malice toward none and charity for all. More likely it would have been a hangman for the confederate leaders.
__________________
Richard

“Food for thought is no substitute for the real thing”

Last edited by RichardB; 03-11-2012 at 18:08..
RichardB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2012, 19:44   #417
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post

And of course the final word on Secession from SCOTUS 1869

Texas v. White

[112 US 452. 476]
Thanks for posting peoples opinions on secession before the Civil War which are totally irrelevant as far as Constitutional Law goes...

The fact remains, there was nothing in the Constitution at that time that says secession is Unconstitutional. Contrarily there is something in the 10th Amendment that shows secession is allowed.

Of course if not for secession we would still be England...

As for Texas v White... This US Supreme Court ruling in 1869 was well after the War was over...

But the Union had 300,000 dead soldiers, and their beloved Tyrant President was dead, they had to make it seem they died for something worthwhile.

So Salmon Chase, Chief Justice, ruled in Texas vs White...

But wait...

He was appointed Secretary of the Treasury in a cabinet position by Lincoln. Of course, therefore, he cannot render an unbiased opinion on Constitutional Law in a case about Lincoln's tyrannical rule. He should have been be recused as a Lincoln collaborator.

Any lawyer could win this case in court to throw out the Texas vs White decision.
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2012, 20:24   #418
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,770
Yeah, I'm thinking George Pickett, reincarnated.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2012, 21:27   #419
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,151
Quote:
Thanks for posting peoples opinions on secession before the Civil War which are totally irrelevant as far as Constitutional Law goes...
Right cause it's not like the Guy who actually wrote most of the constitution might have a valid opinion on what it did or did not authorize.



Quote:
The fact remains, there was nothing in the Constitution at that time that says secession is Unconstitutional. Contrarily there is something in the 10th Amendment that shows secession is allowed.
No the FACTS are that SCOTUS even before the CW ruled that secession by individual states was not authorized by the Constitution.

Quote:
Of course if not for secession we would still be England...
I was not aware that the Americas were ever England to begin with. What did England become once we took over it's identity? Yes I know what you meant, the usual lame attempt to compare the REVOLUTION to secession. But you might want to keep in mind the REASON for that revolution. Taxation WITHOUT representation. The colonies had no say in English Govt. that is why they engaged in REVOLUTION.

Quote:
He was appointed Secretary of the Treasury in a cabinet position by Lincoln. Of course, therefore, he cannot render an unbiased opinion on Constitutional Law in a case about Lincoln's tyrannical rule. He should have been be recused as a Lincoln collaborator.
Is that the best you can come up with? making your own rules as to what should or should not be?

Under your theory most of the Justices in the Dredd Scott decision should have recused themselves since they were past or present slaveholders or openly pro slavery.

Quote:
Any lawyer could win this case in court to throw out the Texas vs White decision.
Odd then that in 143 years one hasn't.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.

Last edited by Dragoon44; 03-13-2012 at 21:36..
Dragoon44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 02:15   #420
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better".

...Abraham Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848

Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 07:08   #421
RichardB
Silver Membership
Senior Member
 
RichardB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 1,357
And they ended the tyranny of slavery.
__________________
Richard

“Food for thought is no substitute for the real thing”
RichardB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 11:30   #422
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better".

...Abraham Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848

Yes the PEOPLE as a whole, not a subdivision of them. Lincoln's view was consistent with the rulings of the SCOTUS.

The PEOPLE created the Untied States and only the PEOPLE acting as in all could dissolve it.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 13:40   #423
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,151
Hey Natty,

Bought yours yet?


http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/...142608356.html
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 01:42   #424
Natty
Senior Member
 
Natty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland/Virginia
Posts: 4,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
Shucks I wish you would have let me know this before they took them off the shelf.
Natty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 11:59   #425
Mushinto
Master Member
 
Mushinto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne, Florida, USA
Posts: 12,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
Shucks I wish you would have let me know this before they took them off the shelf.
They are still on Ebay. Looks like a good investment.
Mushinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
slavery caused civil war
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:15.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,227
395 Members
832 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42