This is an impressive amount of red meat in three sentences. 10/10Wrecks Quan Dough said:The Democrats did not accept even after the Emancipation. They dressed up in sheets and terrorized people. That did not stop until after WWII when affordable rifles flooded the market and gave the terrorized a means to protect themselves.FLBear5630 said:Fair point.Wrecks Quan Dough said:Probably better than 600,000 soldier casualties and the war debt.FLBear5630 said:So, you are making the argument that payments needed to be made to free humans from bondage?KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:In no way did the South force the hand.FLBear5630 said:Yeah, but the South forced the hand. There is no unilateral secession.Oldbear83 said:A bit surprised to see 'Might Makes Right' used so brazenly here ...FLBear5630 said:Texas vs White, the Civil War and the last 150 years have pretty much settled it. Go ahead, give it a try see how it goes...Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:States entered into an Indissoluble relation...KaiBear said:100% correct.4th and Inches said:
As the 10th gave all powers not listed in the constitution to tbe individual states, back in 1861, the states had the right to leave.. the process for joining was written, the process for leaving wasnt. That made it a states right to decide..
And 99% of modern historians intentionally ignore this inconvient little piece of reality .
According to you.
The Founding Fathers (and the respective States) would never have entered into such a union in the 1780s if they thought that.
"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation... to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'" -Thomas Jefferson
"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." - James Madison
"The Declaration of Independence forever recognized the right of secession under circumstances of oppression and injustice."
Lincoln had made it very clear that slavery would / should be abolished sooner than later.
Without compensation for the incredible loss of capital involved.
They seceded and then attacked Ft Sumter. That pretty much is forcing the hand.
What capital?
Good grief man.
A healthy field hand was worth between $ 700 to $ 1100 .
In a day when a skilled white tradesman was fortunate to make four days a day in wages .
The entire Southern economy and a large percentage of their capital was tied up in slaves .
And unlike the British Empire who ended slavery by compensating the owners .
Lincoln and his abolitionist base wanted to end slavery without compensation.
The effects of such a move would have been catastrophic to the southern economy.
Would the South have accepted?
Gorsuch FTW. Again.
12,250 Views |
109 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by quash
conceding to the realities of the situation does not make a thing "right" but it is what it isOldbear83 said:A bit surprised to see 'Might Makes Right' used so brazenly here ...FLBear5630 said:Texas vs White, the Civil War and the last 150 years have pretty much settled it. Go ahead, give it a try see how it goes...Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:States entered into an Indissoluble relation...KaiBear said:100% correct.4th and Inches said:
As the 10th gave all powers not listed in the constitution to tbe individual states, back in 1861, the states had the right to leave.. the process for joining was written, the process for leaving wasnt. That made it a states right to decide..
And 99% of modern historians intentionally ignore this inconvient little piece of reality .
According to you.
The Founding Fathers (and the respective States) would never have entered into such a union in the 1780s if they thought that.
"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation... to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'" -Thomas Jefferson
"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." - James Madison
"The Declaration of Independence forever recognized the right of secession under circumstances of oppression and injustice."
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
Like explaining how the Biden Administration just ignores SCOTUS rulings they don't like.4th and Inches said:conceding to the realities of the situation does not make a thing "right" but it is what it isOldbear83 said:A bit surprised to see 'Might Makes Right' used so brazenly here ...FLBear5630 said:Texas vs White, the Civil War and the last 150 years have pretty much settled it. Go ahead, give it a try see how it goes...Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:States entered into an Indissoluble relation...KaiBear said:100% correct.4th and Inches said:
As the 10th gave all powers not listed in the constitution to tbe individual states, back in 1861, the states had the right to leave.. the process for joining was written, the process for leaving wasnt. That made it a states right to decide..
And 99% of modern historians intentionally ignore this inconvient little piece of reality .
According to you.
The Founding Fathers (and the respective States) would never have entered into such a union in the 1780s if they thought that.
"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation... to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'" -Thomas Jefferson
"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." - James Madison
"The Declaration of Independence forever recognized the right of secession under circumstances of oppression and injustice."
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
what is the recourse? The people in charge of enforcement are failing to enforce..Oldbear83 said:Like explaining how the Biden Administration just ignores SCOTUS rulings they don't like.4th and Inches said:conceding to the realities of the situation does not make a thing "right" but it is what it isOldbear83 said:A bit surprised to see 'Might Makes Right' used so brazenly here ...FLBear5630 said:Texas vs White, the Civil War and the last 150 years have pretty much settled it. Go ahead, give it a try see how it goes...Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:States entered into an Indissoluble relation...KaiBear said:100% correct.4th and Inches said:
As the 10th gave all powers not listed in the constitution to tbe individual states, back in 1861, the states had the right to leave.. the process for joining was written, the process for leaving wasnt. That made it a states right to decide..
And 99% of modern historians intentionally ignore this inconvient little piece of reality .
According to you.
The Founding Fathers (and the respective States) would never have entered into such a union in the 1780s if they thought that.
"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation... to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'" -Thomas Jefferson
"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." - James Madison
"The Declaration of Independence forever recognized the right of secession under circumstances of oppression and injustice."
I guess they could hold a press conference and tell the world the US executive branch is ignoring the judicial branches rulings.. what else?
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
Sam Lowry said:The originalist argument goes to the nature of the belief system more than its age. Religion in the Founders' time was understood as teaching virtue and reverence for God. Satanism does neither of those things. Some of its teachings and practices would have violated blasphemy laws, which were upheld well into the 20th century.quash said:Sam Lowry said:Depending on how you define religion. Theoretically the originalists could have a chance to flex on that one. Could just as well be decided on compelling interest though.quash said:Sam Lowry said:
It's a great day for free speech. Would like to see some love for free exercise, but I'll take it.
Yeah free exercise is gonna get a workout from the Satanic Church abortion cases.
How so? Scientology gets to be a religion and they're brand new compared to El Diablo
Hooray for continuing arc of the moral curve
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat