So, Texas can leave if they don't agree with Federal law?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
Returning to the plain meaning of the US constitution is not returning to the articles of confederation.
It's returning to the real meaning of our CURRENT Constitution.
"The Union is only the representative in the family of nations of all these States. They retain their original powers, except as they have consented for a time to part with them."
-George Pendleton (D-OH) 7/4/1863, Representative and later U.S. Senator for Ohio
Gorsuch FTW. Again.
12,104 Views |
109 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by quash
FLBear5630 said:So, Texas can leave if they don't agree with Federal law?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
Returning to the plain meaning of the US constitution is not returning to the articles of confederation.
It's returning to the real meaning of our CURRENT Constitution.
"The Union is only the representative in the family of nations of all these States. They retain their original powers, except as they have consented for a time to part with them."
-George Pendleton (D-OH) 7/4/1863, Representative and later U.S. Senator for Ohio
Not according to Texas v White.
Though it says you can not "unilaterally Secede"…leaving open the idea that you might be able to do so with Congressional approval.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
Either way. This was not decided until 1869…in 1861 it was a completely open question.
Certainly States have the right to resist unjust Federal laws within their sovereign State limits.
And the whole point of the Constitution is to LIMIT the power of the Federal government…because it can become corrupt and oppressive.
Resist through the Supreme Court. Or the Congress has to make a law, amend the Constitution, etc.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So, Texas can leave if they don't agree with Federal law?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
Returning to the plain meaning of the US constitution is not returning to the articles of confederation.
It's returning to the real meaning of our CURRENT Constitution.
"The Union is only the representative in the family of nations of all these States. They retain their original powers, except as they have consented for a time to part with them."
-George Pendleton (D-OH) 7/4/1863, Representative and later U.S. Senator for Ohio
Not according to Texas v White.
Though it says you can not "unilaterally Secede"…leaving open the idea that you might be able to do so with Congressional approval.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
Either way. This was not decided until 1869…in 1861 it was a completely open question.
Certainly States have the right to resist unjust Federal laws within their sovereign State limits.
And the whole point of the Constitution is to LIMIT the power of the Federal government…because it can become corrupt and oppressive.
I agree with you on the State Rights and believe it or not I am an avid State Rights person. For example, I thought Trump did an outstanding job during COVID defending the Fed/State line. Biden, not at all. I also think Trump did a good job showing restraint in the 2020 riots, not Federalizing troops. Two really good actions by Trump recognizing the line. But, in the areas that are the Feds, it rules supreme.
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.. the 150 years of federalization after the civil war has shown that this is one right a state doesnt have and the federal unification of the military for all the 50 states further limits any individual state leaving.
The idea of leaving is a pipe dream
The idea of leaving is a pipe dream
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
FLBear5630 said:Resist through the Supreme Court. Or the Congress has to make a law.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So, Texas can leave if they don't agree with Federal law?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
Returning to the plain meaning of the US constitution is not returning to the articles of confederation.
It's returning to the real meaning of our CURRENT Constitution.
"The Union is only the representative in the family of nations of all these States. They retain their original powers, except as they have consented for a time to part with them."
-George Pendleton (D-OH) 7/4/1863, Representative and later U.S. Senator for Ohio
Not according to Texas v White.
Though it says you can not "unilaterally Secede"…leaving open the idea that you might be able to do so with Congressional approval.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
Either way. This was not decided until 1869…in 1861 it was a completely open question.
Certainly States have the right to resist unjust Federal laws within their sovereign State limits.
And the whole point of the Constitution is to LIMIT the power of the Federal government…because it can become corrupt and oppressive.
"Resist Federal tyranny through the organs/institutions of Federal tyranny"
sure….
What you are talking is right in line with Jeff Davis, Bobby Lee and friends. You saying that is coming???? No way, the checks and balances work. We just don't always like the answers, such is life.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Resist through the Supreme Court. Or the Congress has to make a law.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So, Texas can leave if they don't agree with Federal law?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
Returning to the plain meaning of the US constitution is not returning to the articles of confederation.
It's returning to the real meaning of our CURRENT Constitution.
"The Union is only the representative in the family of nations of all these States. They retain their original powers, except as they have consented for a time to part with them."
-George Pendleton (D-OH) 7/4/1863, Representative and later U.S. Senator for Ohio
Not according to Texas v White.
Though it says you can not "unilaterally Secede"…leaving open the idea that you might be able to do so with Congressional approval.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
Either way. This was not decided until 1869…in 1861 it was a completely open question.
Certainly States have the right to resist unjust Federal laws within their sovereign State limits.
And the whole point of the Constitution is to LIMIT the power of the Federal government…because it can become corrupt and oppressive.
"Resist Federal tyranny through the organs/institutions of Federal tyranny"
sure….
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 .
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 .
All of this was settled a long time ago. The 10th Amendment does not give the States the right to leave just because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. That is utter horse***** It is not mentioned because it is not an option.
So a wedding precludes Divorce?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 .
All of this was settled a long time ago. The 10th Amendment does not give the States the right to leave just because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. That is utter horse***** It is not mentioned because it is not an option.
Accepting a job offer means you can never quit?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
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 .
All of this was settled a long time ago. The 10th Amendment does not give the States the right to leave just because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. That is utter horse***** It is not mentioned because it is not an option.
Indeed it was an option in 1860.
Decades prior to the civil war in was the New England States considering such a move .
Oldbear83 said:So a wedding precludes Divorce?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 .
All of this was settled a long time ago. The 10th Amendment does not give the States the right to leave just because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. That is utter horse***** It is not mentioned because it is not an option.
Accepting a job offer means you can never quit?
Why are you personifying an inanimate object? The Nation existed before the Ststes and once a State enters it is permanent. Chase explains it better:
When a State entered the Union, "she entered into an indissoluble relation," Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote for the court. "All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."
Or Scalia
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set it to rest when he asked in 2006 whether there was a legal basis for secession. In his response, he wrote: "The answer is clear," Scalia wrote. "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.')"
I like this one...
Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, discussed the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the United States Constitution.
"What the Constitution says repeatedly is once you're in (as a state), you're in. If people want to secede, they are allowed to leave; they just can't take the land and the water with them. There is a lawful way to secede it's called emigration. They can move to Canada," Amar wrote.
The final coup de grace, Majority Taylor Greene is all for it. You really want to follow her?
I can go on. There is no constitutional secession.
"Why are you personifying an inanimate object?"
I am merely applying your logic to real-world conditions.
And the events of 1861-1865 and some time after were intensely personal for the people involved.
The matter is very much unsettled,. no matter what some will say.
I am merely applying your logic to real-world conditions.
And the events of 1861-1865 and some time after were intensely personal for the people involved.
The matter is very much unsettled,. no matter what some will say.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
chase was 1864 forward.. Scalia was 100 years after.. its note even close to a possible reality today in 2023.FLBear5630 said:Oldbear83 said:So a wedding precludes Divorce?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 .
All of this was settled a long time ago. The 10th Amendment does not give the States the right to leave just because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. That is utter horse***** It is not mentioned because it is not an option.
Accepting a job offer means you can never quit?
Why are you personifying an inanimate object? The Nation existed before the Ststes and once a State enters it is permanent. Chase explains it better:
When a State entered the Union, "she entered into an indissoluble relation," Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote for the court. "All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."
Or Scalia
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set it to rest when he asked in 2006 whether there was a legal basis for secession. In his response, he wrote: "The answer is clear," Scalia wrote. "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.')"
I like this one...
Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, discussed the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the United States Constitution.
"What the Constitution says repeatedly is once you're in (as a state), you're in. If people want to secede, they are allowed to leave; they just can't take the land and the water with them. There is a lawful way to secede it's called emigration. They can move to Canada," Amar wrote.
The final coup de grace, Majority Taylor Greene is all for it. You really want to follow her?
I can go on. There is no constitutional secession.
In 1861, it wasnt settled.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
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."
KaiBear 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 .
All of this was settled a long time ago. The 10th Amendment does not give the States the right to leave just because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. That is utter horse***** It is not mentioned because it is not an option.
Indeed it was an option in 1860.
Decades prior to the civil war in was the New England States considering such a move .
Several times in fact New England states met to discuss it.
["When the war (War of 1812) began and the Madison administration asked for troops, asked for the Massachusetts militia to be summoned, Strong refused," explains Suffolk University historian Robert Allison. "He said he wouldn't send the militia out of state. Now, Madison took this as an act of unpatriotism, that Strong was defying the war effort."
And in response, Madison sent no ground forces to protect New England.
By the fall of 1814, the opposition of New England Federalists to the War of 1812 was so vehement that the Union appeared to be in danger. In October, Massachusetts invited the other New England states to send delegates to a meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, to draft constitutional amendments, discuss secession, and take other measures to protect New England interests.]
You must not have had your coffee yet when you wrote that. I was agreeing with you. Maybe this will jog your memory.Harrison Bergeron said:A justice? Who cannot talk? Interesting ...BearN said:And yet there is still one that is even dumberHarrison Bergeron said:Sotomayor proves every decision why token minorities are idiots.Redbrickbear said:I read the entirety of the Supreme Court's decision on the Wedding Website Designer's case. Sotomayor said something out loud in her "dissent" that she should have kept to herself:
— Boaty McBoatface (@22pecoman) June 30, 2023
In Sotomayor's view, the "public market" (whatever that is) belongs to the "state". There is no… pic.twitter.com/cHZyiN9Czn
BTW - this thread has taken on odd turn ... let's stop the catfighting.
LOL. Fair enough.BearN said:You must not have had your coffee yet when you wrote that. I was agreeing with you. Maybe this will jog your memory.Harrison Bergeron said:A justice? Who cannot talk? Interesting ...BearN said:And yet there is still one that is even dumberHarrison Bergeron said:Sotomayor proves every decision why token minorities are idiots.Redbrickbear said:I read the entirety of the Supreme Court's decision on the Wedding Website Designer's case. Sotomayor said something out loud in her "dissent" that she should have kept to herself:
— Boaty McBoatface (@22pecoman) June 30, 2023
In Sotomayor's view, the "public market" (whatever that is) belongs to the "state". There is no… pic.twitter.com/cHZyiN9Czn
BTW - this thread has taken on odd turn ... let's stop the catfighting.
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."
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
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Ok, wasn't looking that far into the future. More around 1860, but I get the pointWrecks 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?
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."
There is no unilateral secession because the Federal government has shown it will fight long and bloody wars to prevent it.
Of course the Founding Fathers would have been flabbergasted at the idea that the Federal government would try and stop a State from leaving.
They had just fought a long war for secession against Great Britain.
I disagree with that assessment. The Federalist Founding Fathers believed the union under the Constitution to perpetual. Once the Constitution was ratified, it was done. There was no dissolution. Now, the Anti-Federalist may have believed what you say, but they ended up losing out to the Federalists, just like the South...Redbrickbear said: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."
There is no unilateral secession because the Federal government has shown it will fight long and bloody wars to prevent it.
Of course the Founding Fathers would have been flabbergasted at the idea that the Federal government would try and stop a State from leaving.
They had just fought a long war for secession against Great Britain.
Correct. That's like saying a contract that doesn't specify how the parties may terminate the contract is now terminable at will. Silly, sophmoric stuff.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 .
All of this was settled a long time ago. The 10th Amendment does not give the States the right to leave just because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. That is utter horse***** It is not mentioned because it is not an option.
FLBear5630 said:I disagree with that assessment. The Federalist Founding Fathers believed the union under the Constitution to perpetual. Once the Constitution was ratified, it was done. There was no dissolution. Now, the Anti-Federalist may have believed what you say, but they ended up losing out to the Federalists, just like the South...Redbrickbear said: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."
There is no unilateral secession because the Federal government has shown it will fight long and bloody wars to prevent it.
Of course the Founding Fathers would have been flabbergasted at the idea that the Federal government would try and stop a State from leaving.
They had just fought a long war for secession against Great Britain.
No, "perpetual" was the term used in treaties at the time (no fixed end point established yet)…same as used in treaties of commerce at the time…. "occurring repeatedly; so frequent as to seem endless"
It did not mean "this is forever permanent and we will kill you if you try to re-assert your independence".
The Federalists certainly hoped the new American Union would last forever….but would not have argued that they had the right to maintain it by violence and warfare.
That would have been a very British position to have taken. And right after a war for independence waged by the American States.
The articles of Confederation Itself used this same term and it was brought over into the new Constitution almost word for word. The Founding Father did not intend perpetual to mean permanent…they would have used the other term if they wanted to imply that.
[fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
Article I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be, "The United States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.]
As I said, that might be the view of the anti-Federalist. But the Federalist viewed the Fed as primary and unilateral secession was not in the cards. The Articles of Confederation, which showed the set up you describe, would not and did not work. That is how we ended up with the Constitution.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:I disagree with that assessment. The Federalist Founding Fathers believed the union under the Constitution to perpetual. Once the Constitution was ratified, it was done. There was no dissolution. Now, the Anti-Federalist may have believed what you say, but they ended up losing out to the Federalists, just like the South...Redbrickbear said: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."
There is no unilateral secession because the Federal government has shown it will fight long and bloody wars to prevent it.
Of course the Founding Fathers would have been flabbergasted at the idea that the Federal government would try and stop a State from leaving.
They had just fought a long war for secession against Great Britain.
No, "perpetual" was the term used in treaties at the time (no fixed end point established yet)…same as used in treaties of commerce at the time…. "occurring repeatedly; so frequent as to seem endless"
It did not mean "this is forever permanent and we will kill your of you try to assert your independence".
The Federalists certainly hoped the new American Union would last forever….but would not have argued that they had the right to maintain it by violence and warfare.
That would have been a very British position to have taken. And right after a war for independence waged by the American States.
The articles of Confederation Itself used this same term and it was brought over intro new Constitution almost word for word. The Founding Father did not intend perpetual to mean permanent…that would have used the other term if they want to imply that.
[fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
Article I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be, "The United States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.]
But, I get it. You are a State's righter, anti-Federalist type. So far the Supreme Court has sided with the Federalist.
In 1860, probably not.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?
But slavery was already proving to be relatively expensive. Within 25 years at the most slavery would have been abandoned.
Besides the North had already found a significantly cheaper labor source.
The Irish.
Even Jefferson Davis sneered ' We treat our slaves better than you treat your Irish '.
Only those with a high school indoctrination of American history come away believing the South didn't have legitimate complaints. And since slavery was no longer allowed in new states it was only a matter of time until the political balance of power would be firmly in the hands of abolitionists.
So a war was fought and the South was economically destroyed. As was the plan all along.
Took the South almost a century to recover.
Unresolved as a matter of Constitution. I rather doubt Mr's Washington or Jefferson believed in compulsory membership.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."
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier