NationStates Jolt Archive

Actually I did! you didn't read what I said. Think about the AoC.

Until then,

Good Night
I'm referring to a hypothetical situation, not this one.

Of course there was, and the word is "you're", not "your"
Thank you. It is a bit late at night for me.
There was not. Which wins out, the right to live free or the right to leave the union?
There is no conflict. The right to leave the union will always exist. It is a VOLUNTARY UNION. The constitution is a fucking contract. It's not a "till death do us part" thing. It's a contract. It can be renegotiated (amended) or annulled (secession).


Using the constution to deny the rights of other people.
How so? They were attempting to leave the union to stop what they saw as the abolition of slavery on the horizon.
They left the union because they felt the government was no longer efficacious for them.


No, the DoI is relevant to establishing the type of nation the US was to be (Lockean). The AoI was OBE (overtaken by events).

Care to know many of the founders' feelings on contracts (which is what the constitution is)? Could never be permanent. Could never be perpetually binding. Jefferson himself felt that contracts should be valid only for 19 years.

Hint: it helps to have done some research. Stay in school, kiddo.

Then why use language like that.
Like what?

Permanent means permanent,
Search for: "permanent" in page: "United States Constitution transcript"
No hits returned.

In actuality, contracts are BINDING, which means that it was ILLEGAL for the Confederate states to secede...

Plus, if they had stayed in the Union, nothing would have hurt their status of slaveholding, due to the fact that they the Senate was split...

There is no conflict. The right to leave the union will always exist. It is a VOLUNTARY UNION. The constitution is a fucking contract. It's not a "till death do us part" thing. It's a contract. It can be renegotiated (amended) or annulled (secession).

Language. As I said before, the Supreme Court of the United States (Which is holy writ whether you like it or not) said that you can't break the fucking contract. No secession. Period. Until death do they part. Get nominated to the Supreme Court and then maybe your arguments will have a larger point

They left the union because they felt the government was no longer efficacious for them.

Bullcrap, read the documents of secession. Slavery, slavery and slavery.


Like what?


Search for: "permanent" in page: "United States Constitution transcript"
No hits returned.
Perpetual. My mistake.

per·pet·u·al
adj.

1. Lasting for eternity.
2. Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time.
3. Instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration: a treaty of perpetual friendship.
4. Continuing without interruption. See Synonyms at continual.
5. Flowering throughout the growing season.

I voted South, because I firmly believe in the Confederacy's right to cecede from the Union. Perhaps this base had been covered before, but what of America breaking away from England? Wouldn't that be a criminal act, and thus, make the founding of our(USA) nation illegal and illegitimate? Many of you may find holes in my logic, but I still stand firmly in my support of the South. I am by no means a racist, bigot, or even a redneck.

And also, I have a strange loyalty to my heritage, as I'm a great-something nephew of General Pettigrew of NC, part of Pickett's detatchment at Gettysburg.

Actually, Texas DOES have the right to cecede, or from what I understand. I think though, it has to be a single act, and not with other states. I could be mistaken though.

I voted South, because I firmly believe in the Confederacy's right to cecede from the Union. Perhaps this base had been covered before, but what of America breaking away from England? Wouldn't that be a criminal act, and thus, make the founding of our(USA) nation illegal and illegitimate? Many of you may find holes in my logic, but I still stand firmly in my support of the South. I am by no means a racist, bigot, or even a redneck.

And also, I have a strange loyalty to my heritage, as I'm a great-something nephew of General Pettigrew of NC, part of Pickett's detatchment at Gettysburg.
We are ligitimate, the south was not. We won, they didn't. It is only treason if you lose.

I voted South, because I firmly believe in the Confederacy's right to cecede from the Union. Perhaps this base had been covered before, but what of America breaking away from England? Wouldn't that be a criminal act, and thus, make the founding of our(USA) nation illegal and illegitimate? Many of you may find holes in my logic, but I still stand firmly in my support of the South. I am by no means a racist, bigot, or even a redneck.

And also, I have a strange loyalty to my heritage, as I'm a great-something nephew of General Pettigrew of NC, part of Pickett's detatchment at Gettysburg.

Actually, Texas DOES have the right to cecede, or from what I understand. I think though, it has to be a single act, and not with other states. I could be mistaken though.

If I recall correctly Texas used to have the right to leave the Union, I don't think it does anymore. But it does reserve the right to split into 5 different states anytime it wants.

And I voted Union, mostly becuase Boston is simply better than Richmond, trust me, I've been both places, and I only live in one. ;) I'm shunned from my relations in the Carolinas becuase I'm what they refer to as "that damn yankee", which is also what my Canadian relatives call me, but under a different meaning. If you ever go to some kind of dress up dance in the south where everyone dresses up as a Confederate officer and the women wear debutante dresses, do not show up in a Federal General's uniform with the name Sherman on it.

I'd go to Canada.

I'd go to Canada.

Why? Back then, it was honorable to serve in your nation's defense. Back then, you would do your duty and serve your nation especially in a time of war.

Not necessarily. For instance, the Irish race riots against African-Americans in New York City after the Battle of Gettysburg after the institution of the first draft in the United States. Nobody wants to fight in something that they did not believe in...

If you ever go to some kind of dress up dance in the south where everyone dresses up as a Confederate officer and the women wear debutante dresses, do not show up in a Federal General's uniform with the name Sherman on it.

Hrmn, yeah, common sense tells me that that would be an poor decision.

Hannibal, have something relevant to contribute to this discussion?

The only relevent thing is that your "charter" school messed you up badly. Lame Brain.

Mind your business.

I'd go to Canada.


Only if I were drugged.

Not necessarily. For instance, the Irish race riots against African-Americans in New York City after the Battle of Gettysburg after the institution of the first draft in the United States. Nobody wants to fight in something that they did not believe in...

I didn't care one way or another about nam, but I wanted to fight, sort of for the adventure.

Let me say this again: it does not. There's no such thing as conflicting rights.


Well, that's a load of bull, really. Rights (almost by definition) are always conflictual; for example, if I'm walking my dog, you stop to pet it, and I attack you (justifiably?) for interfering with my property, clearly there is some kind of rights conflict. Moreover, what you really mean (I gather) is that natural rights (or something like them, though I'd argue there is really no such tihng) never conflict (though again, they clearly do).

The only relevent thing is that your "charter" school messed you up badly. Lame Brain.

Mind your business.
Why, if I remember correctly, you are the one sitting around spouting ad hominem attacks. Like that.

But if you're going to support the Confederacy, you do realize that's one of the main points of the civil war? That the confederacy was for the continuation of slavery?

Actually it wasn't. New York had the second highest number of slaves in the US behind Charleston and the Emancipation Proclamation was when? 1864....and it ONLY freed the slaves in the North. The North did not care about the slaves...they were fighting to preserve the union. The South was fighting for states rights and in protest of high tariffs on raw materials going north and manufactured goods coming south. Slavery was a side issue...but thats what they teach in our stupid school systems today. Not so when I was in school.

Actually it wasn't. New York had the second highest number of slaves in the US behind Charleston and the Emancipation Proclamation was when? 1864....and it ONLY freed the slaves in the North. The North did not care about the slaves...they were fighting to preserve the union. The South was fighting for states rights and in protest of high tariffs on raw materials going north and manufactured goods coming south. Slavery was a side issue...but thats what they teach in our stupid school systems today. Not so when I was in school.
By 1800, Rensselaer County had 890 slaves, decreasing to 750 in 1810, 433 in 1820, and by 1830, none. Slavery was abolished in the State (New York) in 1827.

You mean in the south. There is so much wrong with your statement I don't know where to start...

Actually it wasn't. New York had the second highest number of slaves in the US behind Charleston and the Emancipation Proclamation was when? 1864....and it ONLY freed the slaves in the North. The North did not care about the slaves...they were fighting to preserve the union. The South was fighting for states rights and in protest of high tariffs on raw materials going north and manufactured goods coming south. Slavery was a side issue...but thats what they teach in our stupid school systems today. Not so when I was in school.

This is like wading through a sewer. New York (A state) had the second highest number of slaves behind Charleston (a...city?, nice comparison). Alright, except New York had outlawed slavery way back before 1830, so.... how exactly does that work? The Emancipation Proclomation was drafted in 1862 and became law in 1863 (not 64), it did not free the slaves in the North, probably becuase there were none. In fact exactly who it freed is one problem many have with it. It only freed slaves in areas that were considered in open rebellion, in otherwords, if you were a slave in a border state or Federal occupied state, you weren't free.
States Rights, bull, state's rights may have been a factor, but slavery was far more central to the South wanted to secede. Tariffs were hurting the economy of the South, obviously this was something they wanted to end, but I have trouble believing it was high enough to warrant rebellion. Slavery on the other hand was vital to the economy of the south (the Industrial Revolution and it's methods had either not reached the South yet or had not been invented, slavery was on the way out, but exactly how far away is up for debate), without it, the South's economy collapses. The South was fearing the growing number of Free States which would predictably vote for any abolition act (which may not be true), and perhaps one day enough to vote through a law in Congress (you don't need an amendment since Slavery is not in the Constitution) abolishing slavery. This is where State's Rights come in, as an attachment to slavery, not as the central issue. The South feared the North and Western states abolishing over their protests becuase they did not have enough support for slavery in the rest of the country.

Too many pages to read through so I'll just answer the original question:

The Black Hat Brigade out of Illinois.

Great choice!

I would do that or maybe be with Chamberlain at Little Round Top.

I don't see why it would take a loss.

Also, I actually personally know Tom DiLorenzo.

Ok BAAWA. I read that document.

If you are James, I apoligise up front.

Sorry but that was painful to read. I had to force myself to finish it. It is rife with platitudes, simple minded analogies, and questionable logic. Let's not forget the libetarian agenda.

If Tom writes the same way then I will glady save 12 dollars and not buy his book.

If you aren't James, then you might tell Tom, this kind of garbage makes his works sound like they are pandering to a select audience rather then talking about history.

Lincoln was a man and had is faults. Jefferson was a man and had his faults. Yet I find it rather fascinating this paper took care to quickly dodge around Jeffersons slave owning question since it is viewed by Libertarians that he was a libertarian.

Ahh well.....

There is no conflict. The right to leave the union will always exist. It is a VOLUNTARY UNION. The constitution is a fucking contract. It's not a "till death do us part" thing. It's a contract. It can be renegotiated (amended) or annulled (secession).
Language. As I said before, the Supreme Court of the United States (Which is holy writ whether you like it or not) said that you can't break the fucking contract.
And the USSC also said that Separate But Equal was ok, too. What is your point?

Hint: the USSC can and has been WRONG. Don't you ever forget that, kiddo.


They left the union because they felt the government was no longer efficacious for them.
Bullcrap, read the documents of secession. Slavery, slavery and slavery.
Yes, you should read them and find out that it wasn't all about slavery, despite what your oversimplified history texts tell you.

Search for: "permanent" in page: "United States Constitution transcript"
No hits returned.
Perpetual. My mistake.
Search for: "perpetual" in page: "United States Constitution transcript"
No hits returned.

Let me say this again: it does not. There's no such thing as conflicting rights.
Well, that's a load of bull, really. Rights (almost by definition) are always conflictual;
No, they are not.

for example, if I'm walking my dog, you stop to pet it, and I attack you (justifiably?) for interfering with my property, clearly there is some kind of rights conflict.
I don't see it; therefore it is not clear.

Moreover, what you really mean (I gather) is that natural rights (or something like them, though I'd argue there is really no such tihng) never conflict (though again, they clearly do).
I await evidence.

Ok BAAWA. I read that document.

If you are James, I apoligise up front.
No, I'm not James. But I do know both James and Tom (I have been to 2 Mises Institute seminars and have met them, among other people such as Hoppe, Lew Rockwell and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas).

Sorry but that was painful to read. I had to force myself to finish it. It is rife with platitudes, simple minded analogies, and questionable logic. Let's not forget the libetarian agenda.
Ah. Poisoning the well fallacy.

If Tom writes the same way then I will glady save 12 dollars and not buy his book.

If you aren't James, then you might tell Tom, this kind of garbage makes his works sound like they are pandering to a select audience rather then talking about history.
Aha, so you'd rather not hear how Lincoln ignored the Constitution, I take it.

Lincoln was a man and had is faults. Jefferson was a man and had his faults. Yet I find it rather fascinating this paper took care to quickly dodge around Jeffersons slave owning question since it is viewed by Libertarians that he was a libertarian.
I don't see that at all.

The North. I thought their mission was a better one than that of the south. My own great great great grandpa had migrated to the US during the Civil War to the north, then he deserted to the south, and then he deserted and ran west...needless to say my family isn't exactly a family of fighters.

Oh, and I'm from Idaho, and even though most of us are pretty conservative (not me) most of us are all for equal rights for everyone.

Oh, and just so you know, all the Neonazis who lived up by Cour d' Alene moved to Pennsylvania.

The North. I thought their mission was a better one than that of the south. My own great great great grandpa had migrated to the US during the Civil War to the north, then he deserted to the south, and then he deserted and ran west...needless to say my family isn't exactly a family of fighters.

Oh, and I'm from Idaho, and even though most of us are pretty conservative (not me) most of us are all for equal rights for everyone.

Oh, and just so you know, all the Neonazis who lived up by Cour d' Alene moved to Pennsylvania.

oh crap! Thanks for letting me know

*grabs a rifle and goes Nazi hunting*

i wouldnt fight for either id be u here in canada chillaxing with a beer. lets you guys fight it out. then id probably get another beer.

but if i was american id fight for the union.

Okay, here- I'm sorry. You need to be clear, especially when the Confederacy is the practical symbol of slavery. It's like supporting the Soviet Union but not Communism and then being outraged when one calls you a Commie.

But if you're going to support the Confederacy, you do realize that's one of the main points of the civil war? That the confederacy was for the continuation of slavery?

Warmongering Tyrant? I'm sorry, I must have missed the part before where the Confederates bombarded Fort Sumter. Did the Union attack the nonexistant confederacy before Sumter?


actually, the general reaosn for the war was states' rights for the southern states..
lincoln did imprison some people w/out trials when there was rioting in some of the northern states..

actually, the general reaosn for the war was states' rights for the southern states..
lincoln did imprison some people w/out trials when there was rioting in some of the northern states..

I think that bubble has been prety well popped about state's rights. They were a factor, but only as a guise for the firebreathers to lure the otherwise content south into rebellion. Wow, Lincoln imprisoned people attempting to rebel against the legitimately elected government of the United States of America, imagine such a thing.
Without trials, well it was a direct threat to the federal government, a rebellion in Maryland would leave the capitol in Rebel territory, alternatively instead of imprisoning them without trial (which was later judged unconstitutional), he could have treated Maryland as a Confederate State and dissolved it's government and occupied it with Federal troops.
As for rioting, no one on either side was happy about conscription acts that either government passed. The North just happened to have a less direct threat (a defeat would simply lose part of the Union, and a bunch of people you don't know won't be freed) than the South (return to the US), so people weren't quite as willing to let it go, and it also had more population centers where people could gather in crowds large enough to present a civil threat. And just out of curiosity, exactly what riots are you referring too, the only ones I know of are Baltimore and New York, there was civil disturbances in Boston that I know of, but not a riot.

And the USSC also said that Separate But Equal was ok, too. What is your point?

Hint: the USSC can and has been WRONG. Don't you ever forget that, kiddo.


Well aware of that Baawa, just making a point that wrong or right, the descision is defacto law. You know that.

Yes, you should read them and find out that it wasn't all about slavery, despite what your oversimplified history texts tell you.

My 'oversimplified' history texts say nothing of the sort [The infinite joys of living in the south...well, marginally]. I don't bother with them, they are as a rule trash. I perfer reading stuff like The Battle Cry of Freedom or Shelby Foote's The Civil War


Search for: "perpetual" in page: "United States Constitution transcript"
No hits returned.
Referring to the AoC, which is referred to in the Constitution as making a "more perfect union". The union is already perpetual, and the Constitution is building upon that.

actually, the general reaosn for the war was states' rights for the southern states..
lincoln did imprison some people w/out trials when there was rioting in some of the northern states..
Which is legal, if there is a State of Emergency, at least temporarily. Honestly, he was fighting a war...

And the USSC also said that Separate But Equal was ok, too. What is your point?

Hint: the USSC can and has been WRONG. Don't you ever forget that, kiddo.
Well aware of that Baawa, just making a point that wrong or right, the descision is defacto law. You know that.
And you should also know about the concept of nullification.


Yes, you should read them and find out that it wasn't all about slavery, despite what your oversimplified history texts tell you.
My 'oversimplified' history texts say nothing of the sort [The infinite joys of living in the south...well, marginally]. I don't bother with them, they are as a rule trash. I perfer reading stuff like The Battle Cry of Freedom or Shelby Foote's The Civil War
Then what is your problem, other than the fact that you contradicted yourself by earlier claiming that it was only about slavery?


Search for: "perpetual" in page: "United States Constitution transcript"
No hits returned.
Referring to the AoC, which is referred to in the Constitution as making a "more perfect union". The union is already perpetual, and the Constitution is building upon that.
No, it's not. It's completely obliterating the AoC and starting afresh.

No, it's not. It's completely obliterating the AoC and starting afresh.

I'm forced to agree with BAAWA on this, the AoC was torn up and made void by the Constitution. The Constitution did not build on the AoC in legalities, it replaced it.

I'm forced to agree with BAAWA on this, the AoC was torn up and made void by the Constitution. The Constitution did not build on the AoC in legalities, it replaced it.
The AoC shows intention just as well as the DoI goes, if not better because it was a document used to govern the county, which the DoI was not.

And you should also know about the concept of nullification.

Doesn't exist.

Then what is your problem, other than the fact that you contradicted yourself by earlier claiming that it was only about slavery?

I did nothing of the sort.


No, it's not. It's completely obliterating the AoC and starting afresh.
Intention Baawa. I don't think they used the word perpetual for the hell of it. I don't think they used the words "more perfect union" for the hell of it either. They are working to make the perpetual union more perfect.

Iso I guess I'd be shootin me some rebels.


Okay, you just helped me to make up my mind. You'd be proud to kill your own countrymen. The north really was suffering from blood lust. Had to be.


I now vote South.

The Bear Flag Army.(revolt)

I know it didn't have anything to do with the Civil War, but that's what I would care about. Not to mention that the people they fought surrendered before they got there so it would be a month long party pretending to be a country before joining the US....maybe even I could have talked 'em out of it. ("Wait, before you sign anything-check out this Sutter guy's mill....." as a side note, Sutter was batshit insane....)

And you should also know about the concept of nullification.
Doesn't exist.
Bullshit. I'll even give you an easy lesson in it:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h467.html


Then what is your problem, other than the fact that you contradicted yourself by earlier claiming that it was only about slavery?
I did nothing of the sort.
Bullshit. You said that anyone who said that the war was about anything other than slavery was stupid.

I'll wait for you to make up your mind about it before showing you up with your own quote.


No, it's not. It's completely obliterating the AoC and starting afresh.
Intention Baawa.
Means nothing. They started afresh.

Bullshit. I'll even give you an easy lesson in it:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h467.html


It is a theory, and it has never been used. It is bullshit.

Bullshit. You said that anyone who said that the war was about anything other than slavery was stupid.

I'll wait for you to make up your mind about it before showing you up with your own quote.

Brilliant sherlock, now where did I contradict that.


Means nothing. They started afresh.
Then the DoI means nothing.

Then the DoI means nothing.

In that case then we are still a part of Great Britian.

The DoI means everything. It is a document that formally seperated us from Great Britian. Therefor, it means everything to the USA. If it means nothing then I need to buy the Union Jack and fly it from the flagpole since we are then still attached to Great Britian.

Bullshit. I'll even give you an easy lesson in it:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h467.html
It is a theory, and it has never been used. It is bullshit.
So the people who founded this nation believed that it was valid and understood more about the politics of the situation than you do, and had read more political philosophy than you, and didn't want a too-strong central government, yet it is bullshit.

Excuse me whilst I laugh my ass off.

Nullification has been used, m'laddio.


Bullshit. You said that anyone who said that the war was about anything other than slavery was stupid.

I'll wait for you to make up your mind about it before showing you up with your own quote.
Brilliant sherlock, now where did I contradict that.
*boggle*
Scroll up the page, kiddo.


Means nothing. They started afresh.
Then the DoI means nothing.
Non sequitur. The DoI has meaning for the founding of the United States insofar as the philosophical basis, which is Lockean. I keep explaining that to you, but it never sinks in.

So the people who founded this nation believed that it was valid and understood more about the politics of the situation than you do, and had read more political philosophy than you, and didn't want a too-strong central government, yet it is bullshit.

Excuse me whilst I laugh my ass off.

Nullification has been used, m'laddio.


Not sucessfully and the federal government has an over-ruling power over any conflicting state/federal laws, not the other way around. You'd see chaos if states could pick and choose laws to disregard.

*boggle*
Scroll up the page, kiddo.

Not seeing it

Non sequitur. The DoI has meaning for the founding of the United States insofar as the philosophical basis, which is Lockean. I keep explaining that to you, but it never sinks in.
It is nothing of the sort, as the AoC has the same meaning. It was the original governing document of the United States of America, and it clearly states that the founders intended for the United States to BE PERPETUAL.

So the people who founded this nation believed that it was valid and understood more about the politics of the situation than you do, and had read more political philosophy than you, and didn't want a too-strong central government, yet it is bullshit.

Excuse me whilst I laugh my ass off.

Nullification has been used, m'laddio.
Not sucessfully
Can't change the goal positions, kiddo. That's bad.

and the federal government has an over-ruling power over any conflicting state/federal laws, not the other way around. You'd see chaos if states could pick and choose laws to disregard.
No, you wouldn't. You'd see them used judiciously to nullify crap like the PATRIOT ACT, such as Oregon has done with parts of it.

You DO realize that Oregon is not fully complying with the PATRIOT Act, right? Is there chaos, little one? NO!

So much for your Carnak-like predictions...


*boggle*
Scroll up the page, kiddo.
Not seeing it
Then go to the previous 2 pages.


Non sequitur. The DoI has meaning for the founding of the United States insofar as the philosophical basis, which is Lockean. I keep explaining that to you, but it never sinks in.
It is nothing of the sort,
Yes, it is. The DoI is the ultimate in the application of Locke's ideas. It is the end result of his 2nd Treatise. It is, in fact, the 2nd Treatise put to action.

Do you understand anything at all about the Enlightenment?

as the AoC has the same meaning.
No, it was to set up a government, not to justify a nation.

It was the original governing document of the United States of America, and it clearly states that the founders intended for the United States to BE PERPETUAL.
The STATES, not the overall government.

You honestly need to read the 2nd Treatise. It's very difficult to have a discussion with someone who has no background (and I have neither the time nor the inclination to be your teacher).

Yes, it is. The DoI is the ultimate in the application of Locke's ideas. It is the end result of his 2nd Treatise. It is, in fact, the 2nd Treatise put to action.

Do you understand anything at all about the Enlightenment?


No, it was to set up a government, not to justify a nation.


The STATES, not the overall government.

You honestly need to read the 2nd Treatise. It's very difficult to have a discussion with someone who has no background (and I have neither the time nor the inclination to be your teacher).

"Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

Funny way of saying it if it was only the states that were perpetual. Why, from the way that it is written, I do believe it says that the union is perpetual. You know, adjective comes before the noun, and is normally close to it. I don't see how anyone in their right mind could read that to say that the states are perpetual, and not the union. I don't really give a crap Baawa, you don't like it, you can leave. I'll deal with the rest in the morning.

Can't change the goal positions, kiddo. That's bad.


No, you wouldn't. You'd see them used judiciously to nullify crap like the PATRIOT ACT, such as Oregon has done with parts of it.

You DO realize that Oregon is not fully complying with the PATRIOT Act, right? Is there chaos, little one? NO!


Source, and the topic is irrelevent to this discussion if it hasn't been used successfully. No state has a right to over-rule the federal govenrment on anything.

Ah. Poisoning the well fallacy.

Not at all. I read people that challenge current thought all the time. A decent read is "Lies my history teacher told us" the author presents facts without opinions nor attacks against other people.

Aha, so you'd rather not hear how Lincoln ignored the Constitution, I take it.

Not at all. Hit me with facts instead of interpretations(Amendments 9 and 10) or 1 sentence lines that usually are taken out of context(Lincoln's comments of Liberia, I am looking of the subject btw).

I don't see that at all.
Well I am guessing you are a part of the Lib party and I find from other debates they too don't see such comments. Fact is a "fault" is pointed out and James attacks it quite hard. Jefferson is mentioned and it is lightly discussed and quickly passed.

Again Facts.

James writings are more for the "South will rise again" types. The platitudes just scream about it.

But these debats will go on. I raise the Eye against Tom for mentioning that slavery was not a major issue for secession. Yet I Georgias document for secession and Slavery is mentioned several times.

I don't think I'd get to choose. I've lived in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, which were all southern states (or southern territories). I wouldn't have been off fighting since I'm a girl, but my answer to your question is regional, not idealogical.

Idealogically, I'd fight to preserve the Union. I love this country...most of the time.

I don't think I'd get to choose. I've lived in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, which were all southern states (or southern territories). I wouldn't have been off fighting since I'm a girl, but my answer to your question is regional, not idealogical.

Idealogically, I'd fight to preserve the Union. I love this country...most of the time.

The South only claimed New Mexico and Arizona, but they never really were territories that left the Union, as the Federal Government retained general control of the territories.

Findecano Calaelen wrote:
>im the only person that said "there was a civil war?"
>cause as far as I know we never had one in Australia
Every now and again the Irish and English decided to have a brawl in our backyard; generally Irish convicts rebelling. Also there was the Rum Rebellion.

And then there's Eureka. A bunch of Irish-Americans lights an uncontrolled fire in the Australian bush - to burn down a pub - then spent all evening discussing politics; before building fortifications that didn't work - and getting their butts kicked by a pack of Pommie conscripts.
Various people seem to think that Australians were involved, but I don't know why.

On the American Civil War: slavery was *finally* declared "contrary to British Law" (ie unconstitutional) by the English Courts in 1772, after long lobbying.That's why the American Colonies wanted 'representation' - to block the anti-slavery bills banning slavery in the colonies. Since the plan to abolish slavery throughout the Empire was one of the reasons for the American Rebellion - so why use slavery to justify the Civil War?

"Articles of Confederation
...which, as has been pointed out, became null and void with the constitution.

Can't change the goal positions, kiddo. That's bad.


No, you wouldn't. You'd see them used judiciously to nullify crap like the PATRIOT ACT, such as Oregon has done with parts of it.

You DO realize that Oregon is not fully complying with the PATRIOT Act, right? Is there chaos, little one? NO!
Source,
http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=20653
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/11/26/1a.patriotact.1126.html
http://www.olaweb.org/org/USPAres.html
http://www.thelantern.com/news/2003/10/01/Opinion/Patriot.Act.Violates.Privacy-509351.shtml

and the topic is irrelevent to this discussion if it hasn't been used successfully.
tsk-tsk. Still trying to move the goalposts.

No state has a right to over-rule the federal govenrment on anything.
Yes, it does.

Parliamentarians if any.
Certainly in retrospect they looked the better side as they won.

i hate war, all forms of it (physical, political, personal) it's destruction, and i wouldnt have wanted to contribute to it during the Civil War.

Findecano Calaelen wrote:
>im the only person that said "there was a civil war?"
>cause as far as I know we never had one in Australia
Every now and again the Irish and English decided to have a brawl in our backyard; generally Irish convicts rebelling. Also there was the Rum Rebellion.

I guess that is because this is the US Civil War!

And then there's Eureka. A bunch of Irish-Americans lights an uncontrolled fire in the Australian bush - to burn down a pub - then spent all evening discussing politics; before building fortifications that didn't work - and getting their butts kicked by a pack of Pommie conscripts.
Various people seem to think that Australians were involved, but I don't know why.

Ok, I'm not up on what takes place in Australia. Last I've heard, they are still part of the British Empire.

On the American Civil War: slavery was *finally* declared "contrary to British Law" (ie unconstitutional) by the English Courts in 1772, after long lobbying.That's why the American Colonies wanted 'representation' - to block the anti-slavery bills banning slavery in the colonies. Since the plan to abolish slavery throughout the Empire was one of the reasons for the American Rebellion - so why use slavery to justify the Civil War?

No That was NOT a reason for our rebellion. Our reseasons we split was for Taxes without representation, quartering soldiers against our will, trial without juries, I could go on but that would mean writing out the ENTIRE DoI! Nowhere in the DoI (Declaration of Independence) does it mention slavery.

I think you just lost this arguement. We are talking about the US Civil War of 1861-1865 in which our Country was split into 2 nations. Slavery WAS one issue for the war but it wasn't the sole Issue. It was also a very costly war on both sides with the South suffering the most.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=20653
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/11/26/1a.patriotact.1126.html
http://www.olaweb.org/org/USPAres.html
http://www.thelantern.com/news/2003/10/01/Opinion/Patriot.Act.Violates.Privacy-509351.shtml

Brilliant. In order:
Nothing pertaining to a repeal/nullification of the Partiot Act, besides some people fluffing their feathers. Find a nice little passed resolution and we will talk.
Nothing again. Its a bunch of talk and its from a libarary association. Not a state.
Nothing again. An op-ed piece discussing why this is bad and how to repeal it in congress, and the states that have filed protests (not nullifications) against the act.

Try again.



tsk-tsk. Still trying to move the goalposts.

I am doing nothing of the sort.

Yes, it does.
No, it does not.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=20653
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2...otact.1126.html
http://www.olaweb.org/org/USPAres.html
http://www.thelantern.com/news/2003...cy-509351.shtml
Brilliant. In order:
Nothing pertaining to a repeal/nullification of the Partiot Act, besides some people fluffing their feathers. Find a nice little passed resolution and we will talk.
*laughs*
You didn't read it, did you? It was about nullification.

Nothing again. Its a bunch of talk and its from a libarary association. Not a state.
State agency, kiddo. And it's about nullification. About not obeying parts of it.

Nothing again. An op-ed piece discussing why this is bad and how to repeal it in congress,
Nullification. Not obeying parts of it.

and the states that have filed protests (not nullifications) against the act.
Nullification. Not obeying parts of it.


tsk-tsk. Still trying to move the goalposts.
I am doing nothing of the sort.
You certainly are.

Ok you two.

Have you realised that more and more of your arugment is turning into "Yes it is; no it's not; yes it is, etc., etc.,"

Let's just declared this thread kacked and move on to the next hijacking! ;)

I lived in Mississippi during the age I would have been draft eligilble so I'll say the Confederacy. ;)


seriously though I signed up African-American voters then so probably could be described as pro-union.

Findecano Calaelen wrote:
>>im the only person that said "there was a civil war?"
>>cause as far as I know we never had one in Australia
>Every now and again the Irish and English decided to have a brawl in our >backyard; generally Irish convicts rebelling. Also there was the Rum >Rebellion.

Formal Dances wrote:
>I guess that is because this is the US Civil War!
And 'I guess' that a pair of Australian are being sarcastic at you, yes? I do't mind Americans thinking that the US is the centre of the universe but I do object to this inability to realise that te rest of the world even *exists*!
Compared to other civil wars - say, the 30 years war or the Bolshevik revolution - yours was of no real significance.

>Ok, I'm not up on what takes place in Australia. Last I've heard, they are still >part of the British Empire.
So, you'd have heard that, oh - back before the Statutes of Westminster were ratified, so: late 1930's?

Originally Posted by The Holy Palatinate
>>On the American Civil War: slavery was *finally* declared "contrary to >>British Law" (ie unconstitutional) by the English Courts in 1772, after long >>lobbying.That's why the American Colonies wanted 'representation' - to >>block the anti-slavery bills banning slavery in the colonies. Since the plan >>to abolish slavery throughout the Empire was one of the reasons for the >>American Rebellion - so why use slavery to justify the Civil War?

>No That was NOT a reason for our rebellion. Our reseasons we split was for >Taxes without representation, quartering soldiers against our will,
"representation"? What legislation where those naughty Brits trying to pass that you wanted blocked?
Those taxes were to pay for those same troops - troops which the American colonies had whined for, which were sent to defend the colonies over the advice of the army, who wanted them sent to India where they were desperately needed - which the American colonies couldn't even be bothered quartering, much less paying for!
>trial without juries,
Which you already had - which everywhere in the empire had - and an American jury had already decided a case regarding a pair of British soldiers (in Mass., wasn't it?)

>I could go on but that would mean writing out the ENTIRE DoI!
>Nowhere in the DoI (Declaration of Independence) does it mention slavery.
Of course it doesn't it's a *propoganda document*. They're designed to make things look as good as possible. The best posibble front they could come up with was describing it as a tax dodge!

> We are talking about the US Civil War of 1861-1865 in which our Country >was split into 2 nations.
As opposed to the revolution, which split the colonies into the USA and Canada. Oh, and resulted in a third of the population of the new USA fleeing to Cananda, so I suppose there is at least one difference.

>Ok, I'm not up on what takes place in Australia. Last I've heard, they are still >part of the British Empire.
So, you'd have heard that, oh - back before the Statutes of Westminster were ratified, so: late 1930's?

Well excuse me but your still technically part of the Commonwealth Aren't You? *Goes to check the encyclopedia* Yep still part of the Commonwealth of Nations that are linked to Great Britian which is the Head of the Commonwealth.

And this has a bearing on what happened in the US Civil War how? News Flash! In actuality, the US Civil War was the 1st Modern War complete with Trenches. We invented many different fighting tactics to coincide with technology so YES our war was rather significant. I suggest you read up on the Civil War and see for yourself. Just don't study the Battles, study the strategy, the equipment used, as well as the defensive positions.


>>On the American Civil War: slavery was *finally* declared "contrary to >>British Law" (ie unconstitutional) by the English Courts in 1772, after long >>lobbying.That's why the American Colonies wanted 'representation' - to >>block the anti-slavery bills banning slavery in the colonies. Since the plan >>to abolish slavery throughout the Empire was one of the reasons for the >>American Rebellion - so why use slavery to justify the Civil War?[quote]

We did not know about that and we were under a totally different set of Laws in 1772! Britian AND France was thinking about giving Aide to the CSA! That didn't materialize, though the Trent Affair came close to bringing in Britian on the side of the CSA! Thank God for Prince Albert! I bet you forgot about that.

[quote]>No That was NOT a reason for our rebellion. Our reseasons we split was for >Taxes without representation, quartering soldiers against our will,
"representation"? What legislation where those naughty Brits trying to pass that you wanted blocked?
Those taxes were to pay for those same troops - troops which the American colonies had whined for, which were sent to defend the colonies over the advice of the army, who wanted them sent to India where they were desperately needed - which the American colonies couldn't even be bothered quartering, much less paying for!

HAHA!! You mean to protect us from the French? The French were defeated in the French and Indian War (AKA 7years war) and were no longer a threat to us. The Indians were still to a point but not as bad. As for quartering, it was AGAINST OUR WILL! We had NO SAY, thus it infringed on our rights as citizens and the King ignored our complaints.

]>trial without juries,
Which you already had - which everywhere in the empire had - and an American jury had already decided a case regarding a pair of British soldiers (in Mass., wasn't it?)

Oh you really don't understand do you? Well what did I expect! Its someone from Australia. Alwell I will say this! Massachutes and many other colonies had their trial by jury REVOKED! PA still had it thus it wasn't included in the Declaration of Independence but it was a charge. As for the British Soldiers, that was after the Boston Massacre and they were FULL british citizens.

>I could go on but that would mean writing out the ENTIRE DoI!
>Nowhere in the DoI (Declaration of Independence) does it mention slavery.
Of course it doesn't it's a *propoganda document*. They're designed to make things look as good as possible. The best posibble front they could come up with was describing it as a tax dodge!

You really are full of it aren't you? How is the DoI a propaganda document? But alas, you think anything America has to say as propaganda. That document is NOT a propaganda document. It was an address of grievence that the King IGNORED! The DoI was the last resort. We tried to come to a suitable peace agreement but the King would have nothing of it. Because of this, Thomas Jefferson wrote the DoI and after changes to it, Taking out Slavery, Trial by Jury and a few others, it was ratified unamously. This marked the 1st time in HUMAN HISTORY that a nation split off from its parent stiminus. NO NATION had till that point and in 1783, Britian signed the Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War (AKA War of Independence)

And 'I guess' that a pair of Australian are being sarcastic at you, yes? I do't mind Americans thinking that the US is the centre of the universe but I do object to this inability to realise that te rest of the world even *exists*!

I saved this for last because it has to be one of the most dumbest statements I have ever heard in my life. Thanks for the laugh, I needed it this early in the morning. I can truely tell you that I look at the real world. I know that we are not the center of the Universe. I know that the rest of the world exists. One look at the news tells me that! But alas, I bet that you don't really care that I realise this.

bump

bump
grave robbing

grave robbing

?

As opposed to the revolution, which split the colonies into the USA and Canada. Oh, and resulted in a third of the population of the new USA fleeing to Cananda, so I suppose there is at least one difference.
Well you see, here's the problem with these kind of arguments.

You pull numbers out of your ass, and all of a sudden, you look foolish. I mean honestly, 1/3 of the population? How is that even vaguely possible? Most Loyalists didn't flee America until the war was over, and even then they were pretty evenly split between Canada and the UK itself. Only the very rich could really afford to leave, and for the most part loyalists were forced to either stay where they were, or move further into the backcountry. Canada following the Revolution did not in fact gain any significant boost in population, as if it had gained a third it would have been nearly equal to the US in population, which it never has come even close to doing.

i'm a reenactor and i'm a confederate

That's not the reason, so please apologize. I don't like being accused of supporting things like that. I just don't think I could stomach fighting for that warmonger tyrant Lincoln. Plus, one of my heroes, Robert E. Lee (who opposed slavery, mind you) led the Confederate army.

Roach Busters you are an asshole :D . Lee's views on slavery were all so messed up. He was against slavery, but to him it was necessary to keep blacks in order by having them under white control!!! He also believed that blacks were better off here then they were in Africa. Yeah picking cottong in a field is really better than chasing tigers with a pointy stick.

Lincoln was probably the greatest president we have ever had. War mongering tyrant? He didn't even start the war. The confederates took Lincoln's reinforcement of Fort Sumter as a declaration of war, which it clearly was not. The Confederates bombarded it and supplies were running out so Lincoln had a dilemma on his hands. I was actually there 2 years ago and I know now why Lincoln made that decision. The Fort still partially stands, but a lot of it is in ruins because of the cannon ball damage it sustained from all side.

Being from Illinois aka "The Land of Lincoln" (by far the most powerful state at the time) I would have been fighting for the Union.