U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-18-2011, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Austin
28,985 posts, read 15,535,195 times
Reputation: 7734

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by overdose View Post
The states did not lawfully leave the country. States CANT lawfully leave the coutry.

I think you would get a lot of disagreement on that.

In fact, if they cannot leave, then why did they have to reapply for entry after the war?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-18-2011, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Austin
28,985 posts, read 15,535,195 times
Reputation: 7734
Quote:
Originally Posted by overdose View Post
The rebels tried to destroy the union, Lincoln was trying to save it. The criminals were the rebels.
Absolutely not true. The Confederacy never tried to destroy the union. Their original intent was totally peaceful.

The destruction of a huge part of the infrastructure, farms and a million lives lost lies entirely at the feet of Lincoln. Lincoln IS the criminal. He forced the war rather than using diplomatic means to settle the differences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2011, 09:03 AM
 
2,096 posts, read 1,587,720 times
Reputation: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
I do agree with what you say here but I am still torn, as it is now I unknowingly give my money to racists who hang an "equal opportunity" type sign in their window, yet they discriminate stealthily.

Short of instituting a thought police and closing down all businesses who have people who think incorrectly, how do we come to a happy median?
Good morning,

There is no Utopia, it's against human nature. There will always be people who hate in some way. We have to get out of the constant search for perfection and simply stop short at equal freedom and equal opportunity (not equal outcome).

Yes, I too would like to prefer to know who the racists are, so I don't have to give them my money, but too much is at stake for Black Americans if we allowed business owners to discriminate in mass numbers. Besides, it's against true freedom, just as thought police is against true freedom.

If anything, my approach is intellect and cordiality. If some business owner is really racist, it will ruin his day to see a sharp, educated, successful and polite man come into his store.

The only current form of "lawful hate" right now is speech and inner thoughts, so let's leave it that way and move on. I can live with that, since no one is excluding, beating or lynching me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2011, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Crown Heights, Brooklyn
1,050 posts, read 1,428,145 times
Reputation: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
I think you would get a lot of disagreement on that.

In fact, if they cannot leave, then why did they have to reapply for entry after the war?
I didnt say they can't leave PERIOD. I said they they can't leave lawfully. They had to reapply because they choses to stand as rebels and lost, taking millions of young lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Absolutely not true. The Confederacy never tried to destroy the union. Their original intent was totally peaceful.

The destruction of a huge part of the infrastructure, farms and a million lives lost lies entirely at the feet of Lincoln. Lincoln IS the criminal. He forced the war rather than using diplomatic means to settle the differences.
By leaving the union unlawfully with impure intentions which they were sure would stir up trouble, they did infact try to destroy the union. The south didn't want to talk. They just didn't want Lincoln as President. The leaders of the south are to be held responsible for all the pain that was caused by that war. In case you don't knwo history to well, it was the South that through the first punch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2011, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,094 posts, read 9,609,502 times
Reputation: 5261
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
Here's the first fiction - that the slavery issue was solvable prior to 1860.

The Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson, sought to place the blame for slavery in the colonies upon King George the Third. But southern representatives demanded that it be stricken from the document as they found no fault with slavery.

The 3/5ths Compromise of the United States Constitution. Northern representatives wanted no slaves counted towards congressional representation, as the slaves were not allowed to vote. Southern representatives wanted the curious situation where slaves were considered chattle and not people when it came to individual voting rights, but were considered people and not chattel when it came to apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. The Constitution would have failed to get out of committee without that compromise.

The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which solved its crisis by dividing the territories of the nation between those that would allow slavery and those that would not.

The Dred Scott Decision not only destroyed the Missouri Compromise, but greatly expanded the rights of slave-holders into northern states. Not a shining example of supposed "states rights".

The Election of 1860, which precipitated the secession of the lower South, the landed gentry of that region unable to accept that they were no longer the federal power brokers of the nation. Attempts by some northerners to appease the South had no effect what so ever.

Every time the slavery issue came to a head, it proved unsolvable by the best minds at the time. As a result, the divisive issue kept getting papered over and kicked down the road until the southern states lost their stranglehold on the federal government and decided to wage war to preserve their way of life, which was centered around their peculiar institution.



Here's the second fiction...that the North forced the war.

Before Lincoln was sworn in, the deep south states had already declared their secessions and were confiscating federal installations and armories. Earlier, when John Brown seized the federal armory at Harper's Ferry, the federal government caught him, tried him, convicted him and executed him. Why would southern proponents get a pass for the exact same crime?

Here's the third fiction...that the states had a legal right to secede.

There's nothing in the Constitution that defines the right of the states to secede from the union.

I know, I know...the 10th Amendment...



Compare it to the same part of the Articles of Confederation...



Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were sovereign; under the Constitution, the states were subject to the federal government.

Secession is a 'state right' made up out of thin air.

If the 10th Amendment allowed such activity, then no less than President George Washington violated it at the beginning of the nation, when in 1794 he marshalled an army and put down the Whiskey Rebellion. If the states had a right to unilaterally secede, then by the same logic the people unilaterally had the right to revolt.

When Lincoln sent in federal troops AFTER southerners had attacked and seized Fort Sumpter, he had Washington as a precedent.

And all of that fiction is from just ONE post.
Excellent post. And dead on. Also, the Constitution expressly forbids any state from forming an alliance or confederacy with any other state. Isn't that exactly what they did? If secession is a right, why wouldn't such an unimaginably important issue have been addressed by the Constitution, as in proscribing a method for withdrawl from the union? Cause the founders meant for the union to be forever!.

Hence the inscription on the civil war monument here in Philly. "ONE COUNTRY/ONE CONSTITUTION/ONE DESTINY". That is what the victory by the Union meant. It is done and sealed. Ask Scalia about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2011, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,094 posts, read 9,609,502 times
Reputation: 5261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123 View Post
Good morning,

The problem with these arguments is these horrible people weren't truly libertarian. Calling another human "not human" and enslaving him is aggression, is not respecting individual liberties, and is therefore not libertarian.

It would have only taken TRUE libertarianism to abolish slavery, not token states rights arguments and freedom for only one group of people (whites), but even I am not naive enough to think that all humans are always able to act according such a high standard. This is why the Civil War Amendments and the Civil Rights Acts were necessary (including the public accommodation portion typically argued against by pure libertarians).
Another good post. Time and again certain CD posters, particularly from the south, expect us to honor the heritage of these despicable people. I don't care what societal norms were back then, to codify those hateful feelings they had for their fellow man into law was horrible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2011, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,010,717 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons View Post
Excellent post. And dead on. Also, the Constitution expressly forbids any state from forming an alliance or confederacy with any other state. Isn't that exactly what they did? If secession is a right, why wouldn't such an unimaginably important issue have been addressed by the Constitution, as in proscribing a method for withdrawl from the union? Cause the founders meant for the union to be forever!.

Hence the inscription on the civil war monument here in Philly. "ONE COUNTRY/ONE CONSTITUTION/ONE DESTINY". That is what the victory by the Union meant. It is done and sealed. Ask Scalia about it.
Additionally, among the powers vested with the Congress...

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

Additionally (Insurrection Act of 1807)
332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2011, 12:00 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
6,652 posts, read 7,118,260 times
Reputation: 2840
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
At that point, it is a business dealing. If a person wants to be free to hate another, he/she should be able to. But the "equal opportunity" provides a means to the person being discriminated an incentive and a tool to counter.
True, if they can prove it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123 View Post
Good morning,

There is no Utopia, it's against human nature. There will always be people who hate in some way. We have to get out of the constant search for perfection and simply stop short at equal freedom and equal opportunity (not equal outcome).

Yes, I too would like to prefer to know who the racists are, so I don't have to give them my money, but too much is at stake for Black Americans if we allowed business owners to discriminate in mass numbers. Besides, it's against true freedom, just as thought police is against true freedom.

If anything, my approach is intellect and cordiality. If some business owner is really racist, it will ruin his day to see a sharp, educated, successful and polite man come into his store.

The only current form of "lawful hate" right now is speech and inner thoughts, so let's leave it that way and move on. I can live with that, since no one is excluding, beating or lynching me.
Good points, as I say, I have always been for the laws but it was a friend who is a minority who got me questioning the laws. As to your last point I do agree but in some ways they may just be finding more creative ways of excluding you.

If you find yourself feeling uncomfortable in an "all white" business, do you just not go there any longer or go "just to ruin their day"? (I do like that last one.)

I have only been able to get a small taste of what it must be like to feel uncomfortable once. I went to a McDonald's on MLK Blvd. In Las Vegas, my GF and I were the only white people in the place. I have been in places like that before but this was odd, everyone was looking at us, even coming out from the back to look. Partly was because my GF had a big blond 80's Hair do but it was uncomfortable. I can see why you do not want to go through that, do you fell that way often?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2011, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,314,353 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons View Post
Excellent post. And dead on. Also, the Constitution expressly forbids any state from forming an alliance or confederacy with any other state. Isn't that exactly what they did? If secession is a right, why wouldn't such an unimaginably important issue have been addressed by the Constitution, as in proscribing a method for withdrawl from the union? Cause the founders meant for the union to be forever!.

Hence the inscription on the civil war monument here in Philly. "ONE COUNTRY/ONE CONSTITUTION/ONE DESTINY". That is what the victory by the Union meant. It is done and sealed. Ask Scalia about it.
The constitution didn't do that until the 14th amendment, after the war.

Just because you repeat a lie enough, does not mean its true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2011, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,010,717 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
The constitution didn't do that until the 14th amendment, after the war.

Just because you repeat a lie enough, does not mean its true.
There is a lot more to the constitution than the 14th amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top