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.
Rush, while you talk about pages upon pages of lies, let's not overlook the lies you have just posted.
You may think you know better why your Confederate heroes seceded than they themselves knew, but their own words convict them of the decision to secede in order to preserve the right to own slaves.
Nothing that was written in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, no matter how you interpret it, can change that simple fact. If your attitude is typical, though, it tends to support the proposition that people like you would have fought to the death to preserve slavery no matter how long it took. Hence, slavery might not have ended without the Civil War.
without getting personal lets debate state's rights and the constitution:
In 1783, thirteen new nations were created in North America by the Treaty of Paris. Those nations joined a confederation of alliance, first under the Articles of Confederation then under the Constitution of the USA. Under neither alliance did the independent sovereign nations agree to become subservient component parts of a single nation. It was an understood given that those nations had the right to leave the confederation (secede) at any time, and the Founding Fathers believed (if you read their own words) that the right was preserved by Article IV of the Constitution and further guaranteed by Amendments IX and X. The right of secession from a government that fails to serve, protect or defend the rights and interests of the governed was the core principle of the Declaration of Independence and have watched all that blood flow in the name of that right, the Founders weren't about to throw it away.
Abe Lincoln himself argued in favor of the right of secession on the floor of Congress on January 13, 1848. The New England states knew the right existed when they threatened to secede in 1803, 1812, 1814 and again in 1815. States on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line threatened to secede in 1820 over the illegal and unconstitutional Missouri Compromise. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the former as Vice-President and the latter shortly after leaving Congress) authored the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, wherein they argue in favor of the right of state nullification of federal law (and, by extension, the right of secession). Obviously if member nations of the confederacy had the right to leave it and reclaim their full autonomy, sovereignty and independence at any time without the consent of the federal government, state's rights were far superior to federal power. That is why the constitution deliberately limits federal power and reserves any power not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states.
The Constitution created a FEDERAL government, not a NATIONAL one. There is a difference. The federal government was the governing agency of those areas of interest common to all member states (think "nation-states, as did the Founders). Those powers were expressly delineated in the Constitution, were extremely limited, and any power not expressly delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states. The founders had no intention of creating a single nation and did not, therefore, contemplate a national government. That is why the Bill of Rights pertained to federal legislation only and it took Amendment XIV to extend application of those rights and protections state law.
Unless and until you can understand these simple but critical points, you cannot begin to understand the State's Rights issue. Don't feel bad. Most people don't understand. Most people believe the Founding Fathers wanted to create a single nation and that they actually wanted to surrender the autonomy of their newly created home nations. Most people simply don't read history, especially from original sources, and most people rely on text books and teachers that teach the myths and legends - at the expense of the truth - either to forward a particular propaganda or because they know no better.
In 1860/61 eleven nations left the confederacy, as was their unalienable right. They did so under full and fair democratic process in accordance with constitutional strictures. In response, the remaining nations of the USA decided to invade those nations in a war of aggression. It was NOT a civil war. When the CSA was conquered and annexed, for the first time, the USA became a single nation composed of subservient sub-divisions called states and the government the Founders tried so hard to avoid and prevent came into being.
As an aside, only a fool believes the southern states seceded over slavery. Slave ownership was guaranteed by the constitution (Art I, sec 2& 9, Art IV, sec 2, Amendments IV, V, IX, X) It could be abolished only by constitutional amendment or state law. The federal government had no authority over the issue whatsoever - as Abe Lincoln repeatedly stressed in his campaign and in his First Inaugural Address. No attempt was made to amend the constitution to abolish slavery before 1864 because there was not enough support to ratify such an amendment in the north, never mind the south. In fact, in 1861 Congress passed the Corwin Amendment which, if ratified, would have prohibited any future attempt to abolish slavery by constitutional amendment. In 1864, congress introduced, but failed to pass, an amendment to abolish slavery. Ratification is impossible when the amendment cannot even be submitted for consideration.
This is all accurate and factual. If you intend to use it, you better be able to support it. Chances are, you teacher, like most Americans, will be ignorant of the truth of the matter. History was rewritten by the victors after 1865, especially as pertains to the nature of the creation of the federations under the Articles and the Constitution. By now, the memetic algorithms based on the perversions of myth, legend and propaganda intended to justify the invasion, war of aggression and annexation of the nations of the CSA, have replaced the facts of history and are accepted without question or debate as truths.
You may think you know better why your Confederate heroes seceded than they themselves knew, but their own words convict them of the decision to secede in order to preserve the right to own slaves.
Nothing can absolve the North of it's share of guilt for injustice - not even the Civil War blood shed. The subsequent mistreatment of various indigenous people both on our shores and beyond - by the UNION based in Washington DC under Old Glory - is absolute and undeniable truth that the North and South had more in common than the North cares to admit when it comes to exploitation and suprematism.
Moreover, white liberals today are doubly guilty of falsely absolving themselves of guilt concerning our history while simultaneously continuing to either ignore or blatantly misrepresent the awesome evil perpetrated around the world by the various radical Left ideologies of the 20th century. Such people as call American conservatives by the epithet "fascist" were themselves extolling the virtues of men like Stalin and Mussolini here in America. They say NOTHING about the dreadful treatment of religious minorities in socieities all over the Asian and African continents. Even today, I've heard a cabinet level member of the Obama administration praise Chairman Mao for his "great works" in China. I couldn't help but think of the unpublished photos I've seen of Tianemein Square after the Chi-Coms rolled across protestors with 30 ton battle tanks, mashing their bodies into a ghastly fluid paste on the cobblestones. The "great hero Mao", according to the Science Czar. Even the history of small Marxist regimes in places like Cambodia and Laos absolutely dwarfs the evils perpetrated in the antebellum South.
Really, I think the founding fathers just plain messed up badly when they ever even considered entertaining the vaguest idea of allowing slavery in the new nation. Frankly, if I had been there as a signer, I would like to believe that I would have laughed at the whole idea of independence with slavery, and made ridicule of those who said "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" out of one side of their mouths, while talking about compromise with slave states on the other. I would like to believe I am moral enough to at least object to that. But then again, I consider George Washington and I find it hard to assert that he was a lesser man than me morally.
I look at the List of Grievances against King George, and I just have to laugh at the myopic stupidity of humanity. Our incredible capacity to be self-deluded and arrogant about it. We've NEVER really lived up to the high sounding ideals of 1776. And the saddest thing now, is that so much time has been wasted moving in the wrong direction, that we mind end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater and going back to the Old World way of doing things. The Constitution we had was truly a revolutionary document - but I'm convinced people today would rather blame anything but humanity itself for our failings. Even to the point where we just convince ourselves it's better to step back toward the Dark Ages of authoritarianism.
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 10-03-2013 at 11:54 PM..
lets look for what it was, slavery was wrong and Lincoln was a tyrant.......2 wrongs but we put Lincoln on a pedestal and made him one of the greatest Presidents when he was in my opinion the worst and should have been shot before 1860.
Hollywood liberals like Spielberg make movies about him with this romance and fantasy when in reality he was a tyrant and what he did was illegal and unconstitutional. He was no different than what many dictators have done in their countries. Its sad that our schools can't teach the truth.
Rush,
I do appreciate your POV..
but, would Lincoln had been a Tryant had there been no Civil War??? A true Tyrant would have been so regardless of the situation but I think your view of Lincoln was mandated due to war....
Rush,
I do appreciate your POV..
but, would Lincoln had been a Tryant had there been no Civil War??? A true Tyrant would have been so regardless of the situation but I think your view of Lincoln was mandated due to war....
have Hitler been a tyrant if there was NO WW 2? ..................All we can go by are the actions by Lincoln from the moment he took oath as President to the moment he got shot.
Nobody knows how Lincoln would have rule and treated the south after the Civil War.
You make it sound like the civil war which wasn't a civil war more like a war of aggression from the north landed on Lincoln from the sky. The decision to violate the constitution in many ways and invade eleven nations in the south was his.
That's like saying if Stalin would have never been in power he would never been a tyrant.......lol
So Lincoln was akin to Hitler and Stalin.. sorry, I don't follow you.
I never said that, you missed my point..........a tyrant is a tyrant. ........we don't have to split hairs.
My question to you is: If Hitler would have been a tyrant if he NEVER invaded his neighbors? ...........my point is that is the same question that applies to Lincoln that you asked me.
If Lincoln didn't invade the sound in a war of aggression and violate the constitution in many ways then he wouldn't be a tyrant. We judge leaders by their actions not with "WHAT IF" scenarios.
comparing the tyranny of Hitler to Lincoln is not my point but Lincoln did more damage to our country and Americans by far than Hitler could had imagine if you really look at it.
Hitler was tyrant, born that way, bred that way.. always to be so.
That was my point.. Lincoln was not a de facto Tyrant. No war, no tyrant.
Unless you believe he was going to emancipate the slaves and slaughter all those southerners opposed to such without the veil of war... hum.
how do you know how people are going to rule before they get to power? hard to tell what is in a person's mind and heart until he gets power.
Fidel Castro was a "nice" guy and said the right things before he got to power and wanted top help the poor and take out corruption and change when he took control and became a tyrant.
how is a tyrant born that?.....is it in the DNA?
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.
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.
