I am distorting nothing. You simply haven't given the matter any thought beyond your sixth grade history course. The fact of the matter is that the Southern states were forced to stay in the Union without any just cause or authority for Lincoln to do so.
Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
and slave holding Southerners deserve "a decent respect to the[ir] opinions..."?
Or you didn't think that perhaps succession was "destructive of those ends (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness)for which the Union was formed? You are also forgetting that England was anti-slavery even before the North was. OR perhaps you don't think slavery was important enough of an evil to warrant intervention? Why did you think the South wanted to make state's rights preeminent other than to 'preserve our Southern way of life' which was just an euphenism for slavery?
Your whole point seems to be about state's rights. I agree that state's rights are important but I wan't to point out something you posted and it's very fitting.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
What about slaves rights ? What about their rights of pursuit of happiness ? What about their rights to have the same rights of nature ? What about their equality.
Now I imagine you'll come back that it was the state's right to decide if they wanted slaves or not. Perhaps that's techinically corrrect. I don't think it is and i'm not going to debate it with you. But it was 100% wrong on the basis of human law and decency. You may defend "their" rights all you wish. By doing so you aren't defending the rights of slaves as human beings for God's sake.
Here's what puzzles me the most about your stance.
On one hand you abhore abortion because it kills the innocent, I agree. Your main contention from a legal standpoint there is that the govt. shouldn't decide states rights and decide if abortions should be legal. O.K fair enough. Let me ask you, if the federal govt. today said abortion HAD to be illegal through federal mandate would you be upset about it ? I mean if today at noon Bush came on T.V and said effective 12:01 abortion will be illlegal and a federal crime , would you be mad about state's rights then ?
Why wouldn't you give slaves the same rights or consideration? What about hte slave's rights ? You are constantly asking about the child's life, so why not the slaves ? They were innocent human beings too that didn't deserve their fate. Do you not see a double standard there at all ?
no he probably wouldn't, rob. why? because he speaks with a forked tongue, and which side of the fork does the talking depends on which one is convenient for his purposes at the time.
and slave holding Southerners deserve "a decent respect to the[ir] opinions..."? Why would the union want to keep them? Could it have been that the Union was just as racist as the north? Could it be that the north just didn't have any use for the black race, either? You know that some northern states did not want free blacks in their state's didn't you? You do know that if the South had returned to the Union in 1861 that not one single slave would have been freed?
Or you didn't think that perhaps succession was "destructive of those ends (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness)for which the Union was formed? You are also forgetting that England was anti-slavery even before the North was. OR perhaps you don't think slavery was important enough of an evil to warrant intervention? Why did you think the South wanted to make state's rights preeminent other than to 'preserve our Southern way of life' which was just an euphenism for slavery? The point was power and who controlled the future. You do know that the South was willing to give up slavery for England's recognizing the confederacy's independence?
no he probably wouldn't, rob. why? because he speaks with a forked tongue, and which side of the fork does the talking depends on which one is convenient for his purposes at the time.
I wonder how I can best utilize this talent? Any suggestions?
What about their rights of pursuit of happiness ? What about their rights to have the same rights of nature ? What about their equality. What about it?
The north didn't recognize black equality and if you believe they did you need to go back and look at the facts.
I didn't say equality but they sure the hell would of been better off not enslaved. Sheesh.
Why would I be mad? I still would recognize that that position is also not supported by the Constitution.
Yea and I'm sure you'd say how wrong the feds were for outlawing abortion, righty oh then, I've got some property to sell you too.
Because that was not the issue of the war although you desperately cling to that belief.
Yea, slavery had nothing to do with it and it wasn't the main issue, right, sure okay, whatever, nevermind.
I didn't say equality but they sure the hell would of been better off not enslaved. Sheesh.
You might think so but consider the following:
It is hard to believe, but in a number of Northern states, free blacks had fewer rights than slaves in the South. Historian Charles Adams reports that Indiana and Ohio prohibited free Negroes from entering the state. Lincoln never spoke against the Illinois law (1853) that barred black people from residing in that state. The Oregon constitution (1859) prohibited blacks from coming into the state, holding property, making contracts or filing a lawsuit.
Northern states that permitted black residency did not permit blacks to attend the theater or school, nor could blacks be admitted to hospitals. Alexis De Tocqueville wrote that the Southern people were "much more tolerant and compassionate" toward blacks than were Northerners. In 1862, the North British Review wrote that "free Negroes are treated like lepers" in the North.
Yea and I'm sure you'd say how wrong the feds were for outlawing abortion, righty oh then, I've got some property to sell you too. Did I say that is what I would say? No, I said I would recognize that such an act was not supported by the Constitution.
Yea, slavery had nothing to do with it and it wasn't the main issue, right, sure okay, whatever, nevermind. No it was bout power and who had more of it. The facts support this position much better than it does your belief that the civil war was about slavery. Abolitionists were a minority in the north and didn't have the power to end slavery. Slavery wouldn't have ended for who knows how long if the south would have stayed in the Union. Do you believe that the 13th, 14thy and 15th amendments would have passed had the southern states had not seceded?
Yea, you're right they'd have been better off as a slave on a plantation.
The point was that the way the north treated blacks seems to indicate that the civil war was not about the conditions southern blacks lived in. The fact is many slave owners treated their wards well. Many understood that to get quality work out of them they had to treat them well.
Nevrmind Jethro, you feel the south had "rights" to seceed and had the right to hold slaves.
Obviously you equate the right to secede with the right to hold slaves. And you apparently accuse me of holding the belief that slavery is right because I argue the south had the right pursuant to law to secede. Your logic is faulty and your assertion is false. I do believe the Constitution in 1861 allowed both secession and slavery. Does that mean that I think both were morally right? You can't come to that conclusion logically or from anything I have written. My point is this, and has always been so: this country is supposed to be a country of laws. The law is paramount over the morality of its members. You can disagree with the law, you can criticize the law and you can work to change the law but it should be done by the rules. I see the Union's action in using force to keep the south in the Union as a violation of those rules.
They mention the evils of the North, but where/what are the rights of slaves that he uses as a comparison?
Am I to believe that in the South black could hold property, make contracts, file lawsuits...?
I don't know what it is you should believe. I don't think that the right to hold property and make contracts and file lawsuits is the issue. The issue is: based on the treatment blacks received in the north can you come to the logical conclusion that the north would send men to war to free blacks from slavery? It doesn't make sense that they would. It doesn't seem that they would have the moral outrage to commit themselves to such a course of action.
Heaven forfend! Think about what the states ever did for me - NOTHING. And yet they want taxes, fees, and increased power over my life and my business and for what - NOTHING. Thanks EVER so much. Did they grant women the right to vote? NO Did they help women battle sexually based discrimination? NO The FACT remains that I choose the state by what it offers ME and mine. The states had better finally get into their heads the idea that THEY are competing against eachother for US. They work for ME and thus far they haven't done all that good of a job.
Why? So I can become like you, jethro? That would be an immense improvement.
Heaven forfend! Think about what the states ever did for me - NOTHING. And yet they want taxes, fees, and increased power over my life and my business and for what - NOTHING. Thanks EVER so much. They do a lot.Did they grant women the right to vote? NO Did they help women battle sexually based discrimination? NO The FACT remains that I choose the state by what it offers ME and mine. The states had better finally get into their heads the idea that THEY are competing against eachother for US. They work for ME and thus far they haven't done all that good of a job. It is all about YOU. selfishness epitomized.
One big lie is that America was founded upon the "Separation of Church and State."
The big lie about America and immigration is that "America is a Nation of Immigrants". This is supposed to mean that Americans do not have any particular ethnic or religious identity.
liberals always ignore the second part that states "or prohibiting the free excercise thereof." Then of course the prohibition specifically was directed at Congress not state legislatures.
and in general conservatives interpret "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to mean you can practice whatever religion you want so long as its a form of christianity.
and in general conservatives interpret "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to mean you can practice whatever religion you want so long as its a form of christianity.
congress means congress until the 14th amendment came along, jethro. the wording of said amendment is very precise, regardless of what you'd like to believe its intent was. and don't ever make the mistake of calling this liberal an anti-religious bigot. i'll be the first one in line to complain if a school, in the name of "sensitivity" decides that a student cant say a prayer before eating lunch.
Congress still meant Congress. As I have said before, the interpretation of the 14th amendment is wrong. It took nearly 80 years for the Court to get around to saying that it applied to religion. The 14th amendment was never intended to apply to religion but only to treatment of blacks. Open your mind instead of believing everything you have been spoon-fed by the left. The incorporation doctrine was pure judicial legislation.
the wording of said amendment is very precise, regardless of what you'd like to believe its intent was. If you believe that you are even dumber than I thought. The language is very broad and refers nothing to religion. It does make mention of a due process clause in section one. That seems to indicate that only the fifth amendment was to apply, at best. But more likely it was meant to have the 14th amendment stand alone without resort to some perverted incorporation doctrine. At least it shoots a huge whole in the hole incorporation theory.
i don't take anything that's spoon fed to me from the left any more than i take anything that you're trying to spoon feed me.
qouth amendment the 14th, section the first: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". among these priviliges (one has to wonder why it is that the writers of this amendment chose to use the word privileges as opposed to rights, since this country was after all founded on the principles that we are endowed by our creater with certain inalienable rights) is the free exercise of religion. whatever religion one chooses.
don't take anything that's spoon fed to me from the left any more than i take anything that you're trying to spoon feed me.I think you do. As for the use of the word privileges it seems quite elementary that the amendment meant to guarantee equal treatment for all under state laws. That would mean that if some privilege was given to one group by a state that the privilege could not be denied to blacks. I see you ignored the comment on the specific enumeration of the due process clause in the 14th amendment and my assertion of the big hole that puts in the incorporation theory.
"They fired on Sumpter because he Union troops would not leave Confederate territory. "
They attacked a federal installation, just like Al Qaeda did with the Pentagon.
"If England would have recognized the condeferacy there is better than 50-50 chance it would have survived."
Maybe because they saw the South was led by treasonous, seditious bastards.
If they'd sell out their own country, how could the crown trust them?
France could have said the same thing about the colonials. I know you believe the south was committing treason too bad it isn't supported by facts.
Maybe if England was willing to pick a fight with France at the time, the United States would now be a dominion, like Canada and Australia.
Maybe the United States is what is because of the French.
"They fired on Sumpter because he Union troops would not leave Confederate territory."
I think back in '90 Saddam Huissen said something like that about Kuwait, too.
He'd entertain no other options. I took it, it's the 19th province of Iraq, and that's it.
He keeps people in bondage, like the Confederates desired to do as well.
The difference is that the Confederacy was invaded. The duly elected state governments met and agreed to secede.
Self appointed traitors and scoundrels filled the hubris. Their authority hasn't been recognized to this day.
You're pathetically distorting history, jethro.
Stop before you completely embarrass yourself.
I am distorting nothing. You simply haven't given the matter any thought beyond your sixth grade history course. The fact of the matter is that the Southern states were forced to stay in the Union without any just cause or authority for Lincoln to do so.
Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.
http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/resources.cfm?doc_id=1507
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
and slave holding Southerners deserve "a decent respect to the[ir] opinions..."?
Or you didn't think that perhaps succession was "destructive of those ends (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness)for which the Union was formed? You are also forgetting that England was anti-slavery even before the North was. OR perhaps you don't think slavery was important enough of an evil to warrant intervention? Why did you think the South wanted to make state's rights preeminent other than to 'preserve our Southern way of life' which was just an euphenism for slavery?
All chiefs and no indians doesn't work.
Rick & Kit,
Well said.
Jethro,
Your whole point seems to be about state's rights. I agree that state's rights are important but I wan't to point out something you posted and it's very fitting.
What about slaves rights ?
What about their rights of pursuit of happiness ? What about their rights to have the same rights of nature ? What about their equality.
Now I imagine you'll come back that it was the state's right to decide if they wanted slaves or not. Perhaps that's techinically corrrect. I don't think it is and i'm not going to debate it with you. But it was 100% wrong on the basis of human law and decency. You may defend "their" rights all you wish. By doing so you aren't defending the rights of slaves as human beings for God's sake.
Here's what puzzles me the most about your stance.
On one hand you abhore abortion because it kills the innocent, I agree. Your main contention from a legal standpoint there is that the govt. shouldn't decide states rights and decide if abortions should be legal. O.K fair enough. Let me ask you, if the federal govt. today said abortion HAD to be illegal through federal mandate would you be upset about it ? I mean if today at noon Bush came on T.V and said effective 12:01 abortion will be illlegal and a federal crime , would you be mad about state's rights then ?
Why wouldn't you give slaves the same rights or consideration?
What about hte slave's rights ? You are constantly asking about the child's life, so why not the slaves ? They were innocent human beings too that didn't deserve their fate. Do you not see a double standard there at all ?
no he probably wouldn't, rob. why? because he speaks with a forked tongue, and which side of the fork does the talking depends on which one is convenient for his purposes at the time.
and slave holding Southerners deserve "a decent respect to the[ir] opinions..."? Why would the union want to keep them? Could it have been that the Union was just as racist as the north? Could it be that the north just didn't have any use for the black race, either? You know that some northern states did not want free blacks in their state's didn't you? You do know that if the South had returned to the Union in 1861 that not one single slave would have been freed?
Or you didn't think that perhaps succession was "destructive of those ends (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness)for which the Union was formed?
You are also forgetting that England was anti-slavery even before the North was. OR perhaps you don't think slavery was important enough of an evil to warrant intervention? Why did you think the South wanted to make state's rights preeminent other than to 'preserve our Southern way of life' which was just an euphenism for slavery? The point was power and who controlled the future. You do know that the South was willing to give up slavery for England's recognizing the confederacy's independence?
no he probably wouldn't, rob. why? because he speaks with a forked tongue, and which side of the fork does the talking depends on which one is convenient for his purposes at the time.
I wonder how I can best utilize this talent? Any suggestions?
What about their rights of pursuit of happiness ? What about their rights to have the same rights of nature ? What about their equality. What about it?
I didn't say equality but they sure the hell would of been better off not enslaved. Sheesh.
Yea and I'm sure you'd say how wrong the feds were for outlawing abortion, righty oh then, I've got some property to sell you too.
Yea, slavery had nothing to do with it and it wasn't the main issue, right, sure okay, whatever, nevermind.
I didn't say equality but they sure the hell would of been better off not enslaved. Sheesh.
You might think so but consider the following:
Yea, you're right they'd have been better off as a slave on a plantation.
...free blacks had fewer rights than slaves in the South.
They mention the evils of the North, but where/what are the rights of slaves that he uses as a comparison?
Am I to believe that in the South black could hold property, make contracts, file lawsuits...?
Yea and I'm sure you'd say how wrong the feds were for outlawing abortion, righty oh then, I've got some property to sell you too. Did I say that is what I would say? No, I said I would recognize that such an act was not supported by the Constitution.
Yea, slavery had nothing to do with it and it wasn't the main issue, right, sure okay, whatever, nevermind. No it was bout power and who had more of it. The facts support this position much better than it does your belief that the civil war was about slavery. Abolitionists were a minority in the north and didn't have the power to end slavery. Slavery wouldn't have ended for who knows how long if the south would have stayed in the Union. Do you believe that the 13th, 14thy and 15th amendments would have passed had the southern states had not seceded?
Nevrmind Jethro, you feel the south had "rights" to secceed and had the right to hold slaves. Why argue with logic like that ?
Yea, you're right they'd have been better off as a slave on a plantation.
The point was that the way the north treated blacks seems to indicate that the civil war was not about the conditions southern blacks lived in. The fact is many slave owners treated their wards well. Many understood that to get quality work out of them they had to treat them well.
In case you missed it, Jethro.
THX 1138 12/20/02 10:24am
Nevrmind Jethro, you feel the south had "rights" to seceed and had the right to hold slaves.
Obviously you equate the right to secede with the right to hold slaves. And you apparently accuse me of holding the belief that slavery is right because I argue the south had the right pursuant to law to secede. Your logic is faulty and your assertion is false. I do believe the Constitution in 1861 allowed both secession and slavery. Does that mean that I think both were morally right? You can't come to that conclusion logically or from anything I have written. My point is this, and has always been so: this country is supposed to be a country of laws. The law is paramount over the morality of its members. You can disagree with the law, you can criticize the law and you can work to change the law but it should be done by the rules. I see the Union's action in using force to keep the south in the Union as a violation of those rules.
They mention the evils of the North, but where/what are the rights of slaves that he uses as a comparison?
Am I to believe that in the South black could hold property, make contracts, file lawsuits...?
I don't know what it is you should believe. I don't think that the right to hold property and make contracts and file lawsuits is the issue. The issue is: based on the treatment blacks received in the north can you come to the logical conclusion that the north would send men to war to free blacks from slavery? It doesn't make sense that they would. It doesn't seem that they would have the moral outrage to commit themselves to such a course of action.
Well, I know of a lot of men that abuse their families, yet they're against abortion.
Well, I know of a lot of men that abuse their families, yet they're against abortion.
First, do you see many going to war against it? Second, why don't you name names?
According to jethro, only white guys have any REAL rights!! Oh, and unborn fetuses, of course. Women and blacks - who cares!
jethro is bankrupt!
as for the 'states, can you say 'middle management'?
Can you tell us what slavery was like, fold? Your description sounds more like lynching and not labor....do you know the difference?
if you are a slave. Might as well BE dead.
Stop it.
According to jethro, only white guys have any REAL rights!! Oh, and unborn fetuses, of course. Women and blacks - who cares!
jethro is bankrupt!
as for the 'states, can you say 'middle management'?
You are full of crap as usual, kit. Get a book and learn something.
Heaven forfend! Think about what the states ever did for me - NOTHING. And yet they want taxes, fees, and increased power over my life and my business and for what - NOTHING. Thanks EVER so much. Did they grant women the right to vote? NO Did they help women battle sexually based discrimination? NO The FACT remains that I choose the state by what it offers ME and mine. The states had better finally get into their heads the idea that THEY are competing against eachother for US. They work for ME and thus far they haven't done all that good of a job.
Why? So I can become like you, jethro? That would be an immense improvement.
Heaven forfend! Think about what the states ever did for me - NOTHING. And yet they want taxes, fees, and increased power over my life and my business and for what - NOTHING. Thanks EVER so much. They do a lot.Did they grant women the right to vote? NO Did they help women battle sexually based discrimination? NO The FACT remains that I choose the state by what it offers ME and mine. The states had better finally get into their heads the idea that THEY are competing against eachother for US. They work for ME and thus far they haven't done all that good of a job. It is all about YOU. selfishness epitomized.
One big lie is that America was founded upon the "Separation of Church and State."
The big lie about America and immigration is that "America is a Nation of Immigrants". This is supposed to mean that Americans do not have any particular ethnic or religious identity.
http://www.exilemm.com/e-sub-biglies.shtml
not any one
that is correct
it does me no harm for my neighbor to have no gods or ten gods, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. Jefferson said something to that effect.
Where does it say "Separation of church & state"?
Congress
(State) shall make no law respecting
(separate) an establishment of religion
(church)
Fiddle Faddle
is that a technical term?
liberals always ignore the second part that states "or prohibiting the free excercise thereof." Then of course the prohibition specifically was directed at Congress not state legislatures.
and in general conservatives interpret "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to mean you can practice whatever religion you want so long as its a form of christianity.
actually, that's another example of the separation.
unless you interpret "free exercise" as being involved with the making of laws, which of course, the first part disallows.
and in general conservatives interpret "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to mean you can practice whatever religion you want so long as its a form of christianity.
no, not at all.
free excercise means free excercise. Congress means Congress and no other entity. It is only difficult for anti religious bigots to understand.
congress means congress until the 14th amendment came along, jethro. the wording of said amendment is very precise, regardless of what you'd like to believe its intent was. and don't ever make the mistake of calling this liberal an anti-religious bigot. i'll be the first one in line to complain if a school, in the name of "sensitivity" decides that a student cant say a prayer before eating lunch.
Congress still meant Congress. As I have said before, the interpretation of the 14th amendment is wrong. It took nearly 80 years for the Court to get around to saying that it applied to religion. The 14th amendment was never intended to apply to religion but only to treatment of blacks. Open your mind instead of believing everything you have been spoon-fed by the left. The incorporation doctrine was pure judicial legislation.
the wording of said amendment is very precise, regardless of what you'd like to believe its intent was. If you believe that you are even dumber than I thought. The language is very broad and refers nothing to religion. It does make mention of a due process clause in section one. That seems to indicate that only the fifth amendment was to apply, at best. But more likely it was meant to have the 14th amendment stand alone without resort to some perverted incorporation doctrine. At least it shoots a huge whole in the hole incorporation theory.
i don't take anything that's spoon fed to me from the left any more than i take anything that you're trying to spoon feed me.
qouth amendment the 14th, section the first: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". among these priviliges (one has to wonder why it is that the writers of this amendment chose to use the word privileges as opposed to rights, since this country was after all founded on the principles that we are endowed by our creater with certain inalienable rights) is the free exercise of religion. whatever religion one chooses.
don't take anything that's spoon fed to me from the left any more than i take anything that you're trying to spoon feed me. I think you do. As for the use of the word privileges it seems quite elementary that the amendment meant to guarantee equal treatment for all under state laws. That would mean that if some privilege was given to one group by a state that the privilege could not be denied to blacks. I see you ignored the comment on the specific enumeration of the due process clause in the 14th amendment and my assertion of the big hole that puts in the incorporation theory.