| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
Comments:
<Katey> gloriae, obviously the civil war was about secession
<Lupine> bmc: ***uming they had removed themselves from the union; and formed a SEPERATE nation: could the USA declare war on that nation, and invade?
<Katey> but the secession was driven by the slavery issue
<Publius> gloriae: agreed. and it is also more sophisticated than "the south had the right to secede, lincoln was wrong"
<gloriae> interestingly, many of those who claim the civil war was all about the slavery question know remarkably little about the thousands of years of history of slavery before the 18th and 19th centuries
<Katey> so they're inextricably linked
<bmc> Lupine probably, in that case the union loses because the south would have british and french support
<gloriae> and spanish, and portuguese ...
<Lupine> bmc: ah, but we know the nation of the Confederates lost that war
<bmc> yes
<Publius> gloriae: were the Dutch involved in slave trading?
<gloriae> yes, pub
<Katey> Publius, big time
<Lupine> so: either they had the right to succeed, and were invaded by the USA.. or they didn't have the right to succeed, and it was a "civil war". either way, it is all legit
<Publius> check
<bmc> Lupine no, the US wouldnt have support to just invade a seperate soverign nation
<Lupine> congress declared war, as required by the constitution.. and the president directed the military to attack and invade the confedreate nation.
<bmc> the people would have sided with the south
<bmc> and lincoln would have taken his dirt nap a little sooner
<Lupine> bmc: i'm not talking about "would". that is irrelevent. you can't go back and magically change what england/france/etc would have done.
<Lupine> actions can not be changed.
<Publius> I'll keep that in mind next time I hear about Slavery in America and the attacks about Native Americans..heh
<gloriae> secede* (not 'succeed')
<Publius> not the point...
<pilgrim`> the war of northern imperialism?
<bmc> Lupine they were attempting to seperate, that didnt happen, they were not permitted to seperate
<gloriae> the war to preserve the Union
<bmc> fast forward and imagine this happening today
<gloriae> people who wonder about this should really read at least a few of the Federalist Papers: they were written before the Constitution was ratified and consist of reasons why the Constitution was necessary
<bmc> Lupine if they would have seperated and been able to exist, they would have survived
<bmc> the british and french saw them as fighting for their independence
<Lupine> bmc: no, as the USA crushed that 3rd world mudhole of a nation
<gloriae> particularly John Jay's contributions, the first four
<bmc> but they didnt want to side with the loser
<Katey> I'll never understand this romantic fixation with the Confederacy
<pilgrim`> one interesting thing I would suggest is the well researched historical novels by one Harry Turtledove on this issue. I forget the titles but their basic thread is: the North and South reach a compromise, then edn up fighting a 2nd war circa 880s.
<Katey> and I grew up hearing it
<gloriae> no, the whole thing would have devolved into the situation the Constitution was designed to prevent!
<Publius> gloriae: *grins*
<bmc> the north would have collapsed without the south
<gloriae> which was a bunch of little nations, a la europe, continually at odds with one another
<pilgrim`> the story line has WWII fought earlier with the CSA ont eh Brit side and the US on the German side
<pilgrim`> WWI
<gloriae> easily exploited by foreign interests
<Publius> "a new nation conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
<lgcbmb> "It's unclear," replied U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, appearing on CNN's "The Situation Room," when asked by Wolf Blitzer whether his grandparents came to Texas from Mexico legally
<pilgrim`> interestign discussion of that history from an alternate history perspective
<Publius> ;)
<gloriae> Publius: except those designated as only 3/5 of a person
<pilgrim`> lbcbmb somone shoudl as Wolf the same
<gloriae> 3/5 != 1
<Katey> gloriae, of course
<krubris> lgcbmb, so yes then
<Katey> slaves were only "people" (and only 3/5 of a person) when it was politically advantageous
<gloriae> the southern states wanted slave population counted for representation in Congress, the northern states did not
<Katey> other than that, they were "property"
<gloriae> because they didn't want the slave states to have that numerical advantage in Congress with a body count of people who were not allowed to vote
<Publius> gloriae: well...let me counter with the 15 amendment
<Publius> !
<Publius> p***ed in erm
<Publius> ;(
<Publius> fine
<pilgrim`> my name comes fron Hugenots who came here in the 1600s but much of the other side was Irish indentured servants
<gloriae> going off in all directions is fun, but it prevents the development of any single clear thread of discussion
<Publius> gloriae: *nods*. my mistake, I'll refocus
<pilgrim`> so, being of slave stock... being decended from the opressed ...I WANT MY FREE SH*T!
<Publius> gr
<gloriae> there were northern slave states, too, they just didn't secede with the CSA
<pilgrim`> matter of fact the Emancipation Proclamation only liberated SOUTHERN slaves
<gloriae> e.g. delaware
<pilgrim`> didn't do squat for poor irish
<gloriae> it wasn't unusual for citizens to own slaves in northern states, it simply wasn't done on as large a scale as in the south
<gloriae> and slave owners in the north largely didn't conspire to rupture the Union
<lgcbmb> on this day in 1775 the Continental Congress bans trade with Canada
<Katey> damned Canadians!
<bmc> gloriae what about lincoln sending in troops and declaring martial law, imprisoning confederat supporters in some states to be sure they didnt secede?
<Publius> Katey: o_O
<gloriae> arguments based on executive decisions alone are remarkably superficial
<pilgrim`> Exec Orders though are the latest "law" system in America. similar to how Timujin maintained order among the waring Hetmen of the Mongols
<pilgrim`> Linclon tossed several congressment, and 1 supreme court justice in jail
<pilgrim`> he suspended Habeus Corpus. please point to where that is leal
<pilgrim`> legal
<gloriae> it's like looking at a map and pointing out only one type of feature (mountain, lake, plateau, whatever) and ignoring all the rest
<gloriae> yes, and sometimes surgeons remove diseased organs to save patients, your point?
<Publius> pilgrim: The privelageof the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, UNLESS when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it
<Katey> yep
<Publius> Artilce one, Section 9..paragraph 2
<Publius> I think
<Publius> Article
<Publius> of the Constitution
<bmc> nobody was rebelling
<bmc> they were seperating
<bmc> :P
<bmc> not overthrowing the union government
<gloriae> it ruptured the Union
<gloriae> and threatened to make that rupture permanent
<gloriae> it wasn't allowed, get over it
<bmc> they had a right to secede
<gloriae> no, in fact, they did not
<bmc> they entered into the union voluntarily, they can seperate from it voluntarily
<gloriae> the Union fought to preserve itself, and it succeeded
<gloriae> get over it
<bmc> gloriae show me what part of the articles of confederation has provisions for drafting a new constitution?
<bmc> haha
<bmc> figures
<bmc> if people want to say "the constitution doesnt say that"
<Publius> articles of confederation?
<bmc> where is a new constitutional provision in the articles of confederation
<Katey> lol
<bmc> where is it setup to allow a new constitution to be written?
<Katey> the articles of confederation?
<Publius> I thought we voted on the Constitution. I'm not sure I see your point
<Publius> for*
<bmc> whats the difference between setting aside the articles and writing a new constitution together
<Katey> this discussion has taken a stupid turn
<RobVanDam> hi
<bmc> or doing it semi-unilaterally
<bmc> ?
<Katey> bmc, I dunno...maybe the fact that the new constitution was ratified?
<Publius> an interesting debate, but not relevant to the current one
<Publius> I don't believe
<bmc> it is
<bmc> it goes back to a right to set aside current government
<Katey> Publius, really? It's an interesting debate?
<bmc> and enact new government
<bmc> read the DOI
<bmc> this is an inherent right in the people
<Publius> Katey: the articles vs. the constitution is
<Publius> in general
<Publius> lol
<Katey> The constitution was ratified. jesus.
<Katey> move the **** on.
<bmc> most of the founding fathers of this nation (lincoln was not) agreed secession was a right of the states
<Katey> bmc, and yet they didn't state it explicitly in the constitution
<Katey> does that tell you anything?
<bmc> "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government," -- George Washington (Farewell Address)
<bmc> A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia and New York -- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.
<Katey> hmm...that doesn't sound like advocation of secession to me
<Zenabi> "of the people" being the operative phrase
<Katey> sounds like it's advocation of the right to ammend the constitution
<Katey> And yet it wasn't written into the document
<bmc> In New York's convention, for instance, on July 24, 1788, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr. moved that a resolution be adopted giving New York the right to secede from the Union if certain amendments were not adopted within a certain number of years. Alexander Hamilton, who had anticipated such a proposal, had written to James Madison several days earlier and posed the question to him. Madison, in his capacity as a Congressman, had replied, indicating that Congress
<bmc> conditional ratification to be valid. Hamilton read the letter to the convention, and Lansing's motion was defeated on the 25th by a vote of 31 to 28.
<Zenabi> yet another farcical facet of fasci...I mean democracy
<lgcbmb> on this day in 1987 an Iraqi fighter jet fires two missiles into the U.S. warship USS Stark (FFG-31), killing 37 and injuring 21 of her crew
<Katey> lgcbmb, Aha! THAT was our justification for war!
<Katey> :P
<RobVanDam> should have removed saddam then
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#freebsd
#delphi
#windowsxp
#online
#online
#gamedev
#linuxhelp
#windows
#computers
#microsoft
|
|
