• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Confederate Memorial Day(s) exist?

Should Confederate Memorial Day(s) exist?


  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
Which state didn't leave because of slavery?

in some of the states, they declaration they are leaving because the u.s.government is not upholding the constitution.

they state some northern states have ceased southern property, harassed and endangered southern Citizens while the federal government which is delegated the power to put an end to problems like these is doing nothing...and that the federal government is massing troops to be used against over southern states.

Texas.
 
in some of the states, they declaration they are leaving because the u.s.government is not upholding the constitution.

they state some northern states have ceased southern property, harassed and endangered southern Citizens while the federal government which is delegated the power to put an end to problems like these is doing nothing...and that the federal government is massing troops to be used against over southern states.

Texas.
From the Texas Ordnance of Secession
“In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. . .]
 
So if Texas secedes and calls itself the Texasistan neoCaliphate of America, you'd stall call its citizens Americans?

Until they made their case, I'd guess yes.
 
From the Texas Ordnance of Secession


this is example of why people need to learn to read property

“In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. . .]



texas is saying the northern states, are in power in government and in control and using hostility toward the southern states for the use of system of slavery.

YOU....... ONLY POSTED ONE PORTION, AND YOU DIDNT POST WHERE THEY STATE THEIR GRIEVANCE AGANIST THE U.S.FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...WHY!...IS IT YOU PEOPLE ONLY POST THINGS TO TRY TO MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT... YET..... YOU LEAVE OUT THINGS, WHICH DO NOT SUIT YOUR CAUSE?
 
I don't really care.

Should Penny marry Leonard?

I also don't really care...well, I care a little.

And no, I think she should not. Other then sex, they have little in common...and that is a shaky basis for a marriage.
 
Last edited:
It is the far-right wing conservaTEAs that won't get over the civil war.
In fact just the opposite--they advocate for a second civil war as you know--and brag they have the vast majority of the weapons.
You must have missed all the #1 best-sellers on the topic--as well as right-wing hate radio calling for such every night .

What left wing hate source are you getting all of this from? I have never heard any tea partier, or right wing talk show mention the civil war much less claim they want to start a second one, or that they have all the weapons.
 
hell no...traitors....tea party....lol
 
The South had a legal right to secede. The civil war was an illegal act of aggression perpetrated against the Southern states who acted within their constitutional rights by seceding.

So inasmuch as southerners are traitors, northerners are usurpers whose disdain for the constitutional law of the land shattered the previously long-held precedent of states rights of self-determination

What constitutional right did they have to secede?
 
you said it was unconstitutional..however the constitution does not prohibited the states from seceding..

the 10th amendment is very clear, if its not power of the federal government or prohibited to the states by the constitution then it is power of the states respectively and to the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

and the people of those southern states exercised their right to secede.

Until taken to SCOTUS to rule upon? is that not correct.
 
i don't need the link, because there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting secession of the states.

I understood the war settled that point. In favor of the Union and no right to secede from the Union.
 
Until taken to SCOTUS to rule upon? is that not correct.

it was stated it was unconstitutional....i stated there is nothing in the constitution about secession...since something is not mentioned in the constitution, it in no way can be a power of the federal government...the USSC has granted the federal government powers the founders never intented for them to have.
 
it was stated it was unconstitutional....i stated there is nothing in the constitution about secession...since something is not mentioned in the constitution, it in no way can be a power of the federal government...the USSC has granted the federal government powers the founders never intented for them to have.

If there is ever another succession movement, I don't think we will go to war over it. And I do not see another succession movement coming unless the politicians in DC behave so badly that the constitution becomes meaningless. If not for the 22nd amendment to the US constitution, I think we would be very close to a succession movement right now. I don't think this nation could survive a third or fourth Obama term in office. Obama has clearly shown that he has no regard for the separation of powers. And congress is too sheepishly cowed to reign him in.
 
What constitutional right did they have to secede?

It depends. If Washington DC seriously and chronically crosses the line constitutionally, then given states can declare their statehood agreements null and void. We are 50 United States of America. "United" should not mean involuntary servitude.
 
you have to read the convention notes of may 31st 1787

Is this what you are referring to?

Avalon Project - Madison Debates - May 31

Mr. MADISON, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. -A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse [FN12] unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.
 

only part..you have to have it all...........i shall supply the part you left out.

The other clauses giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat. Leg. the articles of union, down to the last clause, (the words "or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union," being added after the words "contravening &c. the articles of the Union," on motion of Dr. FRANKLIN) were agreed to witht. debate or dissent. The last clause of Resolution 6. [FN11] authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.

the power is denied...



since you missed something else i shalll provide it also.


William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 295--304, 305--7 1829 (2d ed.)

The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.

But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.

The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.
 
Last edited:
If there is ever another succession movement, I don't think we will go to war over it. And I do not see another succession movement coming unless the politicians in DC behave so badly that the constitution becomes meaningless. If not for the 22nd amendment to the US constitution, I think we would be very close to a succession movement right now. I don't think this nation could survive a third or fourth Obama term in office. Obama has clearly shown that he has no regard for the separation of powers. And congress is too sheepishly cowed to reign him in.

i don't see it either, the stock market would tumble, our enemies would be like sharks smelling blood.
 
Back
Top Bottom