• 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!

Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

What does redneck refer to

  • Total voters
    75
The_Patriot said:
As evidenced by a period map of Charleston Harbor you can see that Captain Anderson invaded South Carolina in his move from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, in addition to theft of fishing vessels (owned by citizens of South Carolina) to move his troops. Fort Moultrie is located on Sullivan Island and Fort Sumter sits in the center of the harbor with the harbor waters under South Carolina's control since it is their territorial waters.

Charleston_Harbor_LT.jpg
Click to expand...

Since South Carolina was part of the US and secession was illegal, Captain Anderson did no such thing. His move was entirely legal.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since South Carolina was part of the US and secession was illegal, Captain Anderson did no such thing. His move was entirely legal.
Click to expand...

A: South Carolina was an independent nation at the time it was an invasion.

B: Show me where in the Constitution of the United States that secession is prohibited to the states.

C: HistoryNet disproves that Captain Anderson didn't move from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.

The Union soldiers saw no one as they marched out of Fort Moultrie just after sunset on December 26, 1860, and made their way through the tiny town of Moultrieville, South Carolina, to the sea wall where their bobbing boats were moored.
Click to expand...
 
The_Patriot said:
Show me in the Constitution of the United States where the states cannot secede. The onus is on you to back up that statement.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS was given authority to rule on this. They did.

Article III

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official
Click to expand...
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
But they can't secede.
Click to expand...

actually they can, as long as every other state agrees, or they can defend themselves martially.
from wiki:Secession in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". However, the decision did allow some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States"
Click to expand...
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
The SCOTUS was given authority to rule on this. They did.
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked and the Supreme Court lacks the delegated authority to decide constitutionality. It was a power they seized in Marburry v. Madison. I'll give you a hint... look in Article I Section X for stuff that is prohibited to the states.
 
The_Patriot said:
Secession is perfectly legal under the Constitution of the United States and there is no clause prohibiting it. Here is the ratification of the Constitution by Virginia as written by James Madison.
Click to expand...

No, secession was illegal. The Virginia Constitution is irrelevant in this case. Firstly, the Articles of Confederation identified that they Union was "perpetual" and the Constitution strengthened this by creating "a more perfect Union". Further, this is discussed and identified in the Federalist Papers, the most commonly referenced documents by SCOTUS when discussing Constitutional law. Hamilton in Federalist #11:
Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!
Click to expand...



Citing Texas v. White is not a wise move since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was none other than Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln's Treasury Secretary, that declared to Lincoln during his presidency that fiat currency was legal then reverse his decision when he presided over a court case regarding foreign investors in order to discharge the debt held by these foreigners. He ruled that fiat currency was unconstitutional and the debt against the federal government in the green backs was discharged. It's a lot like asking Stalin to preside over a trial that pertains to his crimes against humanity.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Just because you do not like the decision does not make it wrong. It is part of legal precedence, indicating that secession was illegal.
 
The_Patriot said:
It's not wise to cite stare decisis especially from Chase since he only got the Chief Justice position because he served as Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury and had an axe to grind. How could else could he rule since if he ruled the opposite way would have made the Union victory null and void?
Click to expand...

Like I said, just because you do not like the decision, because it renders your argument null and void, doesn't matter. It is legal precedence and indentified that secession was illegal.
 
The_Patriot said:
Like I said it's not a good cite since the justices were anything but impartial.
Click to expand...

Like I said, just because the decision voids your argument does not alter the fact that the decision rendered secession illegal.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, secession was illegal. The Virginia Constitution is irrelevant in this case. Firstly, the Articles of Confederation identified that they Union was "perpetual" and the Constitution strengthened this by creating "a more perfect Union". Further, this is discussed and identified in the Federalist Papers, the most commonly referenced documents by SCOTUS when discussing Constitutional law. Hamilton in Federalist #11:
Click to expand...

The Articles of Confederation became null and void the moment the states were sent the Constitution to be ratified. The Congress of the Confederation ceased to exist as a governing body. The preamble of the Constitution is not law and neither is citing a paper written by the monarchist Hamilton, who was laughed and ridiculed out of the Philadelphia Convention. The only authority that is acceptable is Thomas Jefferson, the Anti-Federalists, and James Madison. They all disagree with you.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Irrelevant. Just because you do not like the decision does not make it wrong. It is part of legal precedence, indicating that secession was illegal.
Click to expand...

I already pointed out why it was wrong since there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the states from seceding. If Chase and the majority had actually adhered to the Constitution they would have rendered the entire war and the roughly 1 million dead pointless. He had no choice but to make a political decision to keep the war 'legal' (it wasn't a declared war as per the Constitution to begin with).
 
The_Patriot said:
A: South Carolina was an independent nation at the time it was an invasion.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. It was illegally seizing federal property and illegally seceding.

B: Show me where in the Constitution of the United States that secession is prohibited to the states.
Click to expand...

See post #336.

C: HistoryNet disproves that Captain Anderson didn't move from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.

http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-unions-mission-to-relieve-fort-sumter.htm/1
Click to expand...

Even if this is accurate. Beauregard fired on Fort Sumpter, illegally firing on a US military base.

The crux of your argument that secession was not illegal is false, and since your premise is false, everything that flows from it is.
 
The_Patriot said:
That's not what I asked and the Supreme Court lacks the delegated authority to decide constitutionality. It was a power they seized in Marburry v. Madison. I'll give you a hint... look in Article I Section X for stuff that is prohibited to the states.
Click to expand...

Again, as in Texas v, White, with Marbury v. Madison, just because you do not like the decision because it renders your position void, does not change the fact that it is legal precedence in dealing with legal issues.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, it wasn't. It was illegally seizing federal property and illegally seceding.
Click to expand...

See post #339 and it wasn't illegal to seize the property when Secretary of State Stanton was under orders from Lincoln to not accept any diplomats from the southern states.

CaptainCourtesy said:
See post #336.
Click to expand...

See post #339

I'll give you a hint to look at Article I Section X to find what is prohibited to the states.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Even if this is accurate. Beauregard fired on Fort Sumpter, illegally firing on a US military base.
Click to expand...

In defense of Charleston Harbor since at 1 AM a US Navy flotilla constisting of 2 sloops of war, a revenue cutter, and a troop steamer entered the harbor. That's an invasion of South Carolina's territorial waters.

CaptainCourtesy said:
The crux of your argument that secession was not illegal is false, and since your premise is false, everything that flows from it is.
Click to expand...

Declaring it false and proving it with the clauses from the Constitution of the United States is entirely different. If my argument is false then so was the argument used by those that attended the Hartford Convention in 1815 which many of the same arguments were used by the northern states.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Again, as in Texas v, White, with Marbury v. Madison, just because you do not like the decision because it renders your position void, does not change the fact that it is legal precedence in dealing with legal issues.
Click to expand...

The Tenth Amendment trumps stare decisis, so you were saying?
 
The_Patriot said:
The Articles of Confederation became null and void the moment the states were sent the Constitution to be ratified. The Congress of the Confederation ceased to exist as a governing body. The preamble of the Constitution is not law and neither is citing a paper written by the monarchist Hamilton, who was laughed and ridiculed out of the Philadelphia Convention. The only authority that is acceptable is Thomas Jefferson, the Anti-Federalists, and James Madison. They all disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Firstly, if you read my post carefully, you would have seen that I indicated that the Articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution. Secondly, Hamilton is far more credible than either Jefferson, Madison, or the Anti-Federalists. Hamilton wrote the bulk of the Federalist Papers, documents that are still used today in understanding what the framers thought during the Constitutional process.



I already pointed out why it was wrong since there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the states from seceding. If Chase and the majority had actually adhered to the Constitution they would have rendered the entire war and the roughly 1 million dead pointless. He had no choice but to make a political decision to keep the war 'legal' (it wasn't a declared war as per the Constitution to begin with).
Click to expand...

And I already pointed out how the decision was reached, and whether you like it or not, it decreed that secession was illegal. Even Madison, in a letter to Daniel Webster during the nullification crisis, indicated that secession was "a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged." So, sorry. If you are going to base your entire position on the "secession is legal" argument, your position is lost, since it was not.
 
The_Patriot said:
See post #339 and it wasn't illegal to seize the property when Secretary of State Stanton was under orders from Lincoln to not accept any diplomats from the southern states.
Click to expand...

Post #339 has already been debunked.



See post #339

I'll give you a hint to look at Article I Section X to find what is prohibited to the states.
Click to expand...

I'll give you a hint, Texas v, White still stands, so I guess SCOTUS found that Article ! Section X did not apply.



In defense of Charleston Harbor since at 1 AM a US Navy flotilla constisting of 2 sloops of war, a revenue cutter, and a troop steamer entered the harbor. That's an invasion of South Carolina's territorial waters.
Click to expand...

Since South Carolina was part of the US, as seceding was illegal, there was no invasion.



Declaring it false and proving it with the clauses from the Constitution of the United States is entirely different. If my argument is false then so was the argument used by those that attended the Hartford Convention in 1815 which many of the same arguments were used by the northern states.
Click to expand...

Since the Hartford Convention did not actually result in any state attempting to secede, your point here is irrelevant.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Firstly, if you read my post carefully, you would have seen that I indicated that the Articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution. Secondly, Hamilton is far more credible than either Jefferson, Madison, or the Anti-Federalists. Hamilton wrote the bulk of the Federalist Papers, documents that are still used today in understanding what the framers thought during the Constitutional process.
Click to expand...

So Hamilton, a bootlicker and absolute monarchist is a more realiable source then the person who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the person who wrote the Constitution and was there for the entire time, and the Anti-Federalists that were prophetic in the abuses that would occur? Don't make me laugh. Hamilton was in the Philadelphia Convention for two days before he was removed for being stupid.


CaptainCourtesy said:
And I already pointed out how the decision was reached, and whether you like it or not, it decreed that secession was illegal. Even Madison, in a letter to Daniel Webster during the nullification crisis, indicated that secession was "a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged." So, sorry. If you are going to base your entire position on the "secession is legal" argument, your position is lost, since it was not.
Click to expand...

I believe that the federal government violating Article I Section IX Clause VI is 'a violation, with cause, of a faith solemnly pledged'. I'm speaking of the Morill Tariff which would have brought back the tariff of abominations. As I said show me where in the Constitution of the United States that the states are prohibited from leaving. It must be a provision that prohibits such action by the states from enacting it. You can't find it because it doesn't exist and Mr. Madison surely would not have accepted the Constitution of the United States if it did. I say this because Mr. Madison wrote the Virginia Ratification that states, "Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them and at their will;" Your argument and position is the false one since the author of the Constitution has consistently said the opposite of what you claim.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Post #339 has already been debunked.
Click to expand...

Saying it's debunked and actually using the Constitution are two completely different things.


CaptainCourtesy said:
I'll give you a hint, Texas v, White still stands, so I guess SCOTUS found that Article ! Section X did not apply.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does apply whether or not SCOTUS uses it.


CaptainCourtesy said:
Since South Carolina was part of the US, as seceding was illegal, there was no invasion.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a part of the United States and you haven't proven under the Constitution that secession is prohibited to the states. It was an invasion and an act of war.


CaptainCourtesy said:
Since the Hartford Convention did not actually result in any state attempting to secede, your point here is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make a difference, since the doctrine was started by the north and the south did it. Your point is irrelevant.
 
The_Patriot said:
Saying it's debunked and actually using the Constitution are two completely different things.
Click to expand...

Saying it's not debunked an proving your position are two different things. You have not done the latter.

Actually, it does apply whether or not SCOTUS uses it.
Click to expand...

Not in this case.

It wasn't a part of the United States and you haven't proven under the Constitution that secession is prohibited to the states. It was an invasion and an act of war.
Click to expand...

It was part of the US, and I have proven that secession was illegal. Therefore it was no invasion.


It doesn't make a difference, since the doctrine was started by the north and the south did it. Your point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Makes a total difference, because in one case, no action was taken, therefore nothing legal needed to be examined. In the other action was taken, therefore the legality was examined. Your point, as I said, does not apply to this scenario.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Saying it's not debunked an proving your position are two different things. You have not done the latter.
Click to expand...

Funny, but I'm the only one using the Constitution of the United States, which is law and you are using rhetoric. Facts>Opinion.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Not in this case.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does since stare decisis says that it can be overturned for failing to adhere to tradition ie the Declaration of Independence, which is part of federal law.

CaptainCourtesy said:
It was part of the US, and I have proven that secession was illegal. Therefore it was no invasion.
Click to expand...

Yes because we all know that your rhetoric trumps actual law and facts.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Makes a total difference, because in one case, no action was taken, therefore nothing legal needed to be examined. In the other action was taken, therefore the legality was examined. Your point, as I said, does not apply to this scenario.
Click to expand...

Your point does not apply nor does your rhetoric. Bring facts to the table not your rhetoric and screams of I'm right without proof!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom