• 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!

Confederate monuments[W:1182]

Re: Confederate monuments

This whole thread is full of revisionist bull**** and is a GD trainwreck.

The Constitution guaranteed a future Civil War with its ****in 10th amendment, the nullification amendment, the amendment of state's wrongs.

I credit the 10th as the leading factor as to why we're where we are today and our sordid history .

Andrew Jackson predicted the Civil War, nearly 30 years before it hit the skids.

Jackson asked Congress to pass a "Force Bill" explicitly authorizing the use of military force to enforce the tariff, but its passage was delayed until protectionists led by Clay agreed to a reduced Compromise Tariff. The Force Bill and Compromise Tariff passed on March 1, 1833, and Jackson signed both. The South Carolina Convention then met and rescinded its nullification ordinance. The Force Bill became moot because it was no longer needed. On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote, "the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Presidency_1829.E2.80.931837
 
Re: Confederate monuments

The whole point was they was not their own countrymen at that time any more then the king soldiers was the countrymen of the colonies after they declare their independent from England.

Next the fort personal was offer safe transportation back to the North and once they surrender the fort they was given that transport back home.

And your point would be valid had the South won.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Texas v. White doesn't have a damn thing to do with legalizing secession! :lamo

You've obviously never actually read the decision. If you had then you would know that half the case dealt with whether or not Texas was even a State or part of the Union. The decision on that matter being that it was part of the Union and could not unilaterally decide to leave it.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Nothing prohibits it either. We fought a war over which authority has the power to make that decision and the advocates of the States lost. It is a natural extension of the power of Congress to alter the Union.

Once more take note that we just walk away from the article of confederation then the 'legal' form of government in the nation.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Once more take note that we just walk away from the article of confederation then the 'legal' form of government in the nation.

Well, here's the thing. The Constitution does not prohibit succession nor does it explicitly grant the power of deciding the issue of succession to the Federal government so technically succession should be a State decision based on the 10th Amendment. But the North fought a war over that issue and won. Might makes legal right in this case so it's a Union, i.e. Federal decision not a State decision.
 
Last edited:
Re: Confederate monuments

Andrew Jackson predicted the Civil War, nearly 30 years before it hit the skids.

Not hard for the man to do as North Carolina was threatening at the time to leave the union over some trade issue or other and Jackson told them that if they try to do so he would personally lead troops south to hang every on of them from the trees.

Not to mention that before that time New England was also threatening to leave the union even talking to a British spy over the issue.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Master Pissed Off, um, Po, your so obvious view is just so really disgusting and so against what we as a people stand for that I have no words for how I feel for your kind.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Well, here's the thing. The Constitution does not prohibit succession nor does it explicitly grant the power of deciding the issue of succession to the Federal government so technically succession should be a State decision based on the 10th Amendment. But the North fought a war over that issue and won. Might makes legal right in this case so it's a Union, i.e. Federal decision not a State decision.

Interesting however no one had ever ask the SC for a ruling on the matter one way or the other.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Andrew Jackson predicted the Civil War, nearly 30 years before it hit the skids.

Knowing the ultimate nullifier Calhoun, that was low-hanging fruit for Jackson. Texas should have listened to Sam Houston .
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Interesting however no one had ever ask the SC for a ruling on the matter one way or the other.

The Supreme Court ruled on the issue in Texas v. White. The decision was that States cannot unilaterally decide to leave the Union.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Don't know about every soldier. But in my family my great-great grandfather was conscripted right off of his farm in Alabama by the confederacy. He begged to let him stay on the farm till harvest but they made him go anyway.
Leaving my great-great grandmother and 4 small kids to survive on their own.
My great-great grandfather died fighting the Yankees leaving my great-great grandmother having to take on the farm and children by herself. Then to add insult to injury the Yankees later on came through her farm and took livestock and feed away from her to feed their troops.

Trust me , my great-great grandfather was not fighting for slaves.

That's a real tear jerker. But hey, at least he had a family to be taken away from. Unlike all those slaves in Alabama who were taken from their families and then sold off to buyers across the south.

But then again, what do you think the guys who conscripted him were fighting for? I'll give you a hint--- it was the right to continue to own slaves. And like it or not, he was part of that.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

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.

William Rawle view of the constitution 1825

William Rawle was George Washington's DA for the state of PENN
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Blacks was rarely murder during slavery as they was far too valuable and it was only after they was free and therefore not economic valuable to the former slave holders and others that hanging and other murders was common of blacks in the south.

footnote for example the book value of the southern slaves was more then the book value of all the factories of the north.

Gee, that makes me feel so much better. Not. "Rarely" by the standards of a bunch of slave owners is still quite a bit of killing.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

It's a pretty blatant fact that the South did secede to protect slavery. They literally said that was the reason in the declarations of secession.

Apparently to some people that's a controversial statement.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

You compare Mosby to Quantrill and Anderson?

Man, you really are ignorant of history. :lamo

Gee pal, all three were guerilla commanders. The same war which produced Mosby also produced Quantrill and Anderson. And I'll give you a hint--- there were a hell of a lot more Quantrill's and Anderson's than there were Mosby's.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

because you favor a national government with people like nancy pelosi ruling over us

Nancy Pelosi had nothing to do with the Civil War, Master PO. You're off by over 150 years.

We do recognize the GOP attempt to scare up as many boogiemen as they can right now, with the current disaster in chief.

We also recognize the 10th and the incredible damage done .
 
Re: Confederate monuments

that was shown at a film class at yale (and other schools I suspect) since it was considered a milestone in cinematography. So was Leni Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will. Intelligent people can see the historical value of such films without becoming Klansmen or goose stepping fascists

Intelligent people are not a majority in society. A film which glorifies the ****ing Ku Klux Klan is not a film we should be passing around to easily influenced young people. Like, for instance, college kids.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

You've obviously never actually read the decision. If you had then you would know that half the case dealt with whether or not Texas was even a State or part of the Union. The decision on that matter being that it was part of the Union and could not unilaterally decide to leave it.

It's idiotic to suggest that the Supreme Court would rule secession legal, four years after the war ended.

Obviously, YOU haven't read it.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

And your point would be valid had the South won.

An why would the outcome of a four years war decide whether it was fair and moral repeat fair and moral to use force to get those soldiers out of the fort?

Footnote not one union soldier was killed or harm in the fighting only afterward when the south grant them the right to fire a salute to the American flag before leaving the fort was there deaths from a cannon blowing up.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Nancy Pelosi had nothing to do with the Civil War, Master PO. You're off by over 150 years.

We do recognize the GOP attempt to scare up as many boogiemen as they can right now, with the current disaster in chief.

We also recognize the 10th and the incredible damage done .

you by not liking the 10th display you are in favor of national government because thats what the progressive movement of the late 1800's wanted so badly.

which would put Nancy Pelosi and other members of congress making every law for the american people, down to the smallest detail
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Intelligent people are not a majority in society. A film which glorifies the ****ing Ku Klux Klan is not a film we should be passing around to easily influenced young people. Like, for instance, college kids.
that's really stupid. I realize the current left is trying to destroy information or bar people from hearing or reading anything that disturbs their sense of political correctness but that is unbelievable. I cannot help it if you are unable to watch something like TBOAN and not be turned into a Klan sympathizer. I guess you missed where I saw it.

you sound like a book burner. do you support a society as depicted in Fahrenheit 451?
 
Re: Confederate monuments

It's idiotic to suggest that the Supreme Court would rule secession legal, four years after the war ended.

Obviously, YOU haven't read it.

Enjoy the crow:

"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

Take your complaints to the grave of Chief Justice Salmon Chase.
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Gee pal, all three were guerilla commanders. The same war which produced Mosby also produced Quantrill and Anderson. And I'll give you a hint--- there were a hell of a lot more Quantrill's and Anderson's than there were Mosby's.

Where did you get that? The Daily Kooks?

You obviously don't understand the difference between guerilla warfare and the cavalry deployment and employment of the period. By you logic, every cavalry unit, both North and South, were guerilla units. That's stupid.
 
Re: Confederate monuments



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. authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.

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.


may 31st, 1787
 
Re: Confederate monuments

Enjoy the crow:

"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

Take your complaints to the grave of Chief Justice Salmon Chase.

Are you sure you're fully comprehending that? :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom