Sat Dec 7th... representatives from the states meeting at Mount Vernon to discuss the details of calling an article V constitutional convention!!!
@ about 4 years ago
Jersey City, NJ 07302, USA
@ about 4 years ago
Exchange Place North, Jersey City, NJ 07302
Somehow I missed this on CNBC this morning.
Yeah. .. excuse me if i don't hold my breath.
@ about 4 years ago
Winder, GA 30680, USA
226 years and such a convention has never been called. If anything has the potential to reign in washington DC, this is it.
I didn't see anywhere in the article the groundswell of support he was receiving.
Tough to say since the media wouldn't report this. Selective filtering. I did see at least 24 States will be there, but who knows.
I pay attention to this stuff and I only heard about it this morning on the radio. It's been in the works since October apparently. I know I get overexcited but I do believe this avenue offers one of the better chance of undoing the monstrosity in DC
37 States and 101 people are developing the rules to have a constitutional convention. It's great first step.
John Galt... Bernie Is A Socialist
@ about 4 years ago
Olmsted, OH, USA
Need at least 38 states
@ about 4 years ago
Montgomery, IL, USA
But this is encouraging
Not personally a big fan of levin - he a little too neocon for my taste, but I believe he has the right idea with the book. He can be pretty funny too.
It is a day that will live on in infamy
@ about 4 years ago
North Royalton, OH 44133, USA
A coincidence I am sure pinkie
Not sure how i feel about this one. Imo the constitution is fine, I just wish the govt were forced to adhere to it.
Repeal the "Patriot" Act!™
@ about 4 years ago
Bush, LA 70431, USA
The constitution as understood by the states at the time of ratification IS fine. The interpretation used by all 3 branches to justify anything and everything they want is not. The federal govt was not meant to be the sole judge of the extent of its
Arlington Heights, PA, USA
own powers. In response to the first big blatant overreach, Madison declared that states are DUTY BOUND to interpose. What have we been doing for the past 100 years?!
"in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil and for
maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them." ( http://tinyurl.com/m7gta7p )
An article V amendment convention has the potential to reign in the federal govt, or at least force their hand and turn the soft tyranny to hard. As this economic train wreck gets closer to derailing, what else has the potential to stop it? State
secession is another possibility, but that is uglier and by that time it may be too late. Left unchecked we are heading towards a financial disaster that could make the great depression seem like good times. Hyperinflation can and will happen here.
Now this meeting may not be the spark that sets the ball rolling but it is a step in the right direction. Something has got to happen because Washington DC is not going to fix itself nor will we fix it at the ballot box.
"People get the government they deserve."
@ about 4 years ago
Vestal, NY 13850, United States
Not always true, but certainly it is in our case.
Good read http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/obamas-america-the-view-from-prague.php
That is true Galt.
So what happened with this meeting?
Info is scarce. I did find this
South Carolina State Representative Bill Taylor gave this summary on Facebook Saturday, December 7 about a meeting held at Mt. Vernon, Virginia, for just this purpose:
“97 legislators from 32 states today gathered under the watchful eyes of George W
ashington for the historic Mt. Vernon Assembly. The goal—to begin writing the rules for an Article V Convention of States so there is a legal and restrained process. It was a serious and deliberative meeting with a sense of urgency. Our founders
gave us this Article V option just for a time like this when the federal government needs a course-correction. Looking down on us, they probably wonder why it took so long to use what they gave us.”
Apparently social media is the only source for this. The mainstream media is completely ignoring it.
I can't believe there's not a single story on the mainstream media.
I'll be watching the news cycle throughout the course of the day to see if it's mentioned.
I see a few sites picked it up now.
Forbes and ABC at least
Haven't seen a TV mention yet.
Actually if it gains more momentum I expect them to start attacking it.
What would it say? It would be fun to see if we can foreshadow their attacks... Any suggestions?
@ about 4 years ago
Sussex, WI 53089, United States
actually, the "liberal" radio I've listened to would likely support this.
@ about 4 years ago
Northwest Torrance, Torrance, CA
That surprises me undrwater. I find they are
1) generally in favor of a powerful central govt and against states rights
2) unwilling to make hard cuts in the interest of economic sanity (as are many Rs)
On what basis do you think their support would be founded?
The runway convention I'm sure inex.
just as there are many forms of "conservatives", there are also many forms of "liberals". many supporting de-centralizing federal power and increasing more local community based power.
Garage Dr, Irving, TX 75038
The terms are muddled, that is for sure. Decentralized power is the key to maintaining individual liberty.
Aside from the real liberals (classical liberals that is), I don't recall ever hearing a modern person who identifies themselves as liberal support decentralized power as a general principle.
Do you have an example? Say from TV or radio.
well i see the crybaby caucus is at it again.
@ about 4 years ago
Martinsburg, WV 25401, United States
i support decentralized power, weakened branches of government state and federal and but what i wont support is 97 crybabies who think that this is the worst time in our history as far as governmental authority goes.
why would they think that? oh! i know why, 100% of the participants are republicans, state legislators elected by an area of the united states that accounts for what percent of the united states?
lets take another crack at that piñata boys, the boy president is still in power!
the loss of state power can be directly linked to the civil war. it never recovered and I'm not sadened by that fact.
Martinsburg, WV 25405, USA
i am a fan of government overreach as my marriage would not be legal otherwise.
Adam Stephens, WV, USA
A liberal fan of decentralized govt... There is a first for everything I guess. Perhaps it's somewhat regional. We certainly don't have that flavor of liberal up here in the NE, at least not near the influence of nyc - that I've ever met anyway.
This isn't about Obama for me. FDR and Lincoln were much worse as far as abuse of authority go. It's unfortunate that Lincoln was assassinated and turned into a martyr. History might have judged him differently otherwise.
That said, what is is unprecedented is the level of debt and the rate at which it is accumulating. Both parties bear responsibility for that. No sane person would deny that left unchecked, this course will result in economic disaster. It is this
more than anything else that needs to be addressed. Without the balance of power being corrected, there is no hope for that. Honestly I believe there is little hope regardless. "The people" are the real problem I suppose.
Yes, the Voters are the real issue, everything else is just a symptom
Irving, TX 75063, USA
Adam, like it or not, 32 states represent nearly 2/3 of the "united states".
Like it or not there is a path to prevent an over reaching federal government.
You being in favor of a centralized and controlling federal government, speaks volumes.
@ about 4 years ago
Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA
I hear a lot of talk about a balanced budget amendment. I also support that depending on how it's written. Two things concern me though. 1) the will invariably be an exception for wartime, which is motivation to keep us in a perpetual state of war
2) they must also be prevented from turning to inflation which history shows is the natural course of a spending hungry govt when credit dries up
We already conjure 85 billion in funny money per month as it is, which is really a wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the rich. (income gap! Where is sinner)
Adam, being Mexican descent in California, your marriage would have been fine ,, unless you're claiming to be white.
I know youre a moron and everything and have no context of history or even know anything you are talking about, but since the 1800's any measure of hispanic has always been counted as white
and like it or not, 97 republicanss out of 435 districts in the united states ammounts to ####, it's just another bunch of crybabies upset because they lost another election.
like when you try to change electoral votes in any given state, or divide states by partisan lines like you are trying in so cal and Washington.
and arlington, nothing you said countered anything i said. I think reagan said it best "why show up to the gang bang if you dudes are just going to blow each other?"
oh, my bad, it was state legislators wasn't it! oh #### I have no idea how many of those there are...
lets say 97 is less than 5%. so that is enough for you guys? 5% of one party gets to add amendments to the constitution. looks like all of our problems are solved!
Was I supposed to counter what you said? I didn't realize that was a requirement. I'm not interested in bickering along party lines. I don't follow them. I am NOT a Repubican.
If anything prevented Ds from attending this meeting is was the ludicrous polarization that these two political parties create.
People need to start following principles instead of parties.
Waldo, Jersey City, NJ 07302
And u r right about the Civil War being the turning point. I would call it the death of the federal Union created by our founders. What we live under now doesn't even resemble it. Henry Clay must be so proud of ol' Abe.
that's the only reason the immigrant read history, convenience.
Adam, I've lived & forgotten more history than you allege to know.
you might try understanding it as a side benefit.
I'm willing to bet, if you'd been old enough, you'd joined your parents, spitting in soldiers returning.
Mexicans , white,,, lol okay Indians were/are white....
oh, I forgot, from White to White Hispanic in order to justify racism.
just how many times have democrats redefined electoral lines based on the census? what a ####ing hypocritical ass.
how many times have democrats used graveyard polling? (see Chicago, NY, etc) hypocrite
how many times have democrats decided citizenship, age are verbal proof to vote?
You busy yourself about why you can get married to an AA, why ? it's legal.
you're pissed about a constitutional convention? citizens wanting to take control of their country and freedom, why?
A convention of citizens won't give a fúck about parties, just principals.
you worried that the liberal bastions of new York & California only get 1 vote and won't be allowed to dictate their crap to the other states?
you worried that the "majority" of the states are conservative?
I think I'm starting to like you again.
Milwaukee, WI , United States
sorry, Inex...I don't think H2O is into dudes
I'm not trying to steal him from you, don't worry. I'm not going to dedicate a thread to how much I love you like he did.
You already did.
Like 20 of them.
Bethlehem, GA 30620, USA
When you were trying so desperately to be me.
But everybody knew it was just
VoterMap's perpetual pathetic loser.
You were stalking this place like the Phantom of the Closet.
Ready to burst out at any second.
Keep pushing buddy.... When I push back you aren't going to like it...
Are you talking to me...
...or the line of truckers on the other side of the bathroom glory hole behind you?
I still have a story that I could finish...
Don't threaten me to give in to your desire to delve into your homoerotic fantasy of gay porn!
Anything but that!!!
inex's sexual fantasies aside you are a lunatic h20 but i agree that you have forgotten more history than i will ever know, that much is true, what the hell is an AA?
African American? Is that why you said you support overreach? What is the overreach you are talking about in your specific case?
any number of them, the supreme courts decision regarding interracial marriage is the easiest to bring up, you lament the civil war but what would this country look like? what would the south look like?
The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. You know that.
Slavery would have ended without the Civil War. It was everywhere else. Ever looked at Brazil? Bigger agricultural slave base than the US and it collapsed from within.
What perpetuates racial tensions in this country and particularly in the South? The Civil War ended 150 years ago. What are the sources?
Aurora, IL 60504, USA
Arlington is right, slavery would have ended due to industrialization. But the social divisions/inequities were/have been slow to be addressed. This created a social cold war. One that now has entrenched generational assumptions that should have
Died off a century ago.
I think the fact that the issue was resolved by act of force has led to increased racial tensions in America.
An issue that would have been otherwise resolved through compromise was forced upon people against their will.
We are a country obsessed with race, and sub categories within those races. We have been trained to crave division, to desire animosity.
the south fought a war to to death over it, you rely on speculation that never happened when it was first speculated. Germany utilized slave labor during industrialization.
the south seceded because of slavery, you know that.
Germany imprisoned citizens of conquered territories and placed them into hard labor which was basically a death sentence. It was punishment, not necessity. The South utilized racist ideology to justify slave labor in order to achieve higher profit
Aurora, IL 60505, USA
AMI, we are a PEOPLE (humans) obsessed with classifying other humans as inferior when resources are scarce, or when they are being distributed.
Cerritos, CA 90703, USA
Once there was a more efficient method to process the crops, the demand for slave labor would have drastically lessened. The question then is what would happen to all the Africans which no longer were desired.
I like the "social cold war" idea, and believe this is likely true.
The worst I fear would have been genocide, the best I hope would have been a natural migration of the African community to the settlement if their own areas in the South and in the North
Of...which is what eventually happened but it would have been minus an incredibly violent war....one in which many blacks died
Underwater, thanks, I like your addendum to what I said
that's just more revisionist bull#### coupled with the common economic theory you guys all recite in tandem without prompt. I hear it every once in a while "slavery existed yeah, but slaves were well taken care of."
it is a common string becoming more popular among people today, and it's stupid. black laws existed all over the country, even in enlightened northern areas blacks weren't free. racism was always a part of american
society and the idea that slavery would have died out alone was the first in a long line of these ideas that they weren't all that bad for having slaves.
and you are wrong on germany, they would have liked to put them in the camps with the others, but they had germans stationed all over the world, and waging wars in new areas. they needed the slave labor
they needed them like we needed women to work jobs they were previously barred from doing. the only difference is we didn't force women to do the work under threat of death.
so your economic voodoo magic has no proof and falls under the weight of reality.
since you are all keen on making stuff up to make yourselves feel better, want to give me a time when slavery would have ended by itself? any idea when my marriage would have been legal? alabama repealed their
ban on interracial marriage in 20004, the vote was 60/40.
Any idea when economics would have led to that march of freedom when thomas jefferson couldn't be bothered to free his own half black children?
the symbol of liberty in this country never freed his slaves, 97 were resold to someone else after he died, he let LET 2 of his children run away rather than be slaves, what happened to them? did he care?
There were multiple reasons for each states secession, of which concern for the long term future of their institution of slavery did weigh most heavily.
Stroudsburg, PA 18360, United States
Comparing the totalitarian Nazi's use of forced labor during WWII is not at all apples to apples. It is my OPINION that it would have collapsed even without the advent of agriculture automation. Obviously no one can ever
prove a historical what if. It is always probabilities and opinions. Look to the rest of the world in the 19th century like in Brazil, etc. Slavery ended almost everywhere without wars. As Ami pointed out, technology
would have brought an end to the institution regardless - that is almost a certainty.
You hold contempt for Jefferson (and revere Lincoln I'm guessing?) and do so because you try to apply our modern sense of morality to the societal structure and lives of people of the 19th century. Attempting to do that
always leads to incorrect conclusions.
Have you ever read the draft version of the declaration? This is the version which is only from the pen of Jefferson – unedited by others on the committee. Amongst the grievances
listed again the King, he listed the following. (he could not have been naïve enough to think that this had ANY chance of being left in the final version given the position of the southern states, so why include it?) I
believe this to be a window showing us Jefferson's personal view of slavery. Clearly he thought enough of blacks to father children with one.
Quote: "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in
another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a
market where MEN should be bought and sold,] he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [determining to keep open a market where MEN
should be bought and sold]: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprive
them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”
This stands in sharp contrast to Lincoln who was a racist – yes – a racist. And an ardent supporter of colonization – that is sending freed slaves back to Africa (or elsewhere – just not here). Keep in mind that today
slavery and racism are always linked whereas in the 19th century they were not. Lincoln believed wholeheartedly in the supremacy of whites. This is undeniable. Look at the Lincoln Douglas debates. Neither he nor the
Repubican platform stood for Abolition. In fact abolitionist leaders condemned Lincoln and Lincoln publicly denounced them. The Rs were against the EXPANSION of slavery – they wanted the new territories to be
exclusively for whites. Quote: “The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [new] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent
if slavery shall be planted with them.” -Abraham Lincoln, Oct 16 1854.
I've never read that version before.
I'd be happy to provide quotes/links to back any of the Lincoln observations I made above.
Whether you choose to believe it or not, Jefferson should be held in much higher regard than Lincoln when it comes to blacks.
Also noteworthy, the famous Emancipation proclamation freed no one - it specifically excluded captured and northern territories where slavery? Why would Lincoln do that? It was a political maneuver to prevent Britain
from supporting the south, which at the time seemed to be a likelihood considering the south was winning up to that point. And it worked Britain having outlawed slavery wouldn't allow itself to be as a supporter of
Racer here is a link to the full draft
all wrong, and i'll prove in in the morning when im better rested, but i don't hold lincoln in higher regard because of the emancipation proclamation and I know it freed no slaves in non confederate states.
but it was not a political ploy, it was a decision he had made during the war and waited on for a a win like gettysburg because of previous losses.
the south was not winning either, it wasn't about england but it did tie southern supporters hands there because of the slavery issue.
he was advised against emancipation, by his cabinet including his secretary of state who said it would be unhelpful, another told him to wait until a win because recent losses meant people would see it as desperation.
the point about jefferson, being that the reverence you have for "founding fathers" is unfounded and nostalgia for an age of freedom that never existed.
I have a sense of respect for him, but you are still wrong on him, jefferson, when in the virginia legislature refused to support manumission.
which is by freedom of will, freeing your own slaves. so he refused to acknowledge the freedom to give freedom to people who should by free by people who were recognized as free. he feared insurrections.
he also wrote to england that their decision to issue decree that all slaves were declared free and would be protected if they rose against their masters, sneaky trick, but they upheld their end of the deal.
er, sorry, he wrote that he detested them for this.
this man of freedom, had over 100 slaves and only freed 2, sally hemmings relatives, not his children, he let 2 of his children run away, he didn't even free them. 2 of 6.
he also denied they were his, and left his relatives to deny they were his after his death.
the part you quote was removed by southern states in the continental congress.
but again, more in the morning.
It sounds like plan. Btw I am really less interested defending Jefferson's slavery as much as dispelling the Lincoln myth. Slavery had been part of the structure of society for countless generations before. That's just how it was. To expect him to
simply reject it on the spot because of how we view it in today's moral light is both unlikely and unreasonable.
I'm much more interested in dispelling the Lincoln myth that he was the great emancipator savior of blacks. He was a racist dictator that pissed all over the constitution daily and killed 700,000 men, not to save slaves, but for power and control.
Emancipation was a side effect and a way to punish the south for defying DC, incite riots, and discourage foreign aid. It came 6 months before Gettysburg btw. He didn't wait for Gettysburg to issue it.
We revere Lincoln today because people need to assuage the guilt we feel today over the stain of slavery in our history. Well we had this great hero who saved all the slaves and made it all better. And I'm still not quite clear on where you fall
I hate the fact that school civics classes teach that Lincoln freed the slaves...
...but make no mention of his destruction of states rights.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083, USA
Brunswick, OH, USA
ok, well then this is multifaceted and i'd like to take it piece by piece.
first off your lincoln quote comes from the election which shows tempered attitudes on slavery. though his anti slavery positions were more moderate than his rivals lincoln needed moderation to win the election.
and that was one of the only reasons he won, his chief advantage was his unknown stances on the issues where his rivals like william henry seward were completely clear (he was also too pro immigrant for the party).
the republican party was established to abolish slavery chiefly, it was a result of the kansas nebraska act and what was seen as an overturn of the missouri compromise.
when the kansas nebraska act was being voted on the whig party was split in its vote, with the southern whigs supporting it and the northern whigs voting against. this was seen as a betrayal to the northern whigs.
in 1854 several parties formed as whigs crumbled because of this, some even named "anti-nebraska", there was an anti-nebraska convention. but you win elections on that platform alone.
they adopted a nativist philosophy to incorporate the know nothing party into their ranks, or at least get them to vote for them, this propelled and doomed their first presidential candidate who ran on a nativist platfor
who was eventually found to have married a catholic woman in a catholic church (OH THE HORROR!)
but eventually the know nothings, the northern whigs, the anti nebraskans all joined what was called the republican party, which was smaller but had more organization and energy.
a party deemed perfect enough, liberal enough, by the head northern whig himself, william henry seward, with the strength of former whigs, and former democrats in the north was now strong enough to combat
the privileged class of slaveholders. and this was the democrat tactic in the south, that the republican party was anti south, anti union.
this was the crybaby caucus of yesteryear, with total control in the south the southern democrats threatened every piece of legislation with secession.
secession which would lead to a bloody war none of them could every fathom, this was always the tone to carry their threats, don't give them what they want and they would leave and the unavoidable war would be hell.
robert tombs of georgia, in 1950, said
"if, by your legislation, you seek to drive us(slavery supporters) from the territories of California and new mexico, purchased by the common blood and treasure of the whole people. i am for disunion."
so william henry seward was not an abolitionist, but he was the liberal whig governor of new York, a senator from there and was known for defending freed blacks from state government in virginia and
that catholics in new york deserved the same rights to state paid education as protestants.
but he lost to lincoln, because lincoln said some things privately and other things publicly (you use this as a defense of jefferson) in 1955 lincoln said
"i am not a know nothing (nativist) how could I be? how can anyone who abhors the oppression of negroes be in favor of degrading a class of white people?"
to quote seward "the leader of a political party in a country like ours is so exposed that his enemies become as numerous and formidable as his friends, and in an election you must put forward a man who will carry
the highest number of votes. (something conservatives don't understand to this day) pennsylvania would not have voted for me and without her vote we could not carry the election
mr lincoln possessed all the necessary qualifications to represent our party, and being comparatively unknown, had not to contend with the animosities generally marshaled against a leader.
we made him the candidate; he was elected, and we have never had reason to regret it."
southerners were elated by lincolns election, the charlston mercury wote "soon the south will govern the south." that this tempest of crybabies that controlled american politics through threat and the money made
by enslaving men who should have been free was laughable in hindsight.
before the election they wrote in their northern papers "if you vote for the republican ticket you vote for universal negro suffrage in the state of new york!"
a few days, DAYS, after the election south Carolina set an early date for a secession convention. the new york tribune wrote "let our erring sisters depart in peace." the new york times tried to reconcile with them
suggesting we repeal state laws created to prevent enaction of the fugitive slave law. (amnesty laws like san fran has for illegals).
william seward himself said "we are not, never can be, never must be, enemies or even adversaries, we are all fellow-citizens, americans, brethren."
he also said, in private, "whatever may be done or said now will not hold back south Carolina or any gulf state, but secessionist rhetoric would show the border states that they are to be ruined by the gulf states if
they go with them."
south carolina seceded on December 20th, unanimously, the other states soon followed.
all this talk of states, as if they were a person parse this stuff on uneven grounds, it commands the idea that everyone was willing to go along with the actions of a few, a majority opinion prevailed despite theminority
border states were a similar battleground, west virginia broke off from virginia to stay with the union. lincoln had secessionists arrested in kentucky and maryland.
the people who believed slavery would end on its own, and the same people who said the south would not secede, were the same people who said the citizens of south carolina would cool off and would do anything to defend
new york, if it were to be attacked by a foreign power.
lincoln was conciliatory, he was letting the south secede and wasn't doing anything about their seizure of federal posts and post offices.
lincoln believed that the south would reject secession over the course of time "sedition will be growing weaker and loyalty stronger every day from the acts of secession as the occur."
but major robert anderson had to abandon fort moultrie in south carolina as south carolinia seized the federal armory and fort moultrie, and fort sumter needed supplies.
south carolina fired on an american ship, the star of the west, on january 10th.
seward, now secretary of state spoke to congress on the 12th, outlining 5 concessions to the south, repealing amnesty laws blocking the federal fugitive slave laws created by northern states.
that the constitution be amended to confirm that congress not interfere or abolish slavery in any state. the foundations for new mexico to be admitted as a slave state, a constitutional convention after tempers cooled
deciding slavery in the western territories. that congress pass laws against mutual invasions of states by other states (as john browns raid on harpers ferry was)
and the 5th, that the lincoln administration would support the construction of 2 separate railroads to the pacific, through the south as well as north.
the senate resounded with applause when he concluded.
right after the concessions lined out by lincolns secretary of state virginia rejected a secession convention until February and invited the legislatures from other states for a peace convention.
lincoln was inaugurated on march 4th. on february 4th 7 states had seceded and were forming a confederate government in montgomery alabama.
in virginia meanwhile only a third of the virginia legislature voted for secession.
robert tombs meanwhile, the crybaby from 1950 was now the confederate governments secretary of state.
Christians are the ones who actually freed the slaves. Nor, was the war over slavery. The overwhelming majority of northerners would not have fought to free slaves. They fought to preserve the union.
Watertown, MA , United States
on march 9th during a cabinet meeting military officers briefed members on fort sumter, that it needed to be evacuated due to lack of supplies. northern newspapers reported it with rage, radical republicans were up
in arms, and it was untenable for a president, just 4 days into his presidency to go against the very people that elected him.
seward recommended it, that border states were only barely within the union, that resupplying the fort would would perceived as an attack and lead to the war.
but he would use the navy to force a collection of money from the southern states and reinforce southern gulf forts like fort pickens.
but lincoln made up his mind to resupply fort sumter, and lincoln sent a letter to jefferson davis declaring his intention. jefferson davis instructed charleston to demand the immediate surrender
of fort sumter. confederate artillery hit the fort in the morning of april 12th. southerners and their sympathizers rejoiced all over the country.
republican moderates lamented and radical republicans were enraged. the leaders of the confederacy announced that if the border states join them they would immediately attack DC.
this was not the revisionist war of northern aggression that some people espouse today.
and the rights you declare Lincoln stole were a result of the war, and the aftermath of the souths loss, their defiance after they lost and their refusal to comply with concessions such as
10% of people in the southern state had to declare loyalty to the union to be admitted, and they could not send confederate officers to congress.
Every person they decided to elect was a confederate officer.
england and france only supported the south for cheap cotton (why was it so cheap?) england had banned slavery already but was caught helping the south by building their ships among other things, for economic reasons.
but russia supported the north because of their support for the south. and they didn't want to risk a war with russia. the south never achieved victory because they had no allies, no supplies and military discipline.
now prior to the emancipation proclamation slaves captured in the civil war were remanded back to their owners under the federal fugitive slave law.
they were held as contraband, as property when union soldiers went through a confederate state.
(and to respond to angilius who thought typing in the middle of this would be a good idea, yes, like I said a couple of days ago, LIBERAL CHRISTIANS like quakers were the abolitionists driving force.)
it was congressional and radical republicans who insisted Lincoln issue an emancipation proclamation, they had been pressing it since the start of the war. he was advised against it by his cabinet.
lincoln believed that it would be near impossible for former slaves to sit in peace next to their former masters in the south but he did not, by your insistence support colonization as the only means.
you push ideas, and force them through with your own forceful language that only have support from abstract meanings in quotes that show 2 different philosophies in one, political double-speak.
he signed a second confiscation act against the rebel territories which allotted for financial support to colonize freed africans IF THEY WANTED TO.
but his secretary of state, acknowledged that lincoln believed the blacks in the south would never get along with their former slavers but he said it didn't matter, that immigration was important to him, not emigration.
in 1961 lincoln extended diplomatic recognition of haiti and liberia, something the united states had not done because, as foreign newspapers reported, "their slave-lords ruled in the legislatures halls."
lincoln gave a message to congress in march 1862 suggesting "the united states ought to cooperate with any state which may adopt gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such state pecuniary aid
to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such a change in the system." (that died in congress)
in a cabinet meeting on july 22nd lincoln read his draft of the emancipation proclamation which went beyond the confiscation act to give war powers orders to free slaves in rebelling states and ignore the slave law.
it was reported that it was a poor time, that"on the heels of our late disasters it will be construed as the convulsive struggle of a drowning man."
it was sewards letter from john stuart motley that corrected him on his unfounded belief that the emancipation proclamation would worsen relations due to their demand for cheap cotton.
motley replied "a thousand times no! it would strike a sword from englands hands." that august the editor of the new york tribune castigated lincoln in an open letter published in the paper.
lincoln replied by saying his only goal was to save the union, if he could do so by freeing every slave he would, if he could do it without freeing any slave, he would.
in september lincoln had another cabinet discussion and said "when the rebel army was at frederick, I determined, as soon as it should be driven out of maryland, to issue a proclamation of emancipation.
i said nothing to any one; but i made a promise to myself, and ... my maker. the rebel army is now driven out, and i am going to fulfill that promise."
on that day he read that if any state or parts of state were in rebellion on January 1st, slaves in those regions shall forever be free. it promised that the federal government would recognize the freedom of such persons
the next day, September 23rd it was signed by his secretary of state and appeared in the newspapers.
i didn't say he waited for gettysburg, he waited for a win like gettysburg.
lincoln gave a speech in Washington, after the war was over, where he outlined plans to give intelligent blacks and ones that served the union in the war, the right to vote.
in that crowd was john wilkes booth, with lewis powell and david herold commented, "that means n*gger citizenship, by god i'll run him through."
and this is from the republican party platform of 1860.
I just want to say thank you to you both for the free education. Never got this from any of my history courses.
Southwood Riviera, Torrance, CA 90505
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that
"no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against
all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to givelegal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
9. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age
and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic
10. That in the recent vetoes, by their Federal Governors, of the acts of the legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted
Democratic principle of Non-Intervention and Popular Sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.
11. That Kansas should, of right, be immediately admitted as a state under the Constitution recently formed and adopted by her people, and accepted by the House of Representatives.
the idea put forth that lincoln was some beast who fought to overturn states rights is to ignore slavery, to ignore the civil war and to ignore the fact that lincoln himself was a moderate, who offered concessions to a
bratty southern delegation of slave owners, paid for by other slave owners, who took no delay in seceding at the mere election of the man and accomplished it before he was even inaugurated.
the states lost the right to hold slaves, they state lost the right to take up arms against the united states
they lost the right to own other humans and did not lose their right to persecute them for another 100 years. they did not lose the right they had to ban them from voting, they did not lose the right to kill blacks
they did not lose the right to segregate them and enslavement for some of them persisted.
your entire argument rests on your belief it was unconstitutional for lincoln to prevent secession, to force states back into the union, that's what you refuse to admit.
that states had the constitutional right to enslave people, to secede and decide who can and cannot marry.
you are upset about the 1964 civil rights law because you see it as the federal government trampling on states rights, you would argue that interracial marriage should not have been allowed by the supreme court.
if you are saying the federal government and the supreme court do not have the right to overturn state laws, you are saying that my marriage should be banned until states decided to repeal it themselves.
you are saying that the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 should never have been repealed by the supreme court, that Virginia and 14 other states that banned interracial marriage were unconstitutionally deprived of rights.
you should also be upset that the supreme court overturned statewide bans in 2003 when they ruled state laws banning homosexuality were unconstitutional, you would rule that they were perfectly constitutional
that the rulings themselves were unconstitutional, that no matter how much liberty the state deprives individuals living within it, that the state has the right to bar blacks from voting, from marrying and from
a fair trial.
and you contend that 97 ####ing republican state senators should amend the constitution to reign in an out of control federal government.
can you even imagine the ####ing amendments these ####ers would come up with?
Whoa! It's a real debate! And on votermap of all places! lol Thanks guys I've been enjoying it. Hope Arlington answers, should be good.
because that's what states rights means.
its what it meant when republicans added into their platform in the 70's. during the southern strategy when in less than a generation ever republican changed into a democrat and every democrat changed into a republican.
"states rights" the states right to ban interracial marriage, the states right to decide who can and cannot vote, the states right to ban gay marriage.
the states right to enact and enforce segregation, without the federal government sticking its nose where it didn't belong.
the states right to keep n*ggers and ####gots and women where they belonged.
I think he's stuck in a loop repeal. He can't stop!
I will absolutely answer but can't take the time now.
This thread could restore my faith in voter map. Wait... did I ever have any? Lol.
im done, but im not a permanent fixture here, i work too often for that. I was astounded how much time i wasted doing this, I could have been playing video games!
the thread should not restore your faith as it would be tied in with me and i don't even like being here.
the vm conservatives are beyond reason, they are beyond facts and i suppose the same could be said of characters like thinker or bhaven or ai, but they are not the norm, the only republican here with brains is racer.
any liberal here would be wise to just leave it and never look back, i love debating people in real life, we moderate our views in real life, we recognize points and come back with counterpoints.
i have friendly debates from people of all political stripes, it was through a debate with someone who argued for Jefferson that i learned he voted against willingly feeing slaves, he said
"well wasn't freeing slaves illegal?" i didn't know that it actually was in a lot of southern states, and jefferson voted against it. giving him no ground to stand on.
i lost my #### when i debated a woman who said that slaves were treated well, that they were "investments" and the slave owners worked to protect their investments.
Seems like a respectful debate between you and Arlington to me. Your attitude about VM is wrong though. If all the reasonable people leave, it'll never get better.
maybe it shouldn't?
when people I once held in high respect like drew and ami have lost their minds maybe its all too far gone. when drew and h20 are on the same page on the recent elections as far as how important new jersey was
and how irrelevant Virginia and new York city were its insane. the way they all abandon reason for politics just to cover for their own failing ideology.
Hmmm,, refresh my memory, where did I say Virgina and New York were irrelevant. I might give you New York though, as it's a 90% given it's going Democrat.
youre an idiot
You seem to argue that the minority of states should be able to dictate to the majority what they can and cannot do within their borders. Some issues we agree (voting, marriage, inter commerce)
I contend though that taxation, age of consent, school makeup, state govenments, internal issues on how to apply may well reside witih the state boundaries.
im not having this debate with you, you either cant read or you ignored everything I posted and decided to pretend like you were talking to me. stop being a joke.
The federal government should in be held to the constitution, for power and administration. To believe the federal government should have absolute control is a dangerous path. (my opinion)
by new york given, it's irrelevan because to think it's going to vote otherwwise, is a long shot at best. NY and Cali should not be the dictators of the country.
I'll be the idiot, as long as you remain the jailhouse cõcksucker who manipulates and adjusts his so called historical knowledge to keep justifying marrying an AA, like it needs to be constantly defended.
what you see is not what I see. what I write is not what you see. until you read and understand what I type you can't debate what I say.
Tuscarora, WV, USA
Apoligies for the delay in my resposne, but I wanted to give it due diligence which required waiting for a the weekend. Never before have I felt the need to compose a VM response in word. Lol.
Ok let me start by clarifying my own beliefs here. Every individual, regardless of race has natural rights. Life, liberty, property,etc. Govt's role at all levels is/should be established to protect those rights.
Any individual has the irrevocable and undeniable right to defend themselves against violations. See Bastiat's essay The Law. Thats basically what I believe. Slave states were wrong on slavery, period. That doesn't mean
that the federal govt should breach the “chains” of the constitution to correct it – and remember that correction of slavery was not the goal of the north's invasion of the south.
To be clear I do believe that Lincoln believed slavery was wrong. I never said he didn't. As I pointed out though abolitionist and racist are very different things in the 1800s. Very few people, even in the north, were
abolitionist and the overwhelming majority, even in the north, were racist. Now many non-racists may not have been abolitionist (for fear of rebellion, etc). Many abolitionists were actually racists.
You said my quote was during the campaign which forced him to be more moderate. The quote was from 1854. I don't think he was campaigning for for the 1860 election in '54. I'm sure you head this one too... during the
lincoln douglas debates Lincoln said “that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, ====> nor to intermarry with white people <====;” We won't
count that though because that was during the campaign. And here is a real peach which I've never seen before... Quote: "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between
almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us,
while ours suffer from your presence.... It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated." -- Abraham Lincoln, in a speech to a group of black freedmen in Washington D.C., August 1862. And this is right before the
proclamation. No campaigning here. The bottom line, there are countless quotes directly confirming his racism and virtually none to directly contradict it.
Now you say the party was established for for the purpose of abolition, and I said it was to prevent the expansion of slavery. There is definitely conflicting info that points to both. Here is a quote, although I
didn't locate an original doc for this. The republican party platform of 1856 declared "all unoccupied territories of the united states, and such as they may hereafter acquire, shall be reserved for the white Caucasian r
ace - a thing that cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery." http://www.scv.org/pdf/Livingston.pdf
On the threatening of secession, what is wrong with this? The founders didn't seek to create an indestructible union – they sought a union which best served the freedom and prosperity of people. The construct of this
federal govt was designed by both north and south with the protection of liberty (against said govt) as its direct end. To throw these restraints off in the name of any goal is detrimental to liberty. It would have
behooved everyone to strive to extend this construct of our federal govt to blacks rather than fundamentally altering it. Granting govt the power to do evil in the name of good may reach the “good” end, but it also opens
pandora's box for future evils which are no longer containable. This is quite apparent now with the federal govt out of control, trampling both the constitution and our civil rights, and driving us ever faster towards
economic ruin. The states are virtually powerless to stop it short of another round of secession (for the RIGHT reasons this time) or an article V convention.
It is important to note that the north also used the same tactics just a few decades before. This was a significant enough movement that Jefferson addressed it in his inaugural speech: “If there be any among us who would
wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”. He is addressing
the Northern secessionists here. The threat of secession is a powerful check against overreach of the federal govt. A tool that was used by both North and South. Secession is the exercise of the right of a people to
govern themselves and control their own course. Its what we did in 1776, its what the soviet states did when the union fell apart. Secession is the exercise of our natural rights as a people.
Your 'know nothing' quote where lincoln says he abhors the oppression of negroes is from 1855. Should actions speak louder than a few works in a letter? In fact, just a few years prior, Lincoln (the lawyer) took the
case of Robert Matson in the Illinois supreme court. In the case Lincoln fought for Matson's right to RETAIN dozens of slaves that escaped from the slave state of Kentucky to the free state of Illinois. Yes DOZENS and
Lincoln fought to have them RETURNED to slavery. That doesn't sound like a highly moral man opposed to the oppression of blacks. At least not when he can make a few bucks I guess. If Lincoln's character what that of the
high school history class Lincoln, he would not have taken this case. I don't think anyone could disagree with that.
On the talk about fort sumter and other Federal properties held in the south... The south did NOT want war and did not simply seize federal property as you imply. Davis sent commissioners to DC for the specific purpose
of offering to settle and pay DC for ALL federal property that existed in the south. Lincoln flat out refused to even see them. He wanted the leverage. This happened in March of '61. Well before shots fired at sumter.
As for sumter, this was a plan - military advisers and most of his cabinet warned against it. His plan was to force the south to fire upon them to justify the war (and it had the effect of uniting the northern people
against the south. Many northerners saw right through this (because it was quite obvious even at the time.) There are editorials from many northern papers that called him out on it. I can post some if anyone is
interested. That established doubt at the time in the north of Lincoln's motives. Here is the nail in the coffin though. In a letter to a naval commander Fox in may of '61 lincoln wrote quote: “You and I both
anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the resu
lts.” That is pretty damning as far as I'm concerned. The position that Sumter wasn't an intentional (and cunning) plan is simply wrong.
Once SC seceded, attempts to reconcile though concessions were hopeless from the start. The better plan would have been brought attempt to bring them back into the union after a much longer period with concessions.
Except that Lincoln instigated war making that impossible.
You say it was not a war of northern aggression but clearly it was. Ask yourself, would the south have ever have invaded the north? No. Who sent troops across the border? Who invaded who? That would be Lincoln. You know
a little discussed but major motivation for the north was the tarriff structure. The plethora of protective tarriffs at the time essentially were a wealth redistribution scheme that siphoned wealth from the south to the
north. Setup to protect northern industry, they had a two fold effect (as protectionist tarriffs always do) They raised the cost of the industrial goods required by the south to run their farms. They had to pay more the the goods and machines they
Arlington Heights 2
@ about 4 years ago
needed, regardless of if they bought northern goods or foreign. 2) Foreign countries whose exports to the US are hurt by this place tarriffs in retaliation thereby raising the cost of the crops the south exported. This does serious injury to the
significant agricultural southern exports.
On colonization I don't recall ever hearing that we wanted it to be forced. I certainly didn't say that, but it was clearly his strong preference, and remained an obsession of his for years up until is death. There is an abundance of evidence to
support this and clearly that would not be the position of someone who considered them to be equals. In his eulogy to his idol Henry Clay (from whom he inherited the idea) he said quote: “there is a moral fitness in
the idea of returning to Africa her children”. I mentioned before that abolitionists hated Lincoln. Here is a quote from William Lloyd Garrison (leading abolitionist): “President Lincoln may colonize himself if he choose
but it is an impertinent act, on his part, to propose the getting rid of those who are as good as himself.” If Lincoln and the Republicans where truly abolitionists why did the actual abolitionists despise them? Because
they were against the expansion of slavery because they believed blacks were inferior and they wanted the territories and jobs for whites.
You say my argument rests on the prevention of secession being unconstitutional and you are right. I'm fine with that. The case for the legality of secession is strong. Lincoln's arguments by his own mouth justifying
his actions were actually school boy level. Because that's all there is. I would challenge you to find anything antebellum indicating the opposite. Did you know lincoln actually went back to articles of confederation's
reference to “perpetual union” trying to claim that was somehow still in effect?
Now you went though a bunch of points regarding states rights rights and what I would be for and you are basically right - as far as the constitution is concerned, so I agree. I don't support allowing the federal govt to
trample the constitution and break its chains in the name of anything. The federal govt was constructed with the liberty of the people and the states in mind. Turning the federal govt tyrannical to combat
tyranny in the states is NOT THE ANSWER. All that does in the long term is give us tyrannical govt at both the state and federal levels. The correction of these evils needed to be instituted within state govts by its
people. Let us not forget the 700,000 men who died in this war and the countless more maimed. Was that moral when the goal was neither to end slavery for the north nor to save it for the south? The civil war was a war
of ego fought for power and control. The freeing of slaves was a side effect. The idea that so many seem to hold - that the federal govt is and will remain good and state govt are and will remain evil is naive. Both
are run by men with political goals and ambitions. Both require chains to keep them in check. You would cut the chains of the federal, where I would prefer to put place chains on the states. I'm worried about where we go
from here, which is why I support restoring the balance of power with an article v amendment convention. States rights do not mean slavery will be legalized or that you cannot marry an AA. Some states are more
protective of social civil liberties than the federal govt now. Any amendments proposed still need to be ratified by ¾ of the state. Your implied fear of a run away convention is unfounded.
I don't think most people realize that the monstrosity of a federal govt under which we live today is largely a direct result of the overreaches of lincoln. This is only the beginning. You know we didn't even talk about
Lincolns tyrannical behavior in the North. Using the military to shut down 100s if not 1000s of papers that dared to speak against him, illegally suspending habeas corpus and arresting opponents simply for speaking out
against him, voter intimidation during his reelection. ARRESTING and DEPORTING his most vocal opponent in the US congress in the middle of the night– Clement Vallandigham from Ohio. (Just to name a few.)
The liberty and security of the people now, both black and white, are best served by restoring the balance of power and putting this runaway federal govt in check. An article v amendment convention may be the best shot
we have. You shouldn't fear it because state republican legislators push for it. If you plan on waiting for a true statesmen that solely has the liberty of the people in mind, and has the character and positioning to
effect it, you will wait forever.
i'll read this and get back to you when im not working, i appreciate the debate.
I hate windows 8!
I wiped my windows 8 out after 4 months and installed ubuntu. No regrets.
well then here goes nothing.
im still going to get to this in full but i want to actually respond to everything you said directly and honestly. though i would like to point out that you said...
"...because you try to apply our modern sense of morality to the societal structure and lives of people of the 19th century. Attempting to do that always leads to incorrect conclusions."
then you proceeded to judge lincoln on that very same concept. I said that racism was always ingrained in america, even "enlightened areas in the north"
but you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing to jefferson with 2 completely different records on slavery and freedom.
i have respect for both men to some extent, but its a part of a greater idea that really what people say isn't what they do.
and that the founding fathers aren't as great as people pretend they are when they try to co-opt them in an argument to show how right they are, which is something you do a whole lot.
this is just a side-street we took on my point that wrongs are created not just by the federal government and while sometimes we need to watch the watchmen that doesn't mean that they are the problem.
but i plan on reading your argument and responding post for post.
oh, and underwater, a lot of what i said is from a biography of william henry seward, it is a very good book and worth the $20. its the most i have ever paid for a non-textbook.
the same author wrote a biography of john jay and I would like to pick that up as well as soon as i find it.
So did you try Ubuntu?
It is a side street that I like going down though. For the most part what you say is fair enough, especially that FF are flawed and often do not always practice what they preach. Especially federalists!
I have to go back to figure out what you are talking about with respect to judging Lincoln based on modern morality. In general this is often necessary to dispel the high school history myth that Lincoln somehow had an advanced sense of morality and
saw the evil stain stain of slavery for what it was and righted those wrongs.
right there! look right there what you just did! you are the one who said i could not use modern morality against jefferson, now look at you do the same thing to lincoln.
objectively look at how badly you editorialized it too
"...Lincoln somehow had an advanced sense of morality and saw the evil stain stain of slavery for what it was and righted those wrongs."
i have monday off, i will probably get to it monday morning and hopefully bring it back to why the article V convention you mentioned in the OP is bull####. kinda like writing an essay, bringing it back to the opening.
undrwater - was on gentoo, now arch
@ about 4 years ago
Rochester, MN 55901, USA
oh, i haven't tried it yet, but i downloaded it, i have 2 other computers, that was a christmas present and im trying to figure out what to do with it still, i may install my old hard drive in it or install windows 7.
Comparing against modern morality to dispel the myth that Lincoln somehow shared it is required. This is quite different than using it to condemn someone for accepting and living in the societal structure into which they were born.
when i read you still didn't get it and just posted it again i literally got madder than i have ever been on votermap. im rarely angered here but the fact that you don't even see what you are doing sent me over the top.
but don't worry, i went through all 5 stages of grief back to acceptance. not acceptance of your argument, its retarded, but acceptance that i cant change your mind on this because you are in a stockholm syndrome situati
im not kidding, from my anger phase i devised a plan, its funny too.
i was going to start a chinese import company we would make all sorts of things and i wouldn't pay my chinese slaves, food and clothing, that's it, i was also going to rename them all after thomas jeffersons slaves
i was going to use the millions of dollars i made to fund a research program developing a method of time travel, once completed i would travel back to 1992.
in 1992 i was going to to the closest circuit city and stroll past the IBM and compaq computers to buy a telephone cord, i would then travel back to the present and strangle you to death with the chord.
i thought it may be too much effort and since it was so close to christmas i would just take the lights off my tree and use that while they were still on.
amazing, 7 posts and you said absolutely nothing. And have yet to respond to AH's last debate analysis & defense.
damn it started out decent, too.
oh well, are you declaring yourself the winner, Adam?
i will probably get to it monday morning and hopefully bring it back to why the article V convention you mentioned in the OP is bull####.
 @ 1 day ago
Martinsburg, WV 25401, United States
im still going to get to this in full but i want to actually respond to everything you said directly and honestly.
 @ 2 days ago
Martinsburg, WV 25401, United States
first im going to go into detail about what you said.
even your modified version doesn't work.
jefferson was alive when lincoln was born.
when lincoln was born it was probably that thomas jefferson was whipping eston hemmings calling him a dirty negro.
sally hemmings was half black, her real father was jeffersons wifes father. that's where they also got hemmings from, a man who ####ed his slave and enslaved his own daughter gave his daughter to jefferson
who used her as a concubine. thomas jeffersons kids were less black than obama, eston even lived as a white man after jefferson died and he was still his fathers slave.
thomas jefferson refused to admit any of them were his and left his descendants to deny it till around 1998. he didn't have the courage of truth.
monticello is the go to place for protecting thomas jeffersons legacy, i welcome you to read this on his positions on slavery.
its a sugar coated pile of #### leaving out everything he said about protecting slavery and not once mentioned he owned slaves. look at this part.
He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country. Jefferson’s belief that blacks were racially inferior and “as incapable
as children,” coupled with slaves’ presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson’s emancipation scheme. Influenced by the Haitian Revolution and an
and an aborted rebellion in Virginia in 1800, Jefferson believed that American slaves’ deportation—whether to Africa or the West Indies—was an essential consequence of emancipation.
oh this is funny too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Ko%C5%9Bciuszko#Disposition_of_American_estate
In the will, Kościuszko left his American estate to be sold to buy the freedom of black slaves, including Jefferson's own, and to educate them for independent life and work.
Several years after Kościuszko's death, Jefferson, aged 77, pleaded inability to act as executor due to age and the numerous legal complexities of the bequest
In August 1814, Jefferson told his protege Edward Coles that he thought Coles was wrong to propose transporting his slaves to the Northwest Territories
lincoln was 5 years old when he did this.
jefferson also gave slaves to people as gifts, for weddings and such. thomas jefferson broke up families this way.
the year before lincoln was born he wrote to the author of a book on the intelligence of blacks.
"the rights of African Americans should not be dependent on intelligence and that Africans had "respectable intelligence." "but whatever be their degree of talent it is not measure of their rights."
of which they had none, they had no rights and thomas jefferson made sure of this as much as any man, he was the least progressive on slavery as some of the other founders, some of which opposed it outright
benjamin franklin, having prospered from the slave trade himself became anti slavery in 1762 and freed his slaves in 1770
he sometimes bought slaves, worked them for "his moneys worth" and freed them which is more of an indentured servitude.
you don't even have to judge them on modern morality, you can judge them on the morality that existed in their time, they were regarded as the biggest hypocrites of their time.
the english government mocked them for it daily during the revolutionary period.
but this is all an exercise in misdirection, you don't like the civil war because you believe the states had the freedom to withdrawl, any attack on lincoln is only a means to achieve this goal.
you will defend any slave owner and racist who you support and force the harshness of judgement on anyone who you do not. this is why you are going hard on lincoln.
even though the man who was president not even more than 50 years after jefferson died. you pretend as if they lived in alternate realities.
you force yourself to hold dual positions and it backs you in a corner on what to believe because of it.
you say you opposed slavery, that it was wrong, but you need to defend the souths right to secede based on slavery.
you say it would have ended on its own, what thomas jefferson believed while he called his children ####s.
you force yourself to defend the man by saying repugnant things like "well he thought enough of them to have sex with one."
so you (and others in the thread) try to lessen the direct cause of secession by saying it just would have ended on its own with what amounts to scant hypotheticals.
and you pretend like lincolns legacy was a lie even though he is the one who initiated and signed the 13th amendement abolishing slavery on fears another president would repeal the emancipation proclamation.
southern states used their constitutional right to oppress free men of color for over 100 years after
so lets go over some states rights that the federal government and judicial branch interfered with unconstitutionally.
slavery, segregation, anti-miscegenation, sodomy, voter disenfranchisement, and several others i don't really feel like googling right now..
so, voter disenfranchisement, im 100% willing to bet you believe its not constitutionally protected, which following the letter of the law it isn't, women didn't have the right, whites who didn't own land didn't have the
right (weren't our founders grand?)
so im sure you oppose the 1964 civil rights act as unconstitutional.
er, sorry, let me modify that. "segregation was wrong, but that doesn't mean the federal government should breach the chains of the constitution"
here was a reaction to the law.
Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, believed he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, “the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty
of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers”.
Rolleston used legal means in an attempt to prevent full equality for African Americans, claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breech of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Also, Rolleston argued that the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments were in violation as the bill deprived him of "liberty and property without due process”.
here is the thing, if the constitution is used to protect property and people are property the constitution is wrong.
and that is what they southern states believed for 200 years and that has only changed recently because of the federal governments enforcement of unconstitutional laws.
most people in the 50's believed that interracial marriages were wrong, you would have to ask john galt and greedy bastard in private for their true opinion on this today.
and there is evidence that that is only because of the supreme courts unconstitutional ruling.
texas had its sodomy law repealed in 2003, it too invalidated the constitutional right of other states to do what they wanted to do. there is a similar, shorter timespan in which attitudes within those states
changed, perhaps due to the decision.
you said the government shouldn't legislate morality, but there is no evidence that you should object to bans on gay marriage passed in the states.
you and people like racer can misidentify what it is to be a republic with loaded phrased like mob rule and rule of law while you declare that they are not the same.
that even if 99% of the public rule that someone does not deserve freedom it should be granted so. but the defense is that its the states right to make that decision.
i will agree that the party was not founded on abolition, i made the contention as a synopsis on the party, there is no doubt that the south believed it to be so as is evident by the tantrum thrown after the election.
but before the officially and unequivocally adopted abolition in 1964 that was already the opinion of a majority of the nation, both democrat and republican alike.
have you ever heard the phrase "#### in the woodpile"? it was what was a response to the republican party.
when i sold cell phones i knew a guy who must have been over 95 years old. and he said it once and it threw me for a loop because it was unexpected.
and it wasn't even in proper context and i have no idea what caused him to say it, he said that people don't appreciate it anymore but that's just what was said in his day in buffalo ny.
this is a phrase that was the official position on the republican party, that if someone tried to get you to believe that they were about more than the freedom of slaves you could always say.
you of course have to fix the word in that url when you type it in.
that quote from jefferson on northern secession looks more like the very argument against the one you are trying to make.
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the clai
claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution,
for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.
that was a letter from james madison to daniel webster.
that is a framer of the constitution saying secession is unconstitutional.
the founders were just that, they founded the union they wanted to exist as a union of states, that barring true tyranny, and not the taxes and similar inconveniences you view as tyranny, the states could not secede.
it was buchanan who laid it out in his final state of the union who put it in plain terms.
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the states
If this be so, the union is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into
as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken
into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish
davis sent representatives of the confederate government that could not be met with by the union government because doing so would give legitimacy to said government.
you cannot say that lincoln was a scheming provocateur with sumter and say that davis was a reasonable and respectable fellow in his own dealings because it once again reveals the loyalties you developed
to stockholm syndrome yourself into a defense of the southern states.
do you even know why jefferson davis was elected president?
he and the previously mentioned crybaby robert toombs of georgia where jefferson was decided to be the "champion of a slave society and embodied the values of the planter class"
he was also the former secretary of war.
under pierce that is
your timeline is confusing as it pretends that south carolina seceded after sumpter and not before. all of your judgements are based on southern sympathies that require the south to be honorary and lincoln to be a devil.
the only reason the south seceded was slavery, argue what you want about the reason for civil war on the part of the north.
but that's what its partially about with you? wealth redistribution? of course that's important to you. lets ignore the fact that people owned people and paid them nothing to make millions, that money belonged to them.
how dare the north try to collect tariffs on southern slave cotton sold to europe at a lower than european market price due to the slave labor they forced on other human beings.
it was said by confederate leaders that all they needed was a border state and they could march into DC, things like this don't get said without scaring people.
baltimore damn near fought its own civil war within the state, its city leaders declared themselves for secession, marylands official song now is a pro secession song written on the heels of the baltimore massacre.
it was a city, within the state, that had to be put down by the federal government. its city officials and police force fought union soldiers and union government.
like AMI's thread where all of the city council can vote to secede from the state of california where over half of the people disapprove is not representative government.
when members of a party aim to divide pennsylvanias electoral votes for political reasons, where its seen done in california and washington every day.
you seek to support 97 republicans trying to seek the ability to amend the constitution on what authority? the constitution?
97 republicans, 4 of them from indiana to get the power to amend the constitution they say they derive their power from to legislate their will on the whole county, 50% +1 who don't even like them.
them or anything they stand for. and this is what you cast our government is all about, you and racer. you guys say the rule of law is supreme and the rule of the majority is oppressive (when you are in the minority)
that republic doesn't just mean what it means, it means more, it means what you say it means, that 97 republicans can amend a constitution to everyone.
where our next constitutional amendments will be a ban on gay marriage, a amendment proposing mandatory welfare recipients getting drug tested.
an amendment proposing the strictest voter laws you can think of.
you know what it wont be? a law reigning in the power of the federal government, it will be law reigning in the power of non republican federal government.
and i don't think 1 single vm conservative or right leaning libertarian on here has 1 single problem with that. and that is the ####ing problem.
Bad pinkie, bad! Now I didn't read wv's reply yet, but I doubt that will be my response.
Too long to get to now. Will come back in the next couple days.
Galt I bought the liberty amendments audio book for my commute. Will posts his proposed amendments when I listen to it.
this reminded me of our conversation on this, sums up this thread pretty well.
@ almost 4 years ago
Martinsburg, WV 25404, United States
also, now that i bumped this it makes me laugh people try to say i don't have anything to say and am afraid to take a position on things.
I didn't say that that. I'll check it out at lunch although I see is the fault show.... Hmm. And I still owe you a response here, I forgot about this.
@ almost 4 years ago
The Daily show is sometimes be very funny, and sometimes me pisses me off when they grossly misrepresent thing.
i know you didn't, h20 is picking it up from suggestions from racer.
Classic daily show. Funny comedy but intellectually bankrupt arguments. Napolitano is correct. but you knew I would say that. :)
You would have done a better job. I think you should host the daily show.
i know you agree with him, what i was saying was that it reminded me of this thread. its the daily show they aren't seeking a debate on slavery with napolitano, they are looking to bring humor to their right position.
the daily show is a great show, i got everyone in my family to watch it. jon stewart is so much better than craig kilborn ever was. he is incredibly intelligent and honest in his opinion, it matches his old standup.