Confederate History Month Lives Again In Old Virginny

[Formless]

Formless: If you had actually read the thread, you'd see I accepted that secession being theft of property as a legitimate theft of property being justification for declaring it illegal as satisfactory.

I have read the thread or I wouldn't be arguing, but the closest you've come to touching the subject was asking Alyrium Denryle what the limits of federal property were. That doesn't exactly sound like a concession to me, but if you say so I guess it is.

This is what I said exactly "Like I'm said, I'm not arguing for the South, I'm just legitimately curious about the legality of the Civil War. If it was considered illegal for the taking of forts, that would make sense."

Now if the entire state was considered Federal property (which obviously it is) then that would have justified Northern actions as well. I asked specifically about the Forts because while there could be some debate about whether the state specifically belonged to the Federal Government or not, there is no debate on whether forts of the US army did.

Bah. I've seen plenty of times where someone (especially someone apparently playing the apologist) took off from a question like that to continuing to argue a point from a different angle than before (like arguing against the idea that its all federal property) so yeah, it didn't read like a concession to me.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You have yet to address my argument that the criteria for the moral goodness of rebellion as laid out in the Declaration were not fulfilled by the southerners.

He also has yet to satisfactorily address my argument that secession is de facto theft of land and resources and therefor illegal.

I think I will just call him Slaver until he answers.

[Alphawolf55]

You have yet to address my argument that the criteria for the moral goodness of rebellion as laid out in the Declaration were not fulfilled by the southerners.

He also has yet to satisfactorily address my argument that secession is de facto theft of land and resources and therefor illegal.

I think I will just call him Slaver until he answers.[/quoteY
And I'll call you a fucking retard who needs to read.

Also Jason, let me explain. Was it always illegal? Yes. Did the South and North know this? No. From a retroactive point of view you can say they were wrong from a legal point of view (they would defintely wrong from a moral point of view). But the fact is, neither side knew this when the actions were committed. Sure they're still wrong but neither side knew whether or not it was actually legal. Thus a court case to retroactively say what they were doing was illegal I find suspect, vs a specific crime that can be proven at the time like stealing property.

Additionally, I never said the Supreme Court doesn't go against the administration. But there's a difference between going against the Administrations and creating the potential shit storm one creates by saying the loser side had a right to do what they did.

Also am I reading you right when you say the North fought the civil war for slavery? Are you seriously denying preserving the Union was the North's main objective?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well actually to be fair, the Supreme Court has admitted the Declaration o Independence while not retaining legal power is meant to be used in connection with rulings of the Constitutions. It's meant to help point to a certain "spirit" of the law.

Now that you have referred to the document again, address my argument, Slaver.

Except that even the Supreme Court admits, that while the Declaration is not a legal document by itself but that the Constitution should be read in the spirit of the Declaration.

Then explain how The South leaving the union meets the criteria? Here let me post the relevant sections for you, and repost my argument. No excuses, slaver.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Alright, so black people are created equal... so far not helping you.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

How exactly is it that the south met this criteria?

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

What tyrannies and usurpations occurred exactly that justify secession? Were they anything like these (bit of bigotry aside)?

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Here is my original argument again.

The declaration specifies that a people have the moral (but not by definition legal) right to rebel when their government violates their rights. In the case of the south, the right they were defending was their right to enslave others. Additionally, they used the threat not of secession, but of outright forceful occupation of the capitol (Which IS rebellion by any definition) in order to force the senate to reject cabinet members, and even to violate the self-government of free states on multiple occassions.

Take the Fugitive Slave Act. They forced the free states to hand over fugitive slaves. However as it was originally written, the free state would be able to require that the individual sought to have returned to bondage be given a trial to determine if they were in fact an escaped slave. The southern states IIRC used the threat of occupation of DC to force the congress into amending the original act to prohibit states from requiring a trial.

How many black people do you think a southern gentleman visiting a free state selected as a slave and simply accused him or her of being an escapee and dragged back to Dixie in chains? Hundreds? Thousands? Of course there would be no records of the born-free-then-enslaved because there were no trials.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And I'll call you a fucking retard who needs to read.

And I will refer you as an incompetent slavery apologist because you cannot complete quote tags with reasonable accuracy.

I have read every exchange in this thread. You have not once addressed my argument levied against you on page 2.

Also am I reading you right when you say the North fought the civil war for slavery? Are you seriously denying preserving the Union was the North's main objective?

Preservation of the union... because the south could not stand the fact that an abolitionist candidate was elected president, so they severed their ties with the Union and proceeded to lay siege to union held forts.

Whether or not the Union actually gave a shit in light of its larger goal of reunification, the fundamental issue is and always has been the enslavement of others.

[Alphawolf55]

Do you want me to answer from my point of view or from the Southern point of view?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Do you want me to answer from my point of view or from the Southern point of view?

Why not both?

[Questor]

And I'll call you a fucking retard who needs to read.

Slaver is once again too stupid to quote correctly.

Also Jason, let me explain. Was it always illegal? Yes. Did the South and North know this? No. From a retroactive point of view you can say they were wrong from a legal point of view (they would defintely wrong from a moral point of view). But the fact is, neither side knew this when the actions were committed. Sure they're still wrong but neither side knew whether or not it was actually legal. Thus a court case to retroactively say what they were doing was illegal I find suspect, vs a specific crime that can be proven at the time like stealing property.

Would you like me to find your civics teacher and give him the cane?

Additionally, I never said the Supreme Court doesn't go against the administration. But there's a difference between going against the Administrations and creating the potential shit storm one creates by saying the loser side had a right to do what they did.

Look up Roe you ignorant fucking cuntstain.

Also am I reading you right when you say the North fought the civil war for slavery? Are you seriously denying preserving the Union was the North's main objective?

Actually, I'm saying that the south fought the war over slavery. The Union was attacked, invaded, and then sent in Sherman. What don't you get?

[Alphawolf55]

Yeah because abortions and the fucking civil war are in the same category of things that people died over.

[Questor]

Yeah because abortions and the fucking civil war are in the same category of things that people died over.

No, but the resulting shitstorm from Roe still hasn't died down, almost 40 years later. Terrorist incidents relating to abortion are common, to the point where they are simply accepted, and that it was national fucking news when a man who murdered a doctor who performed abortions was actually convicted and given the max.

Roe overturned huge amounts of both federal, state, and local law. Going against extreme public opinion. Are you too stupid to understand the analogy?

EDIT: Slaver, are you conceding all other points that the two of us have discussed, other than the Roe analogy?

[Alphawolf55]

No, but it doesn't change the fact that you're retarded for thinking they're even in the same category. The Civil War was the bloodiest war in US history, it was a war of literally brothers fighting against each other. It threatened to tear the nation apart and it resulted in the economic destruction of the South, people are still fucking bitter over it. You just can't compare the two. The annual deaths from this so called shit storm from Roe vs Wade could happen for the next 100,000 years and still not match the Civil War.

You're comparing having the South secede, get their ass handed to them so hard that they're in abject poverty and then being told they had a right to do secede all along (but still not be allowed to) vs the Supreme Court deciding that abortions are okay.

[Alphawolf55]

The no was to the too stupid to understand part, not to the conceding part.

Also quit the fucking slaver bullshit. You fucking ad hominem piece of shit. Seriously, all I fucking did was curiously ask what made the South's secession illegal, just because I didn't believe that every reason automatically counts means I believe in slavery and you fucking know it.

[Alphawolf55]

Do you want me to answer from my point of view or from the Southern point of view?

Why not both?

Because you have a retarded habit of believing that recognizing a sides argument is the same as agreeing with it.

[Questor]

You're comparing having the South secede, get their ass handed to them so hard that they're in abject poverty and then being told they had a right to do secede all along (but still not be allowed to) vs the Supreme Court deciding that abortions are okay.

Exactly, because Grant would have quoted another president, and said, "let them enforce the decision."

Exactly what do you think the actual result of the supreme court ruling the other way in that court case would be? Have you read the case or the ruling, or are you simply spouting off without doing any kind of research? Here is the citation you lazy fucktard, 74 U.S. 700. Findlaw has the case. I can think of any number of ways that ruling could have been handed down without starting a second civil war, except for the fact that the court was right, and secession was illegal and the "governments" of the seceding states had all the real, legal, authority that the local Kiwanis Club does over the state government.

The decision was NOT pre-ordained by anything other than the fact that the law said secession was illegal. If you look at the abortion debate and the slavery debate - from a political standpoint - there are actually a large number of similarities, including the effects they had on the makeup of the court. Not that I would expect an ignorant hatfucker such as yourself to understand such subtle points as these.

From many standpoints, Roe was a bigger deal than Texas v. White.

[Flagg]

I know Angurius very well. He is as anti-confederate as me, Mayabird, or Rogue9 (In other words, Sherman needs to be resurrected so he can finish the job).

So I will echo prior statements and say you are a tad off-base.

I think anyone who reads this thread would read that post the same way I did. In fact, several others did precisely that. If he's parodying someone, he didn't do a great job of getting that across.

I dunno, I got what he was going for pretty clearly. He's saying that since a lot of Virginians fought against the Confederacy and for the Union, then a "Confederacy Day" in Virginia is an affront to them.

[Alphawolf55]

The slavery debate, I could maybe see. But the abortion debate, I have to respectfully disagree. Was Roe vs. Wade a more important decision then Texas vs. White? Yes of course, but that's because like I said before Texas vs White didn't say anything really new, it just made reality the written law.

But if you honestly don't believe that if the Supreme Court had said that there was a right to secede that it wouldn't have been a political nightmare, then you're just naive. Plain and simple, to believe that the Supreme Court ever finding that the South had the right to secede even possible is just ridiculous. What would it gain? It would have no effect because the Courts couldn't enforce it while at the same time enraging an already bitter and defeated group in the South. In best case scenario it would've made reconstruction harder, in worse case scenario it would've resulted in far more deaths of Americans. We're talking about a group of people that still cling to mentality of the Confederacy in many ways and that's with everyone in the world telling them they're wrong. Imagine if they were told they were right all along but the mean northerners put them down.

[Questor]

The slavery debate, I could maybe see. But the abortion debate, I have to respectfully disagree. Was Roe vs. Wade a more important decision then Texas vs. White? Yes of course, but that's because like I said before Texas vs White didn't say anything really new, it just made reality the written law.

But if you honestly don't believe that if the Supreme Court had said that there was a right to secede that it wouldn't have been a political nightmare, then you're just naive. Plain and simple, to believe that the Supreme Court ever finding that the South had the right to secede even possible is just ridiculous. What would it gain? It would have no effect because the Courts couldn't enforce it while at the same time enraging an already bitter and defeated group in the South. In best case scenario it would've made reconstruction harder, in worse case scenario it would've resulted in far more deaths of Americans. We're talking about a group of people that still cling to mentality of the Confederacy in many ways and that's with everyone in the world telling them they're wrong. Imagine if they were told they were right all along but the mean northerners put them down.

ATTENTION IGNORANT FUCKTARDED HATFUCKER!

That wasn't what the case was about! The supreme court wasn't asked whether the states had a right to secede. Read the fucking wikipedia article if you can't be bothered to read the case itself.

I would like you to present a three page case study of 74 U.S. 700 - using an accepted academic format - before we continue, because you have obviously never read it.

[Alphawolf55]

Of course it wasn't what the case was about. But it doesn't change the fact that it was part of the ruling.

[Questor]

Of course it wasn't what the case was about. But it doesn't change the fact that it was part of the ruling.

Please explain to me how declining original jurisdiction in this case would have caused any of what you described. I'm assuming that that is the part of this that you are so obsessed about. I know you can't be obsessing over a few bonds.

I'm waiting on that case study.

[Alphawolf55]

Part of the decision believe it or not relied on the idea that 1) Texas never seceded from the Union because states can't. 2) The US Government had a right to put down the secession. If we were to change this decision it would be throwing salt on the wounds of the South, you're telling them that not only did the North defeat their armies, and destroy their towns but that they recognize that they had no right to do so but won't allow secession still. If you don't see how that would just cause more violence and bitterness, you haven't paid attention to the last fucking 150 years of southern history. But you know what, amuse me in your opinion as a fucktard what do you think would've happened if the Supreme Court had ruled that the South had the right to secede.

[Steve]

We had a debate on this before, and Stuart came in and laid the "secession is legal/may not be illegal" argument flat by pointing out the existence of the Northwest Ordinance, signed by all states, which explicitly forbids new states from the territories involved to secede or leave the Confederacy/Union of the time, and which also explicitly proclaims the equality of those territories to the established states of the period; ergo the same term applies to those states that signed and agreed to the Ordinance. Being, well, the aforementioned states.

Here's the post.

But even if you want to argue intent on the issue, and refute the Ordinance's standing to the outlawing of secession for at least some states (those already in existence), it is generally a rule of thumb that if a treaty or compact has no expressly announced means for any party thereof to withdraw from it, or to terminate it, then it is in force indefinitely, at least in the eyes of the law. The same goes for treaties on the formation of the EU IIRC. In such case the agreement remains in legal force until all contracting parties, or at least those with the authority or will to enforce the provisions of it, decide to let it drop and renounce it.

It is probably best to say that in the case of American law, secession is illegal unless the Union concedes the issue. If it doesn't, then it becomes a matter of whether those wishing to secede are prepared to appeal the decision on a wider, and bloodier, stage.

I should point out, though, that to simply say "Texas v. White was rigged" isn't enough. Show evidence beyond an argument of "well, they had a good reason to rule against secession even if they should have ruled it legal". If you can't find evidence of that then you should stop your argument now before you fall further behind (because frankly, you were never ahead.).

[Questor]

Part of the decision believe it or not relied on the idea that 1) Texas never seceded from the Union because states can't. 2) The US Government had a right to put down the secession. If we were to change this decision it would be throwing salt on the wounds of the South, you're telling them that not only did the North defeat their armies, and destroy their towns but that they recognize that they had no right to do so but won't allow secession still. If you don't see how that would just cause more violence and bitterness, you haven't paid attention to the last fucking 150 years of southern history. But you know what, amuse me in your opinion as a fucktard what do you think would've happened if the Supreme Court had ruled that the South had the right to secede.

The supreme court DIDN'T HAVE TO ADDRESS THE FUCKING ISSUE, YOU IDIOT.

Declining jurisdiction is actually what the Republicans WANTED, you moron. The court could have taken the stance that the South was a group of conquered provinces. This would have made the states subject to direct congressional rule.

FURTHER EDIT: Not only that, but are you seriously so stupid as to think that whether or not secession was legal would have any bearing on the actions of the fuckers in the south? Have you ever BEEN to the south?

EDIT: And Steve brings even more into this, as I had forgotten about that. But this is now less about Texas v. White, and more about this idiot's complete lack of understanding of the US legal system, at least for me.

[Alphawolf55]

Except in some ways it did need to be addressed. It's true what radical Republicans wanted was for the states to be considered conquered territory, they argued that they committed something along the lines of "state suicide" when they seceded thus they were no longer considered an equal member of the Union. The Republicans that had sided with Lincoln before he died on the other hand wanted the states to be readmitted as full members. Why? Because they believed that this would be the quickest path to moving on pass the Civil War (I think it was Lincoln who said that by making an enemy a friend is the same thing as eliminating your enemy). Lincoln and his side believed that by treating them as conquered territory would only keep them bitter and would only make reconstruction harder. Ironically Chase himself a Radical Republican presented the majority opinion that said they were still states. But to claim that the South was still part of the Union and retained full state status, they needed to admit that the states never left the union thus state suicide impossible. So yeah in some ways it needed to be addressed, maybe not in this particular case ruling but they chose to include it here. The choicest were either say the South was no longer the Union and make reconstruction harder, say the South had a right to secede that the North had violated and make reconstruction, or say that the South never seceded, that they had no right and hope to move pass it.

But you're right, I can't prove what would happen. I can't go to an alternate time line and prove the impossible task that southerners are crazy violent people that hold grudges. I guess I'll also concede that the South did an illegal action in seceding even though at no point did I say the South had a legitimate right to secede. I was merely curious in why it was considered illegal and when an answer didn't mesh up with my knowledge of the era, I offered what I believe was counter-examples to it and what the South's defense to that would be.

[Steve]

EDIT: And Steve brings even more into this, as I had forgotten about that. But this is now less about Texas v. White, and more about this idiot's complete lack of understanding of the US legal system, at least for me.

Um, might I point out that most people, even actual members of that legal system, wouldn't likely know about this unless they learned of it from leisure reading? I doubt exploring every aspect of an 18th Century ordinance and how it might apply legally to issues of state-federal relations would happen, or even occur, to the thoughts of most unless they are in fields directly related to the issue.

Attacking Alphawolf as having a "lack of understanding of the US legal system" because he didn't know the exact text of the Northwest Ordinance and how it might apply to the issue logically means that every single one of us who didn't know about this are also idiots with a similar lack. Do not confuse situational ignorance - not knowing something because you never learned or were told about it or were given a reason to know - with intentional ignorance, which means you should know but refuse to accept the fact because it is in contradiction to a held belief. The latter is something to be ridiculed, the former is something to be rectified, and as the saying goes, honey attracts better than vinegar.

[Anguirus]

I know Angurius very well. He is as anti-confederate as me, Mayabird, or Rogue9 (In other words, Sherman needs to be resurrected so he can finish the job).

So I will echo prior statements and say you are a tad off-base.

I think anyone who reads this thread would read that post the same way I did. In fact, several others did precisely that. If he's parodying someone, he didn't do a great job of getting that across.

Well, I aped Shep's sentence structure and phrasing exactly, whilst intending to express the exact opposite sentiment. Guess I was too subtle.

I was intending to deliver the same message that Carson (who got it) did. I was actually thinking of General Thomas too, as well as the dirty secret that EVERY Southern state contributed at least one regiment to the Union cause.

P.S. I'm answering something on page 1 of the thread, I actually have no idea what's going on in these other three yet.