NATION

PASSWORD

End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
SaintB
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21714
Founded: Apr 18, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby SaintB » Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:31 pm

Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
SaintB wrote:I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).


Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

They wanted (or maybe believed they had) the right to leave the Union whenever they felt like it, they wanted the right to have slaves (which Lincoln never contended until the shooting started), and basically in short they wanted State Governments to have more power then the Federal Government.

Then it became about rubbing it in people's faces.

Bullshit. The Confederacy they joined had more power. They required that all new states allow slavery. And they left after the Federal government wouldn't exert ENOUGH power. The Confederates states weren't fans of a weak federal government.

Just like now the only time states' rights are ever brought up is when they're pissed that have to respect the rights of minorities. Slavery. Segregation. Women's rights. Abortion. Gay marriage. Interracial marriage. And the list goes on. States' rights isn't about weaking the Federal government. It's about taking rights from the people and giving them to the states.

Uncoincidentally, however, when the federal government helps them deny those rights, they're huge fans. Gay Marriage amendment anyone?

I agree with your definition of what people mean when they say State's rights. Also, the government of the Confederacy was not stronger, because a state could leave at any time it wanted to.

I never argues that the Confederacy was not about slavery, I stated the FACT that that was not the only thing it was about, and that was not what the war was about, even after the emancipation proclamation. It was about "state's rights" and "federal government".
Hi my name is SaintB and I am prone to sarcasm and hyperbole. Because of this I make no warranties, express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of the above statement, of its constituent parts, or of any supporting data. These terms are subject to change without notice from myself.

Every day NationStates tells me I have one issue. I am pretty sure I've got more than that.

User avatar
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Phenia » Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:39 pm

SaintB wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
SaintB wrote:I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).


Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

They wanted (or maybe believed they had) the right to leave the Union whenever they felt like it, they wanted the right to have slaves (which Lincoln never contended until the shooting started), and basically in short they wanted State Governments to have more power then the Federal Government.

Then it became about rubbing it in people's faces.

Bullshit. The Confederacy they joined had more power. They required that all new states allow slavery. And they left after the Federal government wouldn't exert ENOUGH power. The Confederates states weren't fans of a weak federal government.

Just like now the only time states' rights are ever brought up is when they're pissed that have to respect the rights of minorities. Slavery. Segregation. Women's rights. Abortion. Gay marriage. Interracial marriage. And the list goes on. States' rights isn't about weaking the Federal government. It's about taking rights from the people and giving them to the states.

Uncoincidentally, however, when the federal government helps them deny those rights, they're huge fans. Gay Marriage amendment anyone?

I agree with your definition of what people mean when they say State's rights. Also, the government of the Confederacy was not stronger, because a state could leave at any time it wanted to.

I never argues that the Confederacy was not about slavery, I stated the FACT that that was not the only thing it was about, and that was not what the war was about, even after the emancipation proclamation. It was about "state's rights" and "federal government".


"states rights." Like for example the right of wealthy plantation owners to have black people as slaves. I know, I know - I'm the bad guy for focusing on only the negatives of a slave-owning failed state! :roll: It was really about true love, and dancing in the fields happily whistling....

User avatar
Tekania
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21353
Founded: May 26, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tekania » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:09 pm

Muravyets wrote:Why don't you try reading the OP's argument as well as my posts if you want my answer to that question? If you think you can set up a bunch of "Oh, yeah, well what about THIS thing that I claim is big exception to your argument?" rings and make me jump through them, you're wrong. Read my argument and either respond to it substantively, or don't. I stand by every statement I have made in this thread so far.


I have read them, when I address something at a particular point which is made AGAINST actually facts. I don't care if you stand by your statements, some of your statements are based upon fraudulent information.... Fraudulent not in the sense that you are actually providing incorrect data, but fraudulent in the sense that you ideologically move in such a direction as to actually MISREPRESENT all the data which would be available.

Now, I have particular views about the Confederacy, and particular views regarding the various state secessions... The difference between my views and your views, is mine are based upon the complete record of all available historical data relating to the formation of the CSA, and the individual secessions of the various states; yours are based upon cherry picked statements from various historical figures selected for the specific purpose of passing your agenda.

Muravyets wrote:Although this is addressed to TCT, it affects the way you've been dealing with my posts, too, so I have to tell you that when you take a whole and entire, one-piece argument, and chop it up into separate pieces, as if each part is a stand-alone argument even though they were not written that way, you are doing something called "cherry-picking."

When you say, you picked out one bit and didn't even mention any of the others because you didn't disagree with those parts, but this one part right here, this one is just wrong, you are essentially twisting and misrepresenting the other person's argument. Why? Because that bit you decided to pick out and argue over is NOT a stand alone argument of its own. It is part and parcel of all the bits you say you don't disagree with, and it's meaning is dependent on its relationship to those parts. You cannot legitimately debate it unless you address in the context it was presented in.

And that's why, every time you do that, I tell you to go back and read my whole post.


This is because my responses are NOT out of context with what you presented. They are addressed at an element of historical error in your argument. The fact that you seem to basically skirt historical facts to keep pounding an agenda is the scary part. It basically does not matter in the slight bit how many Historical Confederate Political figures and documents you line up to pound out your tired and fraudulent absolutist agenda... As long as ones exist, and things occurred which do not line up your your theory... it's still an incorrect theory.
Such heroic nonsense!

User avatar
Muravyets
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12755
Founded: Aug 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Muravyets » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:16 pm

Tekania wrote:<snip>

This is because my responses are NOT out of context with what you presented. <snip>

Well, I just finished explaining to you that they are, and since I'm the author of what I write, I should freaking know. So, since you are clearly refusing to pay the slightest attention to what I say, I will leave you to talk without my responses to distract you. I'll just leave you with this:

You don't get to dictate what my argument is or how its parts fit together. If I tell you you're missing my point, I'm right. If you missed it on purpose because you want to talk about something other than my point, go right ahead -- but leave me and my posts out of it, thanks.
Last edited by Muravyets on Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Kick back at Cafe Muravyets
And check out my other RP, too. (Don't take others' word for it -- see for yourself. ;) )
I agree with Muravyets because she scares me. -- Verdigroth
However, I am still not the topic of this thread.

User avatar
Jocabia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5273
Founded: Mar 25, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Jocabia » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:24 pm

SaintB wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
SaintB wrote:I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).


Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

They wanted (or maybe believed they had) the right to leave the Union whenever they felt like it, they wanted the right to have slaves (which Lincoln never contended until the shooting started), and basically in short they wanted State Governments to have more power then the Federal Government.

Then it became about rubbing it in people's faces.

Bullshit. The Confederacy they joined had more power. They required that all new states allow slavery. And they left after the Federal government wouldn't exert ENOUGH power. The Confederates states weren't fans of a weak federal government.

Just like now the only time states' rights are ever brought up is when they're pissed that have to respect the rights of minorities. Slavery. Segregation. Women's rights. Abortion. Gay marriage. Interracial marriage. And the list goes on. States' rights isn't about weaking the Federal government. It's about taking rights from the people and giving them to the states.

Uncoincidentally, however, when the federal government helps them deny those rights, they're huge fans. Gay Marriage amendment anyone?

I agree with your definition of what people mean when they say State's rights. Also, the government of the Confederacy was not stronger, because a state could leave at any time it wanted to.

I never argues that the Confederacy was not about slavery, I stated the FACT that that was not the only thing it was about, and that was not what the war was about, even after the emancipation proclamation. It was about "state's rights" and "federal government".

Yes, it was about how the federal government wouldn't violate the "right" state's rights. And the "right" states were the ones that weren't the Confederacy. They wanted a STRONG federal government that answered to the South and only the South. When they didn't they unilaterally decided they didn't have to play ball anymore and fuck that they contracted with every other state to form a nation, eh?

But what was it that the Federal government didn't behave correctly on? Slavery. And it wasn't too strong or too week it was that they were worried they wouldn't get to control the laws and rulings on slavery. So to say it was about the feds or state's rights is wrong. Because in both cases they only cared about either because of slavery. And they started an aggressive war to prove it, and let us know in their articles of Confederation.

They didn't secede for the right to secede. They seceded for the right to own slaves. They didn't give any significant increase in power to the states besides the ability to secede, which according to THEM they had in the US anyway.
Last edited by Jocabia on Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sgt Toomey wrote:Come to think of it, it would make more sense to hate him for being black. At least its half true..
JJ Place wrote:Sure, the statistics are that a gun is more likely to harm a family member than a criminal

User avatar
Caninope
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24560
Founded: Nov 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Caninope » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:29 pm

Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
SaintB wrote:I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).


Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

They wanted (or maybe believed they had) the right to leave the Union whenever they felt like it, they wanted the right to have slaves (which Lincoln never contended until the shooting started), and basically in short they wanted State Governments to have more power then the Federal Government.

Then it became about rubbing it in people's faces.

Bullshit. The Confederacy they joined had more power. They required that all new states allow slavery. And they left after the Federal government wouldn't exert ENOUGH power. The Confederates states weren't fans of a weak federal government.

Just like now the only time states' rights are ever brought up is when they're pissed that have to respect the rights of minorities. Slavery. Segregation. Women's rights. Abortion. Gay marriage. Interracial marriage. And the list goes on. States' rights isn't about weaking the Federal government. It's about taking rights from the people and giving them to the states.

Uncoincidentally, however, when the federal government helps them deny those rights, they're huge fans. Gay Marriage amendment anyone?

I agree with your definition of what people mean when they say State's rights. Also, the government of the Confederacy was not stronger, because a state could leave at any time it wanted to.

I never argues that the Confederacy was not about slavery, I stated the FACT that that was not the only thing it was about, and that was not what the war was about, even after the emancipation proclamation. It was about "state's rights" and "federal government".

Yes, it was about how the federal government wouldn't violate the "right" state's rights. And the "right" states were the ones that weren't the Confederacy. They wanted a STRONG federal government that answered to the South and only the South. When they didn't they unilaterally decided they didn't have to play ball anymore and fuck that they contracted with every other state to form a nation, eh?

But what was it that the Federal government didn't behave correctly on? Slavery. And it wasn't too strong or too week it was that they were worried they wouldn't get to control the laws and rulings on slavery. So to say it was about the feds or state's rights is wrong. Because in both cases they only cared about either because of slavery. And they started an aggressive war to prove it, and let us know in their articles of Confederation.

They didn't secede for the right to secede. They seceded for the right to own slaves. They didn't give any significant increase in power to the states besides the ability to secede, which according to THEM they had in the US anyway.


They seceded to protect their lifestyle, of which slavery was a large part.
I'm the Pope
Secretly CIA interns stomping out negative views of the US
Türkçe öğreniyorum ama zorluk var.
Winner, Silver Medal for Debating
Co-Winner, Bronze Medal for Posting
Co-Winner, Zooke Goodwill Award

Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:
Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.

Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.

User avatar
Jocabia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5273
Founded: Mar 25, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Jocabia » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 pm

Caninope wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
SaintB wrote:I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).


Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

They wanted (or maybe believed they had) the right to leave the Union whenever they felt like it, they wanted the right to have slaves (which Lincoln never contended until the shooting started), and basically in short they wanted State Governments to have more power then the Federal Government.

Then it became about rubbing it in people's faces.

Bullshit. The Confederacy they joined had more power. They required that all new states allow slavery. And they left after the Federal government wouldn't exert ENOUGH power. The Confederates states weren't fans of a weak federal government.

Just like now the only time states' rights are ever brought up is when they're pissed that have to respect the rights of minorities. Slavery. Segregation. Women's rights. Abortion. Gay marriage. Interracial marriage. And the list goes on. States' rights isn't about weaking the Federal government. It's about taking rights from the people and giving them to the states.

Uncoincidentally, however, when the federal government helps them deny those rights, they're huge fans. Gay Marriage amendment anyone?

I agree with your definition of what people mean when they say State's rights. Also, the government of the Confederacy was not stronger, because a state could leave at any time it wanted to.

I never argues that the Confederacy was not about slavery, I stated the FACT that that was not the only thing it was about, and that was not what the war was about, even after the emancipation proclamation. It was about "state's rights" and "federal government".

Yes, it was about how the federal government wouldn't violate the "right" state's rights. And the "right" states were the ones that weren't the Confederacy. They wanted a STRONG federal government that answered to the South and only the South. When they didn't they unilaterally decided they didn't have to play ball anymore and fuck that they contracted with every other state to form a nation, eh?

But what was it that the Federal government didn't behave correctly on? Slavery. And it wasn't too strong or too week it was that they were worried they wouldn't get to control the laws and rulings on slavery. So to say it was about the feds or state's rights is wrong. Because in both cases they only cared about either because of slavery. And they started an aggressive war to prove it, and let us know in their articles of Confederation.

They didn't secede for the right to secede. They seceded for the right to own slaves. They didn't give any significant increase in power to the states besides the ability to secede, which according to THEM they had in the US anyway.


They seceded to protect their lifestyle, of which slavery was a large part.

Name five rights, priveleges or whathaveyou that the CSA gave that the USA did not. I'll give you slavery, though technically, although it was legal in the US. But since it was guaranteed in the South, I'll let you have that as 1.

Give me four more.
Sgt Toomey wrote:Come to think of it, it would make more sense to hate him for being black. At least its half true..
JJ Place wrote:Sure, the statistics are that a gun is more likely to harm a family member than a criminal

User avatar
Tekania
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21353
Founded: May 26, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tekania » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 pm

Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
SaintB wrote:I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).


Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

They wanted (or maybe believed they had) the right to leave the Union whenever they felt like it, they wanted the right to have slaves (which Lincoln never contended until the shooting started), and basically in short they wanted State Governments to have more power then the Federal Government.

Then it became about rubbing it in people's faces.

Bullshit. The Confederacy they joined had more power. They required that all new states allow slavery. And they left after the Federal government wouldn't exert ENOUGH power. The Confederates states weren't fans of a weak federal government.

Just like now the only time states' rights are ever brought up is when they're pissed that have to respect the rights of minorities. Slavery. Segregation. Women's rights. Abortion. Gay marriage. Interracial marriage. And the list goes on. States' rights isn't about weaking the Federal government. It's about taking rights from the people and giving them to the states.

Uncoincidentally, however, when the federal government helps them deny those rights, they're huge fans. Gay Marriage amendment anyone?

I agree with your definition of what people mean when they say State's rights. Also, the government of the Confederacy was not stronger, because a state could leave at any time it wanted to.

I never argues that the Confederacy was not about slavery, I stated the FACT that that was not the only thing it was about, and that was not what the war was about, even after the emancipation proclamation. It was about "state's rights" and "federal government".

Yes, it was about how the federal government wouldn't violate the "right" state's rights. And the "right" states were the ones that weren't the Confederacy. They wanted a STRONG federal government that answered to the South and only the South. When they didn't they unilaterally decided they didn't have to play ball anymore and fuck that they contracted with every other state to form a nation, eh?

But what was it that the Federal government didn't behave correctly on? Slavery. And it wasn't too strong or too week it was that they were worried they wouldn't get to control the laws and rulings on slavery. So to say it was about the feds or state's rights is wrong. Because in both cases they only cared about either because of slavery. And they started an aggressive war to prove it, and let us know in their articles of Confederation.

They didn't secede for the right to secede. They seceded for the right to own slaves. They didn't give any significant increase in power to the states besides the ability to secede, which according to THEM they had in the US anyway.


On April 7th, 1861, with the issue of slavery on the table a commission established by the Virginia Legislature to consider the issue of secession voted on whether to recommend secession or not... For a matter of record, will you please tell me what the result of that vote was?
Such heroic nonsense!

User avatar
Caninope
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24560
Founded: Nov 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Caninope » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:34 pm

Jocabia wrote:
Caninope wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
SaintB wrote:I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).


Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

They wanted (or maybe believed they had) the right to leave the Union whenever they felt like it, they wanted the right to have slaves (which Lincoln never contended until the shooting started), and basically in short they wanted State Governments to have more power then the Federal Government.

Then it became about rubbing it in people's faces.

Bullshit. The Confederacy they joined had more power. They required that all new states allow slavery. And they left after the Federal government wouldn't exert ENOUGH power. The Confederates states weren't fans of a weak federal government.

Just like now the only time states' rights are ever brought up is when they're pissed that have to respect the rights of minorities. Slavery. Segregation. Women's rights. Abortion. Gay marriage. Interracial marriage. And the list goes on. States' rights isn't about weaking the Federal government. It's about taking rights from the people and giving them to the states.

Uncoincidentally, however, when the federal government helps them deny those rights, they're huge fans. Gay Marriage amendment anyone?

I agree with your definition of what people mean when they say State's rights. Also, the government of the Confederacy was not stronger, because a state could leave at any time it wanted to.

I never argues that the Confederacy was not about slavery, I stated the FACT that that was not the only thing it was about, and that was not what the war was about, even after the emancipation proclamation. It was about "state's rights" and "federal government".

Yes, it was about how the federal government wouldn't violate the "right" state's rights. And the "right" states were the ones that weren't the Confederacy. They wanted a STRONG federal government that answered to the South and only the South. When they didn't they unilaterally decided they didn't have to play ball anymore and fuck that they contracted with every other state to form a nation, eh?

But what was it that the Federal government didn't behave correctly on? Slavery. And it wasn't too strong or too week it was that they were worried they wouldn't get to control the laws and rulings on slavery. So to say it was about the feds or state's rights is wrong. Because in both cases they only cared about either because of slavery. And they started an aggressive war to prove it, and let us know in their articles of Confederation.

They didn't secede for the right to secede. They seceded for the right to own slaves. They didn't give any significant increase in power to the states besides the ability to secede, which according to THEM they had in the US anyway.


They seceded to protect their lifestyle, of which slavery was a large part.

Name five rights, priveleges or whathaveyou that the CSA gave that the USA did not. I'll give you slavery, though technically, although it was legal in the US. But since it was guaranteed in the South, I'll let you have that as 1.

Give me four more.


:palm: Where did I bring rights into this?
I'm the Pope
Secretly CIA interns stomping out negative views of the US
Türkçe öğreniyorum ama zorluk var.
Winner, Silver Medal for Debating
Co-Winner, Bronze Medal for Posting
Co-Winner, Zooke Goodwill Award

Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:
Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.

Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.

User avatar
Jocabia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5273
Founded: Mar 25, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Jocabia » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:36 pm

Caninope wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
Caninope wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
SaintB wrote:I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).


Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

They wanted (or maybe believed they had) the right to leave the Union whenever they felt like it, they wanted the right to have slaves (which Lincoln never contended until the shooting started), and basically in short they wanted State Governments to have more power then the Federal Government.

Then it became about rubbing it in people's faces.

Bullshit. The Confederacy they joined had more power. They required that all new states allow slavery. And they left after the Federal government wouldn't exert ENOUGH power. The Confederates states weren't fans of a weak federal government.

Just like now the only time states' rights are ever brought up is when they're pissed that have to respect the rights of minorities. Slavery. Segregation. Women's rights. Abortion. Gay marriage. Interracial marriage. And the list goes on. States' rights isn't about weaking the Federal government. It's about taking rights from the people and giving them to the states.

Uncoincidentally, however, when the federal government helps them deny those rights, they're huge fans. Gay Marriage amendment anyone?

I agree with your definition of what people mean when they say State's rights. Also, the government of the Confederacy was not stronger, because a state could leave at any time it wanted to.

I never argues that the Confederacy was not about slavery, I stated the FACT that that was not the only thing it was about, and that was not what the war was about, even after the emancipation proclamation. It was about "state's rights" and "federal government".

Yes, it was about how the federal government wouldn't violate the "right" state's rights. And the "right" states were the ones that weren't the Confederacy. They wanted a STRONG federal government that answered to the South and only the South. When they didn't they unilaterally decided they didn't have to play ball anymore and fuck that they contracted with every other state to form a nation, eh?

But what was it that the Federal government didn't behave correctly on? Slavery. And it wasn't too strong or too week it was that they were worried they wouldn't get to control the laws and rulings on slavery. So to say it was about the feds or state's rights is wrong. Because in both cases they only cared about either because of slavery. And they started an aggressive war to prove it, and let us know in their articles of Confederation.

They didn't secede for the right to secede. They seceded for the right to own slaves. They didn't give any significant increase in power to the states besides the ability to secede, which according to THEM they had in the US anyway.


They seceded to protect their lifestyle, of which slavery was a large part.

Name five rights, priveleges or whathaveyou that the CSA gave that the USA did not. I'll give you slavery, though technically, although it was legal in the US. But since it was guaranteed in the South, I'll let you have that as 1.

Give me four more.


:palm: Where did I bring rights into this?

If leaving somehow protected their lifestyle then something about the CSA must have been different in terms of government. What differences were there that protected their lifestyle?
Sgt Toomey wrote:Come to think of it, it would make more sense to hate him for being black. At least its half true..
JJ Place wrote:Sure, the statistics are that a gun is more likely to harm a family member than a criminal

User avatar
Jocabia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5273
Founded: Mar 25, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Jocabia » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:37 pm

Tekania wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
SaintB wrote:I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).


Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

They wanted (or maybe believed they had) the right to leave the Union whenever they felt like it, they wanted the right to have slaves (which Lincoln never contended until the shooting started), and basically in short they wanted State Governments to have more power then the Federal Government.

Then it became about rubbing it in people's faces.

Bullshit. The Confederacy they joined had more power. They required that all new states allow slavery. And they left after the Federal government wouldn't exert ENOUGH power. The Confederates states weren't fans of a weak federal government.

Just like now the only time states' rights are ever brought up is when they're pissed that have to respect the rights of minorities. Slavery. Segregation. Women's rights. Abortion. Gay marriage. Interracial marriage. And the list goes on. States' rights isn't about weaking the Federal government. It's about taking rights from the people and giving them to the states.

Uncoincidentally, however, when the federal government helps them deny those rights, they're huge fans. Gay Marriage amendment anyone?

I agree with your definition of what people mean when they say State's rights. Also, the government of the Confederacy was not stronger, because a state could leave at any time it wanted to.

I never argues that the Confederacy was not about slavery, I stated the FACT that that was not the only thing it was about, and that was not what the war was about, even after the emancipation proclamation. It was about "state's rights" and "federal government".

Yes, it was about how the federal government wouldn't violate the "right" state's rights. And the "right" states were the ones that weren't the Confederacy. They wanted a STRONG federal government that answered to the South and only the South. When they didn't they unilaterally decided they didn't have to play ball anymore and fuck that they contracted with every other state to form a nation, eh?

But what was it that the Federal government didn't behave correctly on? Slavery. And it wasn't too strong or too week it was that they were worried they wouldn't get to control the laws and rulings on slavery. So to say it was about the feds or state's rights is wrong. Because in both cases they only cared about either because of slavery. And they started an aggressive war to prove it, and let us know in their articles of Confederation.

They didn't secede for the right to secede. They seceded for the right to own slaves. They didn't give any significant increase in power to the states besides the ability to secede, which according to THEM they had in the US anyway.


On April 7th, 1861, with the issue of slavery on the table a commission established by the Virginia Legislature to consider the issue of secession voted on whether to recommend secession or not... For a matter of record, will you please tell me what the result of that vote was?

I'll ask you the same thing. Slavery rules were obviously different in the CSA.

Name me four other things that was different about the CSA government from the USA government.
Sgt Toomey wrote:Come to think of it, it would make more sense to hate him for being black. At least its half true..
JJ Place wrote:Sure, the statistics are that a gun is more likely to harm a family member than a criminal

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:38 pm

Jocabia wrote:Name five rights, priveleges or whathaveyou that the CSA gave that the USA did not. I'll give you slavery, though technically, although it was legal in the US. But since it was guaranteed in the South, I'll let you have that as 1.

Give me four more.

There's a list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederat ... nstitution

It's mostly restrictions on rights, rather than actually giving more, although it does give the State Legislatures more power with regards to impeachment of Federal officials...

One of them I actually think could be useful to the US Constitution:
Amended Article 1 Section 7 Clause 2 to provide the President of the Confederate States of America with a line item veto but also required any bill which the president used the veto in to be resubmitted to both houses for a possible override vote by 2/3 of both houses.

User avatar
Caninope
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24560
Founded: Nov 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Caninope » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:43 pm

Jocabia wrote:
Caninope wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
Caninope wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
SaintB wrote:I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).


Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

They wanted (or maybe believed they had) the right to leave the Union whenever they felt like it, they wanted the right to have slaves (which Lincoln never contended until the shooting started), and basically in short they wanted State Governments to have more power then the Federal Government.

Then it became about rubbing it in people's faces.

Bullshit. The Confederacy they joined had more power. They required that all new states allow slavery. And they left after the Federal government wouldn't exert ENOUGH power. The Confederates states weren't fans of a weak federal government.

Just like now the only time states' rights are ever brought up is when they're pissed that have to respect the rights of minorities. Slavery. Segregation. Women's rights. Abortion. Gay marriage. Interracial marriage. And the list goes on. States' rights isn't about weaking the Federal government. It's about taking rights from the people and giving them to the states.

Uncoincidentally, however, when the federal government helps them deny those rights, they're huge fans. Gay Marriage amendment anyone?

I agree with your definition of what people mean when they say State's rights. Also, the government of the Confederacy was not stronger, because a state could leave at any time it wanted to.

I never argues that the Confederacy was not about slavery, I stated the FACT that that was not the only thing it was about, and that was not what the war was about, even after the emancipation proclamation. It was about "state's rights" and "federal government".

Yes, it was about how the federal government wouldn't violate the "right" state's rights. And the "right" states were the ones that weren't the Confederacy. They wanted a STRONG federal government that answered to the South and only the South. When they didn't they unilaterally decided they didn't have to play ball anymore and fuck that they contracted with every other state to form a nation, eh?

But what was it that the Federal government didn't behave correctly on? Slavery. And it wasn't too strong or too week it was that they were worried they wouldn't get to control the laws and rulings on slavery. So to say it was about the feds or state's rights is wrong. Because in both cases they only cared about either because of slavery. And they started an aggressive war to prove it, and let us know in their articles of Confederation.

They didn't secede for the right to secede. They seceded for the right to own slaves. They didn't give any significant increase in power to the states besides the ability to secede, which according to THEM they had in the US anyway.


They seceded to protect their lifestyle, of which slavery was a large part.

Name five rights, priveleges or whathaveyou that the CSA gave that the USA did not. I'll give you slavery, though technically, although it was legal in the US. But since it was guaranteed in the South, I'll let you have that as 1.

Give me four more.


:palm: Where did I bring rights into this?

If leaving somehow protected their lifestyle then something about the CSA must have been different in terms of government. What differences were there that protected their lifestyle?


There was little differences in governing. However, the States seceded, hoping that in doing so they could cling on the their rural life and not face the industrialized North, who held the advantage with the Union.

They failed at that epically.
I'm the Pope
Secretly CIA interns stomping out negative views of the US
Türkçe öğreniyorum ama zorluk var.
Winner, Silver Medal for Debating
Co-Winner, Bronze Medal for Posting
Co-Winner, Zooke Goodwill Award

Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:
Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.

Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.

User avatar
Jocabia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5273
Founded: Mar 25, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Jocabia » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:48 pm

Maurepas wrote:
Jocabia wrote:Name five rights, priveleges or whathaveyou that the CSA gave that the USA did not. I'll give you slavery, though technically, although it was legal in the US. But since it was guaranteed in the South, I'll let you have that as 1.

Give me four more.

There's a list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederat ... nstitution

It's mostly restrictions on rights, rather than actually giving more, although it does give the State Legislatures more power with regards to impeachment of Federal officials...

One of them I actually think could be useful to the US Constitution:
Amended Article 1 Section 7 Clause 2 to provide the President of the Confederate States of America with a line item veto but also required any bill which the president used the veto in to be resubmitted to both houses for a possible override vote by 2/3 of both houses.

I actually like them. But aside from the slavery and the little bit of xenophobia, how exactly did they preserve a way of life?
Sgt Toomey wrote:Come to think of it, it would make more sense to hate him for being black. At least its half true..
JJ Place wrote:Sure, the statistics are that a gun is more likely to harm a family member than a criminal

User avatar
Tekania
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21353
Founded: May 26, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tekania » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:54 pm

Jocabia wrote:
Tekania wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
Jocabia wrote:
SaintB wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
SaintB wrote:I've said that the war was about State's Rights (Slavery was among them).


Pray tell, particularly in light of the CSA Constitution what "state's rights" were the Confederates fighting for?

They wanted (or maybe believed they had) the right to leave the Union whenever they felt like it, they wanted the right to have slaves (which Lincoln never contended until the shooting started), and basically in short they wanted State Governments to have more power then the Federal Government.

Then it became about rubbing it in people's faces.

Bullshit. The Confederacy they joined had more power. They required that all new states allow slavery. And they left after the Federal government wouldn't exert ENOUGH power. The Confederates states weren't fans of a weak federal government.

Just like now the only time states' rights are ever brought up is when they're pissed that have to respect the rights of minorities. Slavery. Segregation. Women's rights. Abortion. Gay marriage. Interracial marriage. And the list goes on. States' rights isn't about weaking the Federal government. It's about taking rights from the people and giving them to the states.

Uncoincidentally, however, when the federal government helps them deny those rights, they're huge fans. Gay Marriage amendment anyone?

I agree with your definition of what people mean when they say State's rights. Also, the government of the Confederacy was not stronger, because a state could leave at any time it wanted to.

I never argues that the Confederacy was not about slavery, I stated the FACT that that was not the only thing it was about, and that was not what the war was about, even after the emancipation proclamation. It was about "state's rights" and "federal government".

Yes, it was about how the federal government wouldn't violate the "right" state's rights. And the "right" states were the ones that weren't the Confederacy. They wanted a STRONG federal government that answered to the South and only the South. When they didn't they unilaterally decided they didn't have to play ball anymore and fuck that they contracted with every other state to form a nation, eh?

But what was it that the Federal government didn't behave correctly on? Slavery. And it wasn't too strong or too week it was that they were worried they wouldn't get to control the laws and rulings on slavery. So to say it was about the feds or state's rights is wrong. Because in both cases they only cared about either because of slavery. And they started an aggressive war to prove it, and let us know in their articles of Confederation.

They didn't secede for the right to secede. They seceded for the right to own slaves. They didn't give any significant increase in power to the states besides the ability to secede, which according to THEM they had in the US anyway.


On April 7th, 1861, with the issue of slavery on the table a commission established by the Virginia Legislature to consider the issue of secession voted on whether to recommend secession or not... For a matter of record, will you please tell me what the result of that vote was?

I'll ask you the same thing. Slavery rules were obviously different in the CSA.

Name me four other things that was different about the CSA government from the USA government.


Why? it has no bearing on what I'm asking you.

But to entertain you:
1. The Executive office was 6 years rather than 4
2. The President was limited to a single term.
3. There are constitutional provisions for the Confederate acquisition of territory.
4. There are provisions for the establishment and placement of territorial governments.
Such heroic nonsense!

User avatar
Jocabia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5273
Founded: Mar 25, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Jocabia » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:56 pm

Tekania wrote:Why? it has no bearing on what I'm asking you.

But to entertain you:
1. The Executive office was 6 years rather than 4
2. The President was limited to a single term.
3. There are constitutional provisions for the Confederate acquisition of territory.
4. There are provisions for the establishment and placement of territorial governments.

Oh, but it does. You're trying to suggest that just because it failed before that it wasn't there reasoning.

But none of the things you mentioned were major points of contention between Virginia and the US government.

Can you come up with any difference that actually WERE points of contention between the US and Virginia that wouldn't also be points of contention between VA and CSA? Slavery is one of course. Anything else?

Because whether you wish to admit it or not. Something else might have put them over the top or made the slavery issue more of a concern, but that was the primary point of contention. But if you can find one that was different in the CSA that was a greater point of contention, I'd like to hear it. Ready.... go.
Last edited by Jocabia on Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sgt Toomey wrote:Come to think of it, it would make more sense to hate him for being black. At least its half true..
JJ Place wrote:Sure, the statistics are that a gun is more likely to harm a family member than a criminal

User avatar
Tekania
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21353
Founded: May 26, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tekania » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:00 pm

Jocabia wrote:Oh, but it does. You're trying to suggest that just because it failed before that it wasn't there reasoning.


What changed between then and April 17th, 1861? (I'll give you a hint.... It wasn't slavery).
Such heroic nonsense!

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:02 pm

Jocabia wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Jocabia wrote:Name five rights, priveleges or whathaveyou that the CSA gave that the USA did not. I'll give you slavery, though technically, although it was legal in the US. But since it was guaranteed in the South, I'll let you have that as 1.

Give me four more.

There's a list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederat ... nstitution

It's mostly restrictions on rights, rather than actually giving more, although it does give the State Legislatures more power with regards to impeachment of Federal officials...

One of them I actually think could be useful to the US Constitution:
Amended Article 1 Section 7 Clause 2 to provide the President of the Confederate States of America with a line item veto but also required any bill which the president used the veto in to be resubmitted to both houses for a possible override vote by 2/3 of both houses.

I actually like them. But aside from the slavery and the little bit of xenophobia, how exactly did they preserve a way of life?

Very well actually, as the Slavery bits and Xenophobia would've been what did it...I've never bought the "preservation of the way of life" bit either, knowing exactly what that meant...

I've only held two arguments as ones I accepted on this subject, the right to secede argument, and the idea that not everyone was fighting for what those documents said, however, I think the arguments presented in this thread have called those into question, and I don't think I can accept them either..
Last edited by Maurepas on Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jocabia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5273
Founded: Mar 25, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Jocabia » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:08 pm

Tekania wrote:
Jocabia wrote:Oh, but it does. You're trying to suggest that just because it failed before that it wasn't there reasoning.


What changed between then and April 17th, 1861? (I'll give you a hint.... It wasn't slavery).

Irrelevant. The point is that it was the major point of contention even if something happened to increase tensions. People weren't rioting in LA because Rodney King was the most important thing to them. Racial tensions were bad before and after. It was Rodney King's trial that set off the racial tensions.

Slavery tensions were bad between VA and the Federal government the whole time. What changed is that things came to a head. But Slavery is what the tension was about.

So that's why they didn't go to a new government that changed any major point of contention they had with the US OTHER than Slavery.

Or you can answer the question. If not slavery, what was the significant change in the CSA that attracted VA? Ready... Go!
Last edited by Jocabia on Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sgt Toomey wrote:Come to think of it, it would make more sense to hate him for being black. At least its half true..
JJ Place wrote:Sure, the statistics are that a gun is more likely to harm a family member than a criminal

User avatar
The Fifty Metropoli
Secretary
 
Posts: 27
Founded: Mar 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Fifty Metropoli » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:21 pm

Head of State: His Royalty Holy Metropolitan Emperor Stephen L
Head of Government: The Rt. Hon. Prime Minister John Peter Marcus Luke Matthews

The Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: 7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.05

"Speak softly and carry a big stick."-Theodore Roosevelt
“Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.”-Anonymous
“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule–and both commonly succeed, and are right.”-H. L. Mencken
“Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.”-Oscar Ameringer


User avatar
Tekania
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21353
Founded: May 26, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tekania » Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:37 am

Jocabia wrote:
Tekania wrote:
Jocabia wrote:Oh, but it does. You're trying to suggest that just because it failed before that it wasn't there reasoning.


What changed between then and April 17th, 1861? (I'll give you a hint.... It wasn't slavery).

Irrelevant. The point is that it was the major point of contention even if something happened to increase tensions. People weren't rioting in LA because Rodney King was the most important thing to them. Racial tensions were bad before and after. It was Rodney King's trial that set off the racial tensions.

Slavery tensions were bad between VA and the Federal government the whole time. What changed is that things came to a head. But Slavery is what the tension was about.

So that's why they didn't go to a new government that changed any major point of contention they had with the US OTHER than Slavery.

Or you can answer the question. If not slavery, what was the significant change in the CSA that attracted VA? Ready... Go!


There wasn't a significant "change" in the CSA.

Up until that time VA had been working in and with the US Federal government attempting to reach a peaceful settlement of the cotton-state rebellion, the change that occurred was Lincoln's order to raise troops subsequent to his actions reaching for a military escalation of the situation; and VA refused to send aid and military power to invade another state, and refused to allow the marching of Federal troops through its state and such would raise its own troops to repel the invasion.

IOW, while Slavery was THE factor in some state secessions, and slavery was a factor in others; it was not THE factor in all cases. There is little difference between this absolutist belief that the civil-war state secessions were only based upon slavery in all cases than there is with the rightwing-nuts quoting founding fathers attempting to prove the US was founded as a "Christian Nation", both rely on a disingenous mis-representation of the political dynamics of the time.
Such heroic nonsense!

User avatar
Tekania
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21353
Founded: May 26, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tekania » Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:40 am

Last edited by Tekania on Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Such heroic nonsense!

User avatar
Bottle
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14985
Founded: Dec 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Bottle » Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:49 am

Muravyets wrote:
Bottle wrote:Yes, the Confederacy was all about slavery. Yes, every single "state's rights" movement has revolved around denying rights to blacks, immigrants, women, gays, atheists, or whoever the hell else the rich white Christian heterosexual males of the South don't like this week.

And yes, I absolutely positively 100% support the right of the South to secede. I hope they do it again. Now. Please. Pretty please. Stop being a sponge for my tax dollars and crying about how oppressive it is to have to recognize the human rights of your fellow citizens. Go be your own backward little country and let the rest of us finally stop having to DEBATE shit like "Black people are human beings" and "Women deserve legal equality."

Frankly, I agree. Even though I stand firmly on the side of "the Union was right and the Confederacy was wrong, and in the wrong and deserved to beaten to a physical and economic pulp", I also often think the Civil War was a mistake. The north should have just let the slave states leave. And then just facilitate the escape of slaves, boycott the trade of the south, blockade their ports, harass their ships, engage in international political gamesmanship to keep them from gaining foreign allies -- all on the grounds that slavery was immoral and, thus, they were an immoral and oppressive state that deserved no help or support from its neighbors. Within a short time, they would have lost much of their territory back to Mexico and Spain, and the ragged remainder would be so poor, they would be easy to annex back into the Union. Hell, they might even have enjoyed a slave revolt such as was seen earlier in Jamaica and Haiti.

And equally frankly, I don't believe their ability to survive has improved much since then. So yeah, go on, be independent, You Southern States. Bon voyage. Write when you get work.


Honestly, the tragedy of the Civil War to me is that 600,000 people lost their lives so that we could drag the South back home like a spoiled suburban teenager who's out past curfew. As a result, we've been putting up with a century and a half of "You're not the boss of me!!! Iran's mom lets him own his fellow humans, so why can't you let me do it?! It's a free country, I can do whatever I want!!!" The right way to deal with the south was to simply say, "While you live under my roof you obey my rules," and then, when they storm out with their grand threats of how they're totally going to go live on their own and make their own rules, you just kick back and wait for them to come slinking back home with their tails between their legs because you know damn well they're not going to last long without their Xbox and all the free room and board. :P
"Until evolution happens like in pokemon I'll never accept your 'evidence'!" -Ifreann
"Well, excuuuuuuse me, feminist." -Ende

User avatar
Soheran
Minister
 
Posts: 3431
Founded: Jun 15, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Soheran » Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:58 am

Kalibarr wrote:
Bottle wrote: Yes, every single "state's rights" movement has revolved around denying rights to blacks, immigrants, women, gays, atheists, or whoever the hell else the rich white Christian heterosexual males of the South don't like this week...

In the south maybe...


No, not even there.The specific causes of the Civil War (which are as The Cat-Tribe describes them) aside, the South or parts of the South has historically resisted federal power in areas that have nothing to do with the rights of minorities--for instance, prior to the Civil War, tariffs and internal improvements. The Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833 was over tariffs, and the nullification doctrine was originally articulated by Jefferson and Madison against the Alien and Sedition Acts (and as such was a genuine defense of liberty, if a legally-tenuous one.)

Moving away from the South, the argument is particularly difficult to make in the context of present LGBT rights struggles, where legal and political respect for states' rights is the only reason that same-sex marriage is not banned nationwide. Whether and how the federal government can guarantee equal rights to LGBT people in deeply-homophobic states is quite beside the point when it has declined to even do so in areas that are indisputably within its jurisdiction, like the military.

The more damning critique of states' rights arguments is that they are nearly always unprincipled: they are arguments you make when the country is against you but some states are for you, and they are not held to when relative shares of power are altered.
Last edited by Soheran on Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cannot think of a name, Corrian, Eastfield Lodge, Ethel mermania, Fartsniffage, Heloin, Herrebrugh, Ifreann, Juristonia, Maple Sryup, Niwe Myrce, Salandriagado, Shrillland, Telconi, The Blaatschapen, The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp, The Liberated Territories, Vassenor, Zurkerx

Advertisement

Remove ads