NationStates

Merrill wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:Both were traitors, yes - but one was revolting over various political/economic reasons and the other over the continued maintenance of slavery. I’m well within my ability to think that the American revolution was rather more morally justified than the Confederate secession.

Morally, I agreed. As an anti-authoritarian, I find the idea of forcing people to remain under a government they reject to be abhorrent. Lincoln “freed the slaves” by making slaves of ALL the Southerners, even though most didn’t own any slaves themselves.

Merrill wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
- Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens, March 21 1861

Slavery certainly became more emphasized later in the war for foreign policy reasons, but to pretend it was not in fact a driving reason from the beginning is ludicrous.

I’m not denying that slavery was a primary reason. I’m stating that the Right of a group to splinter from a larger group is absolute

Merrill wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:That doesn’t mean leaving the union as the founders would have said so. And the right to leave the union isn’t a power but a right. Besides this is moot anyway as SCOTUS has ruled that leaving the union is unconstitutional

“The Chief Justice has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

Where in the Constitution is the judiciary granted the authority to review the constitutionality of laws and regulations? The Constitution is a contract between the several States. How can the product of the contract, ie, the federal government, redefine the terms of the contract? Only the States can determine constitutionality via nullification.

Merrill wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:That doesn’t mean leaving the union as the founders would have said so. And the right to leave the union isn’t a power but a right. Besides this is moot anyway as SCOTUS has ruled that leaving the union is unconstitutional

“The Chief Justice has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

Where in the Constitution is the judiciary granted the authority to review the constitutionality of laws and regulations? The Constitution is a contract between the several States. How can the product of the contract, ie, the federal government, redefine the terms of the contract? Only the States can determine constitutionality via nullification.

Merrill wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
- Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens, March 21 1861

Slavery certainly became more emphasized later in the war for foreign policy reasons, but to pretend it was not in fact a driving reason from the beginning is ludicrous.

I’m not denying that slavery was a primary reason. I’m stating that the Right of a group to splinter from a larger group is absolute, even if they are the most evil bastards who ever lived. If the South was wrong to go their own way, then so were the rebellious American colonies. After all, both were traitors to the government over them…

Lord Dominator wrote:

Kowani wrote:snip

Kowani be ignoring our pointless debates about the Civil War

Alcala-Cordel wrote:

Merrill wrote:
I’m not denying that slavery was a primary reason. I’m stating that the Right of a group to splinter from a larger group is absolute, even if they are the most evil bastards who ever lived. If the South was wrong to go their own way, then so were the rebellious American colonies. After all, both were traitors to the government over them…

The British Empire was run by imperialist monsters. The founding fathers were a bunch of entitled imperialist bastards themselves, many of them slaveowners and rapists.

Anyways, I personally do not like the U.S. for a variety of reasons (and in fact I oppose states altogether). This doesn't change the fact that I'm glad the South's attack on the North failed because owning other human beings is fucking monstrous. It's very ironic that you use "tyranny" as an excuse for the Southern rebellion and attack on the US when the people behind the CSA were some of the most tyrannical specimens of human scum ever to walk the face of the earth.

On a side notes, it's funny watching the same people defending the CSA try to justify the military presence in Vietnam, the Middle East and South America.

Diahon wrote:

Merrill wrote:
“The Chief Justice has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

Where in the Constitution is the judiciary granted the authority to review the constitutionality of laws and regulations? The Constitution is a contract between the several States. How can the product of the contract, ie, the federal government, redefine the terms of the contract? Only the States can determine constitutionality via nullification.

the articles of confederation called, saying what the fuck is this

Merrill wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
- Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens, March 21 1861

Slavery certainly became more emphasized later in the war for foreign policy reasons, but to pretend it was not in fact a driving reason from the beginning is ludicrous.

I’m not denying that slavery was a primary reason. I’m stating that the Right of a group to splinter from a larger group is absolute, even if they are the most evil bastards who ever lived. If the South was wrong to go their own way, then so were the rebellious American colonies. After all, both were traitors to the government over them…

Merrill wrote:“The Chief Justice has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

Where in the Constitution is the judiciary granted the authority to review the constitutionality of laws and regulations?

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

Picairn wrote:

Merrill wrote:“The Chief Justice has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

Where in the Constitution is the judiciary granted the authority to review the constitutionality of laws and regulations?

Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

Also, have you heard of Federalist No. 78?

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:Let me fight this on your own turf. National self-determination is a right that naturally derives from liberty, but so is the right to be free from slavery. So, we have to play a balancing act here. How can minimal liberty be violated? Frankly, I would argue that the right to bodily autonomy, the right to marriage, the right to freedom of movement, the right to the product of your own labor, etc. which are violated by slavery, are more fundamental and important than the right to national self-determination. If violating the right to self determination is the price to pay for eradicating the gross injustice of slavery, it may be a shame, but it must be violated anyways.

Merrill wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:The British Empire was run by imperialist monsters. The founding fathers were a bunch of entitled imperialist bastards themselves, many of them slaveowners and rapists.

Anyways, I personally do not like the U.S. for a variety of reasons (and in fact I oppose states altogether). This doesn't change the fact that I'm glad the South's attack on the North failed because owning other human beings is fucking monstrous. It's very ironic that you use "tyranny" as an excuse for the Southern rebellion and attack on the US when the people behind the CSA were some of the most tyrannical specimens of human scum ever to walk the face of the earth.

On a side notes, it's funny watching the same people defending the CSA try to justify the military presence in Vietnam, the Middle East and South America.

Not me. The US had to respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The next legitimate reason to go to war were the attempted WTC bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, and the 9/11 attacks. Even then, we should’ve wiped Al-Queda from the face of the earth, and gone home. No nation building!

Merrill wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:The British Empire was run by imperialist monsters. The founding fathers were a bunch of entitled imperialist bastards themselves, many of them slaveowners and rapists.

Anyways, I personally do not like the U.S. for a variety of reasons (and in fact I oppose states altogether). This doesn't change the fact that I'm glad the South's attack on the North failed because owning other human beings is fucking monstrous. It's very ironic that you use "tyranny" as an excuse for the Southern rebellion and attack on the US when the people behind the CSA were some of the most tyrannical specimens of human scum ever to walk the face of the earth.

On a side notes, it's funny watching the same people defending the CSA try to justify the military presence in Vietnam, the Middle East and South America.

Not me. The US had to respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The next legitimate reason to go to war were the attempted WTC bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, and the 9/11 attacks. Even then, we should’ve wiped Al-Queda from the face of the earth, and gone home. No nation building!

Merrill wrote:

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:Let me fight this on your own turf. National self-determination is a right that naturally derives from liberty, but so is the right to be free from slavery. So, we have to play a balancing act here. How can minimal liberty be violated? Frankly, I would argue that the right to bodily autonomy, the right to marriage, the right to freedom of movement, the right to the product of your own labor, etc. which are violated by slavery, are more fundamental and important than the right to national self-determination. If violating the right to self determination is the price to pay for eradicating the gross injustice of slavery, it may be a shame, but it must be violated anyways.

Except, that’s not why Lincoln went to war. He just wanted to “Preserve The Union” at all costs. The Emancipation Proclamation was only issued after the support for the war was waning. It only freed slaves in territory NOT under Federal control. So, it was just war propaganda. There were still slaves in the North, and would until the 13th Amendment was ratified AFTER the war was over.

Merrill wrote:

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:Let me fight this on your own turf. National self-determination is a right that naturally derives from liberty, but so is the right to be free from slavery. So, we have to play a balancing act here. How can minimal liberty be violated? Frankly, I would argue that the right to bodily autonomy, the right to marriage, the right to freedom of movement, the right to the product of your own labor, etc. which are violated by slavery, are more fundamental and important than the right to national self-determination. If violating the right to self determination is the price to pay for eradicating the gross injustice of slavery, it may be a shame, but it must be violated anyways.

Except, that’s not why Lincoln went to war. He just wanted to “Preserve The Union” at all costs. The Emancipation Proclamation was only issued after the support for the war was waning. It only freed slaves in territory NOT under Federal control. So, it was just war propaganda. There were still slaves in the North, and would until the 13th Amendment was ratified AFTER the war was over.

Kilobugya wrote:So, after work I went for one evening on Fête de l'Humanité, I sleep, I wake up, and in this evening/night you managed not only to fill around 10 pages on the old thread and then 6 on the new thread ? How I am supposed to catch up before going back there today ?

Well, good luck to all those who still have the energy, time and strength to battle with ancaps, may the Force be with you !

Merrill wrote:Except, that’s not why Lincoln went to war. He just wanted to “Preserve The Union” at all costs. The Emancipation Proclamation was only issued after the support for the war was waning.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

It only freed slaves in territory NOT under Federal control. So, it was just war propaganda. There were still slaves in the North, and would until the 13th Amendment was ratified AFTER the war was over.

Vassenor wrote:

Merrill wrote:
Not me. The US had to respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The next legitimate reason to go to war were the attempted WTC bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, and the 9/11 attacks. Even then, we should’ve wiped Al-Queda from the face of the earth, and gone home. No nation building!

But the US responding to the Confederate attack on Fort Sumpter is bad and authoritarian and illegitimate.

Picairn wrote:

Merrill wrote:Morally, I agreed. As an anti-authoritarian, I find the idea of forcing people to remain under a government they reject to be abhorrent. Lincoln “freed the slaves” by making slaves of ALL the Southerners, even though most didn’t own any slaves themselves.

Your Confederate hero Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus multiple times without Congressional authorization and imposed martial law.

Civil War historian Mark E. Neely Jr. suggests that "there seems to be no difference in the arrest rate in those periods when the Confederate Congress refuse to authorize suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and [when] those periods was authorized. ... civilian prisoners trickled into Confederate military prisons whether the writ of habeas corpus was suspended or not."

Merrill wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Sure. And the UK can prosecute any Americans they want for treason. However we won and the CSA lost. Losers don’t get shit

Might makes Right?

Merrill wrote:Again, not my hero. I just bristle at the hypocrisy of people that think America is imperialist, and shouldn’t be imposing our flavor of “democracy” around the world (which I agree with), but who cheer the MOST imperialist actions the federal government ever took as the only good thing America ever did, and damn the costs.

Diahon wrote:all you need to know is that there are confederate apologists here

flee, human, leave this wretched place and flee