NationStates

Merrill wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:The constitution also doesn’t say that states can reserve the right to leave the union. So you can’t claim that leaving the union is constitutional if the constitution literally doesn’t say anything about it

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

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

Thermodolia 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…

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

The former confederate states got more concessions than almost any other loser has in military/war history.

Comerciante wrote:Could we also talk about the fact that the Tariff most people point to the Confederate reason; the Morrill Tariff, for secession, was written by Robert Hunter from Virginia

Ironically, it easily passed Congress because Southern politicians resigned from the seats when their states seceded. Later and harsher tariffs also passed because of this reason.

North Washington Republic 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

The former confederate states got more concessions than almost any other loser has in military/war history.

#AndrewJohnsonThings

Vassenor wrote:

Narland wrote:Their first main reason was Congressional tarrifs that taxed the Southern Farmer at 45-55% percent about his profit margin while the northern farmer, and the northern manufacturer got away unscathed at less than 5% in most cases. Slavery became an issue when the North realized that the War was so unpopular (the New York Riots for instance) they had to make slavery the definitive issue. It was like a couple arguing past each other, and not listening to the other. Once the South was destroyed economically it was only a matter of time and attrition. The Slaves would be set free, and the South would be occupied by Northern conquerors. That is as simple as one can get without it becoming a meme of "the south is racist" and "the north perfect"

If the main reason was unfair taxes and tariffs why do all the declarations of secession state the main reason was the maintenance of the institution of slavery?

What the Confederate apologists are stating are ALTERNATIVE FACTS, which are just as valid as your history?

This is just another example of the snobby liberal elites using CANCEL CULTURE to silence those who have a different point of view.


In all seriousness, we cannot get along if we can't agree on basic facts.

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…

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.

Postauthoritarian America wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:The US military hasn’t lost every war it started since 1965. Unless Gulf War is somehow fake

Which Gulf War, the one where we sent a half million soldiers into Iraq but didn't remove Saddam

Removing Saddam was never a goal in the Gulf War.

Lord Dominator 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…

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.

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:

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.

I think you know that chattel slavery is not the same as violating the right of a people to self-determination.

The United Confederacy of Texas wrote:

Merrill wrote:
Nope, they lawfully and constitutionally seceded, the Tyrant Lincoln committed to keeping the “Union” together, by force if necessary (ignoring that if a State voluntarily chose to enter the Union, it can voluntarily choose to leave); so the Confederacy considered itself under direct threat, and took action.

While slavery was wrong, that wasn’t the only issue. The Northern states had been using their advantages in Congress to bully the Southern states via tariffs and other laws. Politically, there’s no difference between the Southern Secession, and the rebellion of the colonies against the King of England. The South no longer felt they had representation in the Federal government.

Lincoln should have let them go. They would have been a pariah nation and withered away. The costs were too great. Too many deaths, half the nation taking over one hundred years to recover, and too much power concentrated in the federal government.

oh great, a confederate sympathizer

Politically yes, morally no.

Why are racist dead guys more honest than the people defending them?

Lord Dominator wrote:

Kowani wrote:snip

Kowani be ignoring our pointless debates about the Civil War

it's stupid heaping shit from a pair of gaslighting revisionists blatantly ignoring the black elephant in the room

why bother, if you're not shitposting yourself?

Thermodolia 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…

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:

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.

Trying to justify the actions of slaveowners and control women's bodies is a pretty fucking weird thing for a self-described anti-authoritarian to do

Merrill wrote:

The United Confederacy of Texas wrote:oh great, a confederate sympathizer

Politically yes, morally no.

yeah, the morality does inform the politics on this one, well after the confederacy itself disintegrated and chattel slavery a dead end

so to defend the one is to defend the other, no matter the dodge

Comerciante wrote:Why are racist dead guys more honest than the people defending them?

It's harder for people to admit to being racists in 2021.

Kowani wrote:I am happy to announce that the Ways and Means committee has released the 645 page draft language of the first portion of the reconciliation bill

and so, a summary

extension and expansion of the child tax credit, refundable, $16,000 until 2025
green energy tax credits (including prevailing wage provisions)
prescription drug pricing reform
infrastructure bond financing
Medicaid expansion
ACA credits, permanent
a $10 billion program for states to establish reinsurance program or set up system to help people afford out of pocket costs
permanent expansion of the earned income tax credit
$7.75 billion for crop protections/pest management
$40 billion to fight forest fires
$18 billion for rural job creation

some really twisted immigration stuff i am going to leave to someone more qualified

the committee will next turn to medicare expansion (which it already approved)-specifically, vision, hearing, and dental benefits

The immigration stuff, in short:

Altered requirements to apply for citizenship while still requiring successful background and medical checks
A pathway to Permanent Residency and for Dreamers who've served in the forces or been in school/job training
A pathway to Legal Status for Essential Workers from the start of 2021 onward
A pathway to Permanent Residency for TPS and DED recipients if they've been here at least three years
New restrictions for people who've either served a year in prison for one offence or served sentences of 90+ days for three offences(the 90 days is for each offence)
Expunged Convictions would no longer be considered when applying for legal status or citizenship
A provision would require DHS to provide "reasonable opportunity" to apply for legal status before deportation to ensure no one gets thrown out immediately after these measures become law(only to go into effect in six months or on May 1 of next year)
Annual Visas to be increased to 226,000 + anyone who may have been disqualified due to the Muslim Bans or COVID restrictions
Unused Employment visas from 1992 onward would be recaptured and made available to the visa pool in the next year
Certain backlogged legal immigrants could now pay $1500 to $50,000 depending on the visa for adjustment applications to get further ahead in the queue
Increased supplemental fees for applications across the board, $100 extra for family-based visas, $800 for employment-based visas, and $15,00 for EB-5 petitions(EB-5 petitions provide green cards to those who invest at least $500,000 in capital to American companies)
An extra $2.8 billion to USCIS to eliminate backlogs

North Washington Republic 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

The former confederate states got more concessions than almost any other loser has in military/war history.

let me also point out that the confederates won the argument, a decade after the civil war ended

Alcala-Cordel 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.

Trying to justify the actions of slaveowners and control women's bodies is a pretty fucking weird thing for a self-described anti-authoritarian to do

He's a libertarian as long as the one holding the leash isn't government it's fine.

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."

Thermodolia wrote:

Kowani wrote:I am happy to announce that the Ways and Means committee has released the 645 page draft language of the first portion of the reconciliation bill

and so, a summary

extension and expansion of the child tax credit, refundable, $16,000 until 2025
green energy tax credits (including prevailing wage provisions)
prescription drug pricing reform
infrastructure bond financing
Medicaid expansion
ACA credits, permanent
a $10 billion program for states to establish reinsurance program or set up system to help people afford out of pocket costs
permanent expansion of the earned income tax credit
$7.75 billion for crop protections/pest management
$40 billion to fight forest fires
$18 billion for rural job creation

some really twisted immigration stuff i am going to leave to someone more qualified

the committee will next turn to medicare expansion (which it already approved)-specifically, vision, hearing, and dental benefits

I really hope they’ll expand the VA dental and eye programs. Would be nice to have my contacts for free

we shall see
wait 'till it gets reconciled in committee with the senate version

Comerciante wrote:Why are racist dead guys more honest than the people defending them?

they thought they were in the right

Lord Dominator wrote:

Kowani wrote:snip

Kowani be ignoring our pointless debates about the Civil War

a debate requires some degree of quality engagement on both sides

Thermodolia wrote:

Merrill wrote:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

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.

Narland wrote:

The Temple of the Computer wrote:Again, the south fired the first shots. NOT the north. So I think it is safe to say that the South is the Aggressor, and as such, it is the war of Southern Aggression.

No, to say that the Northern Aggression is a lie, is disingenuous. The Civil war happened. The South had their reasons to secede, and the North had their reasons for destroying the Southern Confederacy by force, destroying its infrastructure, starving out its cities, and occupying it by military force. I find it a ludicrous oversimplification to blame it totally on "a bunch of racists" or to infer that the Confederacy was nothing but racist is even more so.

Indeed preservation of slavery was an important thing. You could follow up with most of the soldiers didn’t own slaves. They may however had concerns over the slaves getting “upity”

My relation at the time was a fellow named Angus William McDonald. He founded the 7th Virginia Cavalry. His wife kept a diary throughout the war and it’s still published today. She wrote how Angus and a couple business associates talked a great deal and were excited by the possibility of getting the slave trade going again. Slavery was on the minds of people.

The problem with the racism claim? It tends to be all encompassing. Are they all racists? Simple margin of error shows there are some that were not. I have heard “why would a black man fight for a racist?” arguments before. That can be explained as it’s their home and the racism was just the way it is. Especially; if that was all that you knew.

Many Southern revisionists try hard to eliminate the bad aspects. For example; I remember many (might have been here) talking about how slaves were not really beaten that much. Ignore the photos and there are actually written records of slaves in the Library of Congress. They talked about the beatings they received. One I remember was a guy mentioned He was whipped so bad his shoes filled with blood.

Anyway…….

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.

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