American Politics VII: Virginia Reel

[Lord Dominator]

Please cite the staute or Constitutional provision that allows US States to secede. (Hint: there aren't any.) The Confederacy resorted to force of arms. It lost. States can't secede. Next case.

Virginia reserved the right of secession to herself when she included the following in her ratification on 26 June 1788: “…the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will…” New York reserved the right of secession to herself when she included the following in her ratification on 26 July 1788: “…the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness…” Rhode Island reserved the right of secession to herself when she included the following in her ratification on 29 May 1790: “…every other power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State governments to whom they may have granted the same…”
The States are on equal footing with one another. If Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island have the right to secede, so do all the rest.

If secession was treason, surely the Constitution would say so. It does not. If secession was treason, surely the United States government would have been delegated the authority to prevent States from leaving. No such authority was or has been delegated. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” This is reflected by the Constitution itself – the powers of the federal government are positively delegated and specifically enumerated. It has no powers other than those granted by the Constitution.

I direct you to Texas v White, in which the Supreme Court rather definitively says unilateral succession isn’t allowed.

[Thermodolia]

Please cite the staute or Constitutional provision that allows US States to secede. (Hint: there aren't any.) The Confederacy resorted to force of arms. It lost. States can't secede. Next case.

Virginia reserved the right of secession to herself when she included the following in her ratification on 26 June 1788: “…the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will…” New York reserved the right of secession to herself when she included the following in her ratification on 26 July 1788: “…the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness…” Rhode Island reserved the right of secession to herself when she included the following in her ratification on 29 May 1790: “…every other power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State governments to whom they may have granted the same…”
The States are on equal footing with one another. If Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island have the right to secede, so do all the rest.

If secession was treason, surely the Constitution would say so. It does not. If secession was treason, surely the United States government would have been delegated the authority to prevent States from leaving. No such authority was or has been delegated. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” This is reflected by the Constitution itself – the powers of the federal government are positively delegated and specifically enumerated. It has no powers other than those granted by the Constitution.

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

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

Mate, what are you smoking rn? Your just distorting the argument to make the North look like it "DESTROYED THE SOUTH BY FORCE" when they really just did it for war strategy. The South wasn't the "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" of the civil war. It was more like Nazi Germany, where it rose up against a state with a big military and got defeated, with a few sympathizers who claim that the North "occupied" the south. In Nazi Germany's case seceding from the union was much like invading Poland.

I am responding to a statement that Northern Aggression was a lie. Northern Aggression happened. It was the military strategy of the North to occupy the South to keep them from seceding. It actually happened. The North fought against the Southern States, occupied, and re inducted them by into the Union by military might. To say that was a lie is incredibly disingenuous.

Occupied? They retook the South through victory. General Lee surrendered to Grant, his troops were not brutally slaughtered like how you make it to be. The war was not a war of "Northern Aggression". It was more like the war of Southern Aggression. Lincoln did not order his troops to attack the Confederates in Fort Sumter. The Confederates attacked first, hence creating the start of the American Civil war.

[Alcala-Cordel]

And those reasons were the right to own human beings as property.

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"

Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

That monstrosity of a text wall behind my spoiler is Georgia's declaration of secession, and pretty much the whole fucking thing is about how they're worried about the North taking their slaves. All the other declarations are like this too, but I think you get the point.

[Comerciante]

Mississippi Declaration of Secession:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."

[Picairn]

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"

Utterly nonsensical. The state of New York paid 63% of Federal tariffs' revenue in 1860 alone.

[Merrill]

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.

Firstly, unilateral (ie, that done without consent of the rest of the country) is unconstitutional, per the Supreme Court (revolution is technically also a possibility, but that wasn’t what they were doing). Secondly, over half the Confederate states did not join the union as such, because they were formed out of land held by the Federal government at some point.

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.

They did have representation, they just couldn’t handle the possibility of losing.

The people of a proposed State vote, via the Territorial Legislature to join the Union.

[Narland]

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"

That is an lie, because new york was the city/state that was paying the most tariffs and made the federal government a lot of money.

Most of America was rural and agriculture, and only the north had any industry of any import. The Northern manufacturers were mostly fine with the tariffs. That industry was magnitudes in worth the farms. It is categorically different topic from the ability of the average family farm to pay taxes in the form of tariffs beyond at 55% beyond their means. Put that is not the point. The point is that it is a gross oversimplification to blame the Civil War totally on Southern Racists. It is a multifaceted issue that needs discussed in a broader scope than "all south is racist."

[Bombadil]

Britain forced the Nazis hand by vowing to protect Poland, the Nazis had no choice but to be sucked into war..

Do you know why the Nazis invaded Poland.....? Also do you know the atrocities commited there.....? Also remember Auschwitz.....? The Nazis had only bad intentions. Don't make Britain look like an aggressor just because they wanted the people of Poland to not die.

Well the point was to show you can twist reality to suit your ideology, pretty sure there's people who make this argument just as people here are placing Civil War fault on the North.

[Thermodolia]

Firstly, unilateral (ie, that done without consent of the rest of the country) is unconstitutional, per the Supreme Court (revolution is technically also a possibility, but that wasn’t what they were doing). Secondly, over half the Confederate states did not join the union as such, because they were formed out of land held by the Federal government at some point.

They did have representation, they just couldn’t handle the possibility of losing.

The people of a proposed State vote, via the Territorial Legislature to join the Union.

Nope. Only Congress has the power to create states. Not the people of a prospective state

[Eahland]

Mate, what are you smoking rn? Your just distorting the argument to make the North look like it "DESTROYED THE SOUTH BY FORCE" when they really just did it for war strategy. The South wasn't the "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" of the civil war. It was more like Nazi Germany, where it rose up against a state with a big military and got defeated, with a few sympathizers who claim that the North "occupied" the south. In Nazi Germany's case seceding from the union was much like invading Poland.

I am responding to a statement that Northern Aggression was a lie. Northern Aggression happened. It was the military strategy of the North to occupy the South to keep them from seceding. It actually happened. The North fought against the Southern States, occupied, and re inducted them by into the Union by military might. To say that was a lie is incredibly disingenuous.

Fighting back when someone unilaterally starts shooting at you is not "aggression".

[Lord Dominator]

Firstly, unilateral (ie, that done without consent of the rest of the country) is unconstitutional, per the Supreme Court (revolution is technically also a possibility, but that wasn’t what they were doing). Secondly, over half the Confederate states did not join the union as such, because they were formed out of land held by the Federal government at some point.

They did have representation, they just couldn’t handle the possibility of losing.

The people of a proposed State vote, via the Territorial Legislature to join the Union.

And the land remains part of the country either way, there was never any option to leave the country. So again, at most only 5/11 states so seceding had ever actually joined the union.

[Kowani]

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

[Picairn]

Most of America was rural and agriculture, and only the north had any industry of any import. The Northern manufacturers were mostly fine with the tariffs. That industry was magnitudes in worth the farms. It is categorically different topic from the ability of the average family farm to pay taxes in the form of tariffs beyond at 55% beyond their means.

Produce evidence of this tariff and the tax burden of the Southern farmers.

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

Most of America was rural and agriculture, and only the north had any industry of any import. The Northern manufacturers were mostly fine with the tariffs. That industry was magnitudes in worth the farms. It is categorically different topic from the ability of the average family farm to pay taxes in the form of tariffs beyond at 55% beyond their means.

Produce evidence of this tariff and the tax burden of the Southern farmers.

Fun Fact: There were barely any southern farmers, only large plantation owners with slaves. Most farmers were in the U.S. territories or the North.

[Thermodolia]

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

[North Washington Republic]

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"

Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

That monstrosity of a text wall behind my spoiler is Georgia's declaration of secession, and pretty much the whole fucking thing is about how they're worried about the North taking their slaves. All the other declarations are like this too, but I think you get the point.

In recent years, the defense of and sympathy with the CSA coming from Conservatives living in the Northern States, even States that were in the Union is concerning to me.

[Merrill]

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.

“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]

snip

Kowani be ignoring our pointless debates about the Civil War

[Lord Dominator]

“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…

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.

[Comerciante]

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

[The United Confederacy of Texas]

*Continuing from old thread*



Because the South literally started the hostilities?

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

[Thermodolia]

“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…

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

[Merrill]

Virginia reserved the right of secession to herself when she included the following in her ratification on 26 June 1788: “…the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will…” New York reserved the right of secession to herself when she included the following in her ratification on 26 July 1788: “…the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness…” Rhode Island reserved the right of secession to herself when she included the following in her ratification on 29 May 1790: “…every other power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State governments to whom they may have granted the same…”
The States are on equal footing with one another. If Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island have the right to secede, so do all the rest.

If secession was treason, surely the Constitution would say so. It does not. If secession was treason, surely the United States government would have been delegated the authority to prevent States from leaving. No such authority was or has been delegated. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” This is reflected by the Constitution itself – the powers of the federal government are positively delegated and specifically enumerated. It has no powers other than those granted by the Constitution.

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.”

[Lord Dominator]

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.”

Texas vs White, states don’t have the power