Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cause of Civil War
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 3 of 193 (583903)
09-29-2010 1:30 PM


thanks
thanks for the opportunity to discuss this in a thread where it belongs, I hope the Admin allow us to continue this one.
Artemis Entreri writes:
but the general wasn't fighting and bleeding so a the elite could own slaves, its not was VA, NC, AR, or TN left the union, and its not why KY or MO tried to leave.
and of course a the counter is from none of those states
State of Mississippi in its Declaration of Causes of Secession
Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
A Georgian
State of Texas in its Declaration of Causes of Secession
I do not see how the Virginia Ordinace of Sucession supports your claims, it states that the powers of the federal government have grown to large, and that is something that Virginia did not sign up for at the end of the 18th century, and they felt they had the legal right as a state to leave an unfair and tyrranical union.
Part of the issue in in the idea of this Unified South, this unified slave states idea. That is not what a Confederacy means. The confederacy was not another union to fight against the previous union, but a collection of individual sovereign states. for some states with slavery as the backbone to thier economies, it was more of an issue that other states. This idea that the whole war was to end slavery and the southern states rose up to gether to protect slavery is misleading and incorrect. There were two years of the bloodiest fighting in american history before the emancipation proclamation; and the simple fact that the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in states that left the union, shows that it was merely a political and strategic move to destablize the enemy. If the true goal of the war and the emancipation proclamation was to end slavery, then states like Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and slaveholding territories, would have ended slavery earlier rather than after the war.
I'll be back, I got to find some data.
1865 the year the consitution died.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 1:45 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2010 9:20 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 8 by anglagard, posted 09-29-2010 10:16 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2010 10:27 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2010 10:47 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 12 by anglagard, posted 09-29-2010 11:18 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2010 2:39 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2010 3:26 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2010 1:46 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2010 4:31 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 5 of 193 (583953)
09-29-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Theodoric
09-29-2010 1:45 PM


Re: thanks
You have done nothing to defend your point. You have presented no evidence to support your assertions.
i do not think that you have really supported anything against me either.
but the general wasn't fighting and bleeding so a the elite could own slaves, its not was VA, NC, AR, or TN left the union, and its not why KY or MO tried to leave.
The Virginia declaration mentions slaveholders and slave holding states directly. I think maybe you have some cognitive dissonance there. How about some evidence for your assertions next time.
I am going to start with individual states, and go through what I have. Since theodoric doesn't really claim to have opinions and merely just tries to refute everything I say I think it will be a booring and easy to call debate. He will probably just attack me and my sources without much thought given to the response.
Missouri (MO):
Actually at the onset of the war Missouri was divided. At the Constitutional convention to discuss secession, there were very few elected secessionist delegates, and Missouri voted to remain Nuetral in the Civil War between the States. I do not think that the issue of slavery was really even brought up as most of that was covered in the Missouri Compromise.
In St. Louis there was an arsenal that was eyed by both sides of the war, and was a large cache of equipment in the West. A Federal Captain, and his paramilitary group from Illinois, moved in and took the arsenal at St. Louis. Lincoln did nothing but give him the go ahead afterwards. After securing the arsenal, the captain and his group marched on and took the state capital of Jefferson City. Most of the Missouri legislature fleed before they arrived. Now they had a change of heart, as their state was being taken from them by a miliarty group with a nod from Lincoln. At this point the Missouri Legislature set up thier government further South in the state, and argued for secession. the captain (now a general) set up his own pro federal Missouri government. Missouri during the war had two governments one on each side, and sent men and supplies to both sides.
Slavery was not the issue in Missouri, the issue there was invasion.
1 down 5 to go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 1:45 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 4:34 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 11 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 11:13 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2010 11:29 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 16 of 193 (584096)
09-30-2010 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
09-29-2010 9:20 PM


Re: Tennessee
Dr Adequate writes:
Here's the speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris calling for a referendum on a Tennessee Secession Convention
that speech was on January 7th 1861.
yet in feburary Tennessee voted to not set up a convention for sucession
"In February 1861, 54 percent of the state’s voters voted against sending delegates to a secession convention, defeating the proposal for a State Convention by a vote of 69,675 to 57,798. If a State Convention had been held, it would have been very heavily pro-Union. 88,803 votes were cast for Unionist candidates and 22,749 votes were cast for Secession candidates. That day the American flag was displayed in "every section of the city," with zeal equal to that which existed during the late 1860 presidential campaign, wrote the Nashville Daily Gazette. On the corner across from the newspaper office, a crowd had gathered around a bagpipe player playing Yankee Doodle, after which ex-mayor John Hugh Smith gave a speech that was received with loud cheers."
Tennessee in the American Civil War - Wikipedia
Tennessee did not want to leave and was not going to leave over the issue of slavery alone.
I do not care if you quote the most sucessionist of those from TN at that time and try to make it sound as if that is how everyone in TN thought, and voted, because it is dishosnet and more importantly incorrect.
I especially liked how you quote minded something from before TN voted to remain in the Union, and pass it off as somthing from the sucessesion, and then snarkly asked me how to explain it, as if mattered. You only quoted one side of the arguement, while claiming this nonesense over resources, and evidence. I see how you like to use evidence, and I find it rather less than ethical.
Everyone knows that TN was the last state to withdraw fromt he Union, that it was battling hard internally on BOTH sides, reasons for staying and reasons for leaving. And then Lincoln gave them no choice. When Lincoln called for 75,000 troops, the poeple in TN knew it was for only one thing, and that thing was invasion.
TN revoted and with astonighing reversal voted to for secession. In june of 1861. In a June 8, 1861 referendum, East Tennessee held firm against separation, while West Tennessee returned an equally heavy majority in favor. The deciding vote came in Middle Tennessee, which went from 51 percent against secession in February to 88 percent in favor in June."
why, because they knew the army was commong through TN to get to AL, and GA, and MS. And they knew what laws would be broken since lincoln obviously cared little for the rights of the states already.
" For what purpose, they asked, could such an army be wanted "but to invade, overrun and subjugate the Southern states." The growing war spirit in the North further convinced southerners that they would have to "fight for our hearthstones and the security of home."
"fight for our hearthstones and the security of home." oh shit isn't that supposed to say fight for our slaves? well it didn't.
--Daniel W. Crofts, Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis
you do you think they just changed thier minds because of the slavery issue!?! after thinking about it for 4 months, everyone changed thier minds and shared thoughts with the governor!?! yeah right.
here is the real ordinace of sucession from June of 1861:
http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/TN/index.html
didn't really see anything about slaves in there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to anglagard
If I were you, I would retract this statement before this Saturday, when I will have the time to heavily document how the South sabotaged the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights prior to the Civil War through terrorist actions such as state-sanctioned lynch mobs.
If I were you I was stop name calling names and telling people how to express thier opinions on the internet.
Patriot my ass.
LOL why is it always some jackass from TX of all places pulling this shit? Fucking Steers and Queers. So which are you: nutless, or a cocksuker?
eat shit mother fucker.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Long line of "-" was causing a bit of a page width glitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2010 9:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by frako, posted 09-30-2010 12:11 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 19 by Theodoric, posted 09-30-2010 2:02 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2010 5:37 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 84 by anglagard, posted 10-02-2010 12:05 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 119 of 193 (588558)
10-26-2010 3:11 PM


BACK, reply to many
I gotta reply after reading all this, then I will get back to my point.
ah americans thinking your swearword can match other nations swearword you should go sduy in germany hungary or bosina if you realy want to make an effect
WTF is this? F your country
The confederacy in my opinion was a gathering of treasonists who simply could not stand not getting their way politically against the larger population who did not want slavery to expand westward. The fact that Jefferson Davis is considered any kind of national hero is siimply Lost Cause nonsense. He was a criminal of the worst order. For Jefferson Davis, slavery was *THE* cause worth fighting for. Yet in VA we name major a thoroughfare after him. Confederacy apologetics belongs on the same heap with tobacco causes cancer denial and Holocaust denial.
Thanks for a well thought out response, some of it has merit. Then we get to this gem at the bottom of it, and your whole point is ruined.
If you cannot debate in a civil manner I request you not post to this thread. This was meant to be a thread that would allow you to back your assertions. If you are going to be a abusive I will ask that this thread be closed.
Whine-one-one!?!
We need a WHAAAAAMBULANCE here at EvC. Theo has nothing to say or contribute so he goes for something else in his attempt to make a statement. Are you female by any chance?
Your article was written by a southerner with a particular political view. What else would a modern secessionist believe?
interesting that only southerner's are biased, while Yankee Historians are the ones telling the truth. that Kool-aid you have must be delicious indeed
Maybe it would help if somebody listed the other states' rights that the South was promoting, besides the right to allow slavery on a state-by-state basis.
The right of Secession. Um hello!?! I know you are Canadian and all but, C'mon.
There are people like Artie that will claim Slavery had nothing to do with it.
Strawman
The reasons for this view should be looked into by psychologists.
Insult
revisionism of the historical record.
the Double standards here are too funny. Is Science revisionist when new evidence is uncovered? Is History?
A few posters have shown that the states rights issue is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst.
yet you continue to show nothing
The only major one I can see is the right to own slaves.
at the time of secession, the slavery issue was not different it was not until 1865 after the war that that issue was different. How thick are you?
The army would have to come through lots of places. The question was, surely, what it would do when it got there. And the answer was: fight with their fellow slave-states over the issue of slavery.
You mean just like they did in KY, DE, MD, and MO? Puh-leeze there was no precedence for this nonsense you speak. Lincoln's Government was not about to loose more states.
It was another union, modeled very closely on the USA.
I bet if a State or Commonwealth of the CSA decided to Secede, the CSA would not have gone to war with them over it.
You're right, though. I only joined this thread because I felt like one side was getting overwhelmed too easily, and I wanted to see a little more of the topic than Artemis giving up in frustration after 3 posts.
I appriciate it but I did not give up, I got a new PC, and did not record all of my old Passwords (this site is a perfect example), and it took a while to get a new password from the people who run this website (a few weeks), I was lurking but I could not post. If you notice I did not post at all on here for a long time.
Therefore, there is nothing in the US Constitution or US law that authorizes secession.
Some believe the Constitution grants us rights. While others of us believe the Constitution restricts the power of the Federal Government, that we have rights, and the constitution prevents the government from encroaching on those rights.
Arti can't get to any of the best pro Confederacy arguments because he wants to deny that slavery played any role at all.
Strawman. This is not and never was my argument, though it is always easier to defeat some one when you "make up" their position.
That pretty presumptuous...
I participated in one of the gay marriage threads with the position that I didn't care if they got married or not but that the constitution didn't imply that they must have the right, and there were still assholes going all:
ZOMG! U JUST HATE TEH GAYZ!!!
So, whatever... rings hollow BFD
10 stars, someone described the double standards and falsehoods of this entire website, I am suprised you didn't get banned for speaking the turth around here.
The truth hurts and evidently too much truth hurts some so much, the reptilian brain kicks in.
Thanks for making my case for me.
gloating early, huh? I lost access, I am far from done. you contributed nothing but insults and so that is what I replied to you with. you still haven't answered my question: are you nutless or a cocksucker? maybe both?
I still do not see any huge "states rights" issue that Lincoln was responsible for,
you only see what you want to see.
Without participation from Artie on this thread it is pretty much dead.
I Just Read everything I missied and it seemed to be going fine, you just wanted to claim victory in my absense, but i would not expect much more from someone like you anyway.
Maybe if they had a bunch of messages in other threads you'd have a point, but they haven't posted at all since they last posted in this thread, and it hasn't even been a week yet.
holy cow, someone who is awake in this thread, and isn't so excited to dance around and toot their own horn. CS its really funny how you called the h8rs out earlier and then "hit the nail on the head again", you may be the only smart guy here.
You do more nitpicking than actually adding anything to the discussion and apprently you don't like the taste of your own medicince.
LOL TRUE. you got theo pegged for sure. he is just a nitpicking talking head, he waits for Dr. Adequate to make a point and then says "YEAH Artie what you got to say about that?" its really hilarious from my perspective, Theo is actually funnier than Onifre, because he is not trying to be funny.
I did misunderstand you there... but I still don't like you
no you didn't, I went from posting daily to no posts at all, it was coincidentally since the inception of the thread. Dont let theo spin anything on you.
Did you notice how I had a very clear, understandable explanation to counter your criticism. You admit that yours is nothing but a personal attack, much different than me.
Translation: "I am better than you" LOL

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Theodoric, posted 10-26-2010 4:52 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 123 of 193 (588639)
10-27-2010 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2010 4:31 PM


Re: thanks
Dr Adequate writes:
Now this excuse was tenuous enough as it is --- but he certainly could not have applied it to slaveholding states that had remained in the Union, such as Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, because they weren't the enemy.
and probably would have become the enemy, if all slaves were included (well probably not in DE). I find the whole thing to be purely political. Lincoln had to wait till 1863 for a real victory to give this proclamation to begin with, had this been given in 1861 he would have looked more the fool, and possibly lost Maryland, placing Washington D.C. on the wrong side of the line.
Either way the emancipation proclamation was not really to end slavery, it was just rubbing in the win at Ghettysburg, and flip flopping on a campaign promise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2010 4:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2010 12:51 AM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 132 by jar, posted 10-27-2010 9:53 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 124 of 193 (588640)
10-27-2010 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Theodoric
10-26-2010 4:52 PM


Re: WOW
1)You make an assertion.
2)Someone counters your assertion with evidence(it helps to have a source to show some support for the argument).
3) You support your assertion with evidence and a cogent argument.
You have never done step 3. Whenever evidence was presented against your assertions, you either ignored, resorted to name calling or made more assertions. Time to put up or shut up. Provide evidence for your original assertions, or quit posting to this thread.
I haven't got to it yet but all you have done is use quotes from subbie and Dr Adequate, so I guess you can't even follow your own advice.
my name calling is in response to name calling from others. you start the thread off with assertion that i would not defend my self and then every single post say that i do not, while only using ideas from Dr Adequate. Catholic Scientist was dead on about you.
_________________________________________
Is this thread about the Cause of the Civil War or how Robert E. Lee was not fighting for slavery? Everything you have copied and supported is about the cause of the civil war, and when I respond to that, you move to goal posts to say we are talking about something else (its not a clever tactic, its weak), so I will cover Lee and see where the goal posts get moved to next.
americancivilwar.com writes:
Politically, Robert E. Lee was a Whig. Ironically, he was attached strongly to the Union and to the Constitution. He entertained no special sympathy for slavery.
And being the son of a Revolutionary Calvalryman, and Marrying into George Washinton's Family, and living across the Potomac from D.C. He was an american military man at heart, a Patriot.
He did not want to fight a war against Americans, and against the people in his home state. So he resigned from duty and went to serve with the Virginians. He was not into politics and had no say on whether Virginia would stay or leave the Union. He knew what would happen and he wasn't going to be the cause of it, especially against Virginians.
quote:
When Virginia withdrew from the Union, Lee resigned his commission rather than assist in suppressing the insurrection. His resignation was two days following the offer of Chief of Command of U.S. forces under Scott. He then proceeded to Richmond to become Commander-in-Chief of the military and naval forces of Virginia. When these forces joined Confederate services, he was appointed Brig. Gen. in the Regular Confederate States. americancivilwar.com
Don't you find it rather odd that Lee freed his slaves in 1862 (slaves that he never purchased, but inherited), even though as you assert he was fighting for slavery!?!
who would believe that? seriously?
i'll finish this tomorrow, and i am sure the goal posts will be elswhere by then.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : ok i'll bite.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : oops
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Theodoric, posted 10-26-2010 4:52 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2010 1:09 AM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 134 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2010 2:37 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 135 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2010 5:41 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 126 of 193 (588646)
10-27-2010 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dr Adequate
10-27-2010 12:51 AM


Re: thanks
And come on now ..."flip-flopping"? Nice rhetoric and all, but do you not think that the outbreak of a civil war between his campaign and the Emancipation Proclamation might have altered things somewhat?
speaking of rhetoric, it really wasn't a civil war, it was a war against the power of the federal government, over the issue of self determination by some of the states.
I get what you are asking but you use the same tricky rhetoric yourself.
The emancipation proclamation was probably ready for the 1st Battle of Manasses, Lincoln had to wait two years for a real victory. Lincoln could have handled the war peacfully, but he choose another route.
1865, the year the constitution died.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2010 12:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2010 1:34 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 136 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2010 5:47 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 130 of 193 (588660)
10-27-2010 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Dr Adequate
10-27-2010 1:09 AM


Re: WOW
It's fairly easy to check out. See that thing at the top of the thread where it says Theodoric Posts Only? Well it's simple enough to click on that and read all his posts, it didn't take me long. And if you can't find it, you can just click on the link that I just supplied.
I got a little carried away, I think maybe 2 out of 21 posts he/she actually looked something up and posted his/her own thoughts. MOST of the time he/she is your echo.
Hint: look at the title of the thread.
he/she claims its all about a quote I used from the quote of the day thread.
Hint: read the OP
ROTFL.
my thoughts exactly
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2010 1:09 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2010 5:51 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 131 of 193 (588664)
10-27-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by NoNukes
10-27-2010 4:50 AM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
For example if the VA legislature decided today that the 14th amendment (or 13th or 15th) was incompatible with VA values, I don't believe the state legislature has any right to simply refuse to recognize that right regardless of how the public or the legislature votes. Secession in my view is the ultimate revocation of minority rights.
1st I don't think VA is going anywhere, I know this was an example, but you live out here too, and I just don't see it happening. NOVA is too tied to DC.
I understand your position. I disagree with it primarily because I believe the union under the Constitution was not a dissoluble union of states. The people gained a number of important rights under the constitution, and I think the process of severing those rights is not well served by allowing a simple majority vote of the legislature or even direct vote by the people to eliminate those rights and protections.
which rights granted are the important ones? the bill of rights are self-evidenent and unalienable, and not granted by law, but are natural; the constituion merely protects those rights from infringment from the federal government.
Do you not find anything alarming about the number of states today that are reaffirming the 10th amendment?
I think Montana had a valid reason in 2008 when it threatened secession over the possible ruling of DC vs. Heller. In the states' 1889 contract to join this union Montana stated that a gun ownership was an individual right, and the Union agreed, if in 2008 the fed was going to overturn that idea, then they were basically "in breach of contract" with Montana. Thankfully the SCOTUS made the correct interpretation, and now it is a moot point, but there are valid reasons for secession, which is my point.
What about Arizona's right to enforce immigration law, where the fed does not?
What if California voters decide to legalize Marijuana?
or Alaska voters deceide to drill there for more natural resources?
States are getting tired of this large overpowering federal government telling them what to do.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2010 4:50 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2010 12:01 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 138 of 193 (588842)
10-28-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Theodoric
10-27-2010 5:51 PM


well i do like little bitches
Care to show evidence for this assertion?
yeah there are about 8 pages in this thread, why don't you go read it.
Well that is what the OP says, and since I wrote the OP I should know what the thread is about.
BTW
Any evidence at all that Lee said what you claim?
LOL @ the BTW different from the OP, I knew those posts would be moving soon.
from the OP:
quote:
He has shown no evidence this is a correct quote or anything to show Lee felt this way.
I have stated my reasoning for why Lee felt this way. the only response you can muster is "can you show evidence for your assertion?" and that is it, you are horrible at debating anything, its like talking to a droid. Its called History, look it up, I am not your TA.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.
also from the OP:
quote:
Artie, can you back up your statements? I know you can't on the Lee quote, but maybe on the others?
I did, and since you knew i couldn't give you the impossible evidence you want for the Lee quote, I never even went there. I was talking about the states who left the union NOT because of slavery.
If you also take a look at your response, you'll see that you accepted the full scope proposed by Theodoric.
I just did, and you are incorrect. I quoted myself, and began to go into the individual states that I do not think left for slavery. I was immideated attacked by theo to answer his questions or else!?! like the popous tard that he/she is. this is a lenthy issue and not something that can be summed up in one post, Theo on the other hand just wants a chance to find one question that I did not get to immidiately and ask me about evidence. Yet if you look into his message 4. he/she tells me that I have done nothing to defend my point and then tells me what my point is and how i need to argue it (talk about a strawman). when I challenge him/her defend himself/herself and make a point, it is ignored and theo moves onto something else.
I stated my arguement and what I was going to cover, Theo just told me that what it wanted me to say and argue (sorry but hommie don't play dat).
Basically this is not a debate between me and Theo, because Theo has really not made any sort of issue other than to challenge everything I say. Like the kid on sesame street that answers every anser with a, why? It has been the same thing from him/her since my 1st post.
I am here debating Dr Adequate, and No Nukes and a couple other people here and there.
Theo writes:
I can more than stand my own on any historical debate.
can you show any evidence for this assertion, in 10 pages I have yet to see anything from you.
How about defending your original assertions?
I am and you can read about them in message 3.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2010 5:51 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2010 7:20 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 147 by Theodoric, posted 10-28-2010 10:37 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 139 of 193 (588845)
10-28-2010 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by NoNukes
10-27-2010 12:01 PM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
I respectfully disagree. There's nothing particularly natural about the 1st Amendment. Further, most of the bill of rights protects us from the state government as well as the federal, thanks to the 14th Amendment. Clearly the 13, 14, and 15th amendments all protect citizens against state governments.
Oh my bad instead of saying bill of rights it seems I should have said, the 1st 10 amendments. 13, 14, & 15 are probably the worst passed amendments ever and I was not talking about them.
I'm not going into detail regarding your examples of aggrieved states, other than to say that you and I differ significantly on federalism. I don't find your examples the least bit compelling. My experience is that it is generally the state government that wants walk its jack boots into private places or all over individual rights. There are plenty of examples of the federal courts vindicating individual rights against states.
we definately disagree. I would not consider myself a federalist at all, I think more of an anti-federalist. Maybe you are more of a Washington Virginian, and I am more of a Jefferson Virginian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2010 12:01 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by subbie, posted 10-28-2010 5:56 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2010 7:04 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 151 of 193 (588927)
10-29-2010 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by subbie
10-28-2010 5:56 PM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
Yeah, we never should have outlawed slavery. (13th) And the country certainly went downhill when we gave dem darkies da vote. (15th)
STRAWMAN
I have no interest whatsoever in exploring your dislike for the 13th and 15th Amendments.
I figured you would take me out of context.
I said "the worst passed". As in the unconstitutional means by which they were ratified. The 13th was part of the treaty, and when southern states refused to ratify it, then the military instituted its own puppet government and ratified it. All there big government fears in 1861, were exactly correct, and thus why the constitution died in 1865.
I know its easier for you and subbie to strawman this and assume something about the context of the amendments, but that has nothing to do with my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by subbie, posted 10-28-2010 5:56 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 10-29-2010 10:05 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 153 by subbie, posted 10-29-2010 10:40 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 154 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2010 11:30 AM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2010 1:25 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 160 of 193 (589195)
10-31-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Theodoric
10-29-2010 11:30 AM


Re: Another call for evidence.
this post is a perfect example of your dishonesty, if you know the history as you claim you do then you know the answer about a recontructionist puppet government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2010 11:30 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Theodoric, posted 10-31-2010 2:17 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 162 by Theodoric, posted 11-16-2010 10:03 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024