|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cause of Civil War | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
anglagard writes: Don't forget, the South demanded that any and all talk of abolition be suppressed, , not just in the South but the North as well, regardless of the First Amendment. Along those lines what about the beating of Senator Sumner in the Senate chamber by one of his Southern colleagues Charles Sumner - Wikipedia
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
quote: A bit tacky given Lincoln's final fate. I know this is not was not meant to link to JW Booth originally, but the song was adopted as the state song in 1939. Probably promoted for adoption by the UDC or the Sons of the Confederacy. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Dr. Adequate writes: I shall still maintain that every State has the right to secede, whether or not this action may be prudent. It was not. Could you elaborate a bit? What is the basis for such a right? What would be the appropriate process under which a state could sever the relationship between one of its citizens and the federal government against that citizen's will?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Dr. A writes: Oh, sorry, I missed this when you asked it. Not a problem. We were all just treading water waiting for Artermis to come back. 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. 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. A state might be said to have an extra-legal right to revolt or rebel against the union, but in that case, we get to judge the state's moral position. I believe that the seceding states utterly fail that examination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Artemis Entreri writes: 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. The example was extreme and unrealistic, but it was for the limited purpose of trying to get Dr A. to add some flesh to his position. Northern Va really isn't all of VA.
quote: 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Artemis Entreri writes:
i'll finish this tomorrow, and i am sure the goal posts will be elswhere by then.
If you take another look at the opening post, you'll see that both the Lee quote, and the causes of the civil war at least with respect to the southern and border states are clearly on topic. If you also take a look at your response, you'll see that you accepted the full scope proposed by Theodoric. Edited by NoNukes, : Fix up tags
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Artemis writes: 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. No need to correct yourself here. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments. However when I speak of protections for citizens under the constitution, I refer to all of the guarantees of individual rights. I have no interest whatsoever in exploring your dislike for the 13th and 15th Amendments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Mr. Entreri, I believe you are mistaken
Artemis writes: 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. And yet you now insist that challenging you on the reasons those states left is "moving the goalposts. Weren't you challenged to address your position on that in the original post? Theodoric quoted you as saying the following:
quote: What did you think Theodoric meant by the following:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Dr. A writes: But this is a mere argument from consequences, and does not affect what the law is. We don't have any pre-civil war statement of what the law is. I think arguing that your proposed statement has absurd and undesirable consequences is legitimate given that lack. Post war, we have a SC decision that session is illegal without the consent of the other states.
quote: The federal government has done bad things, and it has also prevented states from doing bad things and imposing them on individuals. States rights are not inherently a good thing. States rights must be taken in context with exactly what thing the state plans to do with those rights. In my opinion there are some individual rights that simply cannot or should not be removed by a simple majority vote at the state or federal level. The constitution is set up to prevent that very thing. Session by simple majority vote is an end run around that limitation. Edited by NoNukes, : particularly stupid typo removed
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
jar writes: Had the South won, it would have been legal. I can't argue with that. A whole lot of really unpalatable things would probably be legal here in VA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Dr. Adequate writes: Perhaps you could fill in this lacuna in my knowledge. See Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) quote: As jar has pointed out, post civil war cases are suspect as being mere codification of the winner's position. Also, Justice Scalia has expressed his opinion that there is no right of secession. Justice Scalia's Thoughts on State Secession: Penned to One Man - WSJ
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
quote: Then you did not say what you meant. What you actually said translates to the 13-15th Amendments being the worst of the Amendments that were actually passed. Quite frankly, even your intended meaning is simply wrong. The thirteenth amendment could never have even gotten out of Congress if the southern states had not bolted the union, taking their congressmen with them. A 2/3 majority in both houses was required before the amendment was presented to the states for ratification and the amendment narrowly passed in the House of Representatives. What was proven here is that secession is a pretty ineffective method for getting your way in Congress. Further, your take on the ratification process of the thirteenth amendment is completely bogus. You might have an argument if you were discussing ratification of the fourteenth amendment. But that process didn't happen until 1868.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
There are a couple of things wrong with the treaty explanation.
First the US never recognized the CSA as a foreign county and cetainly the 13th amendment was no treaty. Secondly, if it were a treaty, Artie is complaining that the south's signature on the treaty was forged.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024