Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
120 online now:
jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 113 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,896 Year: 1,008/6,534 Month: 1,008/682 Week: 61/182 Day: 6/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cause of Civil War
jar
Member
Posts: 33657
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 106 of 193 (584750)
10-03-2010 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by NoNukes
10-03-2010 10:40 PM


Re: Why didn't the south have a right to secede?
The Declaration of Independence though is outlining extra-legal rights, rights that are beyond those instituted by a STATE, rights reserved to the individual and the corporate body.

And the South did go to war to separate.

As I pointed out way up thread, the biggest difference I see is that the Declaration was a joint statement (except maybe from New York) of the Colonies that set out the object as well as the reasoning that led to the decision. I know of no comparable missive from the South.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2010 10:40 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 193 (584754)
10-03-2010 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by anglagard
10-03-2010 12:01 PM


Re: The Morality of States' Rights
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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sumner

quote:

He [Sumner] also portrayed Butler as having taken "a mistress who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean, the harlot, Slavery." Sumner's three-hour oration later became particularly personally insulting as he mocked the 59-year-old Butler's manner of speech and physical mannerisms, both of which were impaired by a stroke that Butler had suffered earlier...

Two days later, on the afternoon of May 22, Brooks, confronted Sumner as he sat writing at his desk in the almost empty Senate chamber. Brooks was accompanied to the chamber by Keitt and Henry A. Edmundson of Virginia (the latter taking no part in the assault). Brooks addressed Sumner, "Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine." As Sumner began to stand up, Brooks began beating Sumner severely on the head with a thick gutta-percha cane with a gold head before he could reach his feet. Sumner was knocked down and trapped under the heavy desk (which was bolted to the floor), but Brooks continued to bash Sumner until Brooks ripped the desk from the floor. By this time, Sumner was blinded by his own blood, and he staggered up the aisle and collapsed, lapsing into unconsciousness. Brooks continued to beat the motionless Sumner until his cane broke at which point he left the chamber. Several other senators attempted to help Sumner, but were blocked by Keitt who brandished a pistol and shouted, "Let them be!"



This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by anglagard, posted 10-03-2010 12:01 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 193 (584766)
10-04-2010 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by jar
10-03-2010 10:17 PM


Re: And a short historical aside.
quote:
She meets her sisters on the plain-
"Sic semper!" 'tis the proud refrain
That baffles minions back amain,
Arise in majesty again,
Maryland! My Maryland!

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 10-03-2010 10:17 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 109 of 193 (585162)
10-06-2010 10:20 AM


Dead thread?
Without participation from Artie on this thread it is pretty much dead. I figured he would have no way to back his claims and assertions with any sort of coherent argument or any evidence. His lack of participation has shown this to be true. As I told slevesque on another thread, if you present unevidenced assertions you have every reason to expect to be called out. If you don't want to or can not back your arguments don't make them here. I and others will demand evidence.

I would like to thank everyone that made this an interesting thread. Dr A, Anglagard, NWR, NoNukes, Bluejay and Jar, showed how to have a meaningful thread with evidence presented to bolster ones argument.

I think a review of this thread would be a good lesson for apologists and fundies on how to present evidence and back ones argument.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2010 10:41 AM Theodoric has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 110 of 193 (585165)
10-06-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Theodoric
10-06-2010 10:20 AM


Re: Dead thread?
Without participation from Artie on this thread it is pretty much dead. I figured he would have no way to back his claims and assertions with any sort of coherent argument or any evidence. His lack of participation has shown this to be true.

Some people have lives, Theo.

I didn't post for a month because I was too busy.

It hasn't even been a week since they've posted here:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?control=tml&m...

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Theodoric, posted 10-06-2010 10:20 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 10-06-2010 10:59 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 111 of 193 (585169)
10-06-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by New Cat's Eye
10-06-2010 10:41 AM


Re: Dead thread?
The thread is up to 110 posts, artie made 3. 2 were just more unevidenced assertions. The third used a paragraph from wiki followed by more assertions. All of his arguments have been countered quite well.

My comment about lack of participation was not the lack since his last post, but his lack since the initiation of the thread.

From his first post to the thread.

thanks for the opportunity to discuss this in a thread where it belongs, I hope the Admin allow us to continue this one.

He never addressed the Lee part of the OP at all. He only addressed two states out 6 that he made assertions about and he hasn't made a post since this classic of debating style.

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.

Now do you want to add to the thread or were you just happy to find another way to show your dislike for me.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2010 10:41 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2010 11:18 AM Theodoric has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 112 of 193 (585174)
10-06-2010 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Theodoric
10-06-2010 10:59 AM


No, I basically just wanted to vent my dislike for you. You do more nitpicking than actually adding anything to the discussion and apprently you don't like the taste of your own medicince.

My comment about lack of participation was not the lack since his last post, but his lack since the initiation of the thread.

I did misunderstand you there... but I still don't like you


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 10-06-2010 10:59 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Theodoric, posted 10-06-2010 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 113 of 193 (585180)
10-06-2010 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by New Cat's Eye
10-06-2010 11:18 AM


apprently you don't like the taste of your own medicince.

Well at least you admit that it was nothing more than a personal attack. Keep on the high road there CS.

apprently you don't like the taste of your own medicince.

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.

I did misunderstand you there... but I still don't like you

I don't give a rats ass. I don't come here to be liked. Maybe you might want to consider arguing the point instead of the person.

Like I asked before, do you have anything to add to this thread or do you just want to show you don't like me?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2010 11:18 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5887
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 114 of 193 (585182)
10-06-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Blue Jay
10-02-2010 12:45 PM


Re: The Morality of States' Rights
Bluejay writes:
What can we say about the Union perspective during that time period? Was Lincoln's interest in the conflict originally about slavery? Or was it originally about something else, and only came to be about slavery as a political move later on?

I notice that Theodoric is somewhat summing up in recent posts such as Message 109. Since I haven't yet commented on the above point by Bluejay, perhaps now is the time to do so.

It has been my impression that, from the union perspective, preserving the union was a major motivation.

We have, I think, been mainly talking about the reasons behind those who chose to secede and those who decided to commit to opposing the secession - that is, the leadership on both sides. What motivated the rank and file could be significantly different. During political seasons, we see all kinds of propaganda, and I expect it was the same at the time of the civil war. So we might expect a wider variety of motivations for the rank and file, than from the leadership.

Although most of the discussion here has been contrary to the view that Artemis Entreri was expressing, it is quite possible that he got that view passed down through several generations, and it might reflect what his ancestors believed that they were fighting for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2010 12:45 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 115 of 193 (587539)
10-19-2010 11:45 AM


George Washington, secession?
There were some comments about the legality of secession. I am not sure that the founders thought it would be something that was legal or allowed.

Washington made it very clear in the document known as "Washington's Legacy" which he wrote as the war was coming to an end.
From his "Circular to State Governments"

quote:
There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.


8 June 1783
Source


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2010 9:15 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 116 of 193 (587641)
10-19-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Theodoric
10-19-2010 11:45 AM


Re: George Washington, secession?
That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic [...] That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly.

And so on.

I shall still maintain that every State has the right to secede, whether or not this action may be prudent. It was not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Theodoric, posted 10-19-2010 11:45 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 10-19-2010 9:44 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 193 (587642)
10-19-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Dr Adequate
10-19-2010 9:15 PM


Re: George Washington, secession?
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2010 9:15 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 10-19-2010 9:48 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2010 4:04 PM NoNukes has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33657
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 118 of 193 (587643)
10-19-2010 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by NoNukes
10-19-2010 9:44 PM


Re: George Washington, secession?
Revolution.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 10-19-2010 9:44 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3345 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 responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 120 of 193 (588571)
10-26-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by NoNukes
10-19-2010 9:44 PM


Re: George Washington, secession?
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?

Oh, sorry, I missed this when you asked it.

If a state legislature is elected that votes to do so, of course. My theory being that the United States is in fact a union of states.

Now your question raises a couple of awkward questions of its own. If we take your implicit premises to be true, then:

(1) By what right could the states attach themselves to a federal government against the will of one of its citizens? If there was one citizen of (for example) Virginia, who had said "But I don't want any federal government! Virginia alone and independent for ever!" should that have kept the whole state out of the union?

(2) If it is a question for individuals, then by what right is (for example) Mr. Joe Bloggs kept in the union now if he personally wants to secede? You ask how his state can sever the connection against his will, but if that is a good question, then surely it is an equally good question as to how his state can maintain this connection against his will.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 10-19-2010 9:44 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2010 4:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022