Posted on 09/07/2010 12:43:35 PM PDT by gjmerits
Until you start shelling a fort.
“
“As James Madison pointed out there is no difference between secession and revolution, they are 2 words for the same thing. It’s too bad you can’t recognize that fact. but if it pleases you when we leave the union we will call it Revolution.”
You might want to ask your Lost Cause brethren about that one. The standard line is that secession is not rebellion, and much time has been spent denying that simple fact, going back to 1865.”
The difference between secession and rebellion depends upon your recognizing the legitimacy of the secession.
AS the British Government did not recognizes our secession in 1776, the “American Colonizes” were said to be in rebellion, or “insurrection”.
But the problem of course is the failure of the British Government to acknowledge our inalienable right to formaly withdraw from their union. Short of that any opposition to their rule is a rebellion or insurrection.
” The difference, of course, is that you’re not allowed to bitch and moan about how unfair it was that you lost your rebellion.”
Did you make a law against speech as well as revolution and self-determination?
My, my, your oppressive additive holds no bounds...
“You need to come down to earth. You lost your rebellion. Get over it.”
The cause of liberty may be crush with the oppressive sword of tyrants(like Lincoln) but like the Phoenix, one day it will rise again from the ashes of tyranny.
You can’t keep us down forever. Why don’t you understand that? We will learn from the mistakes of our past and make use of the new opportunities new technology provides us.
But you cannot keep us suppressed forever! We will find away to be free of you.
ESL much?
ESL? What’s that?
And if the oppression is wholly imaginary on the part of the party claiming to be oppressed then why should the other states roll over and freely give up all their constitutional protections? You want to leave? Fine. I honestly don't care what reason you have for wanting to leave. Make your position known, negotiate a settlement of all questions of disagreement with the remaining states, and go on your merry way. Don't walk out, repudiate all responsibility for your share of the obligations, steal every bit of federal property you can get your mitts on, and expect the remaining states to be happy about it.
If a State has the right to secede at will then all states have the same right and thus all other states could simply opt to secede from the existing union together and form a new union without a particular state.
But that's not what Madison said. He wasn't talking about 49 states seceding from the U.S. but those 49 expelling the 50th from the nation. The U.S. remains for the states that expelled the odd man out. It isn't a case of 49 creating a new political entity, leaving the old one to the 50th.
We can’t kick them out of the existing union but we can all leave the existing union and form a new one which we will simply deny them entrance to.
Why not? Why can't we kick them out? What prevents it? That was Madison's question, and I'm still waiting for your answer.
Its not hard to do and this right of each State individually to be exercised by most states is undeniable. The Union is voluntary for all in it. that includes any combination of them that might make a majority or all.
The right of a state to unilaterally take an action does not exist when that action comes at the expense of the other states. All states are equal, not some. All states have constitutional guarantees, not some.
punkrr is a troll and you know what they say about feeding those low lifes
I realize that you live in a very rigid world, but you might want to understand the concept of "rhetorical expression." Saying that you're not allowed to whine about your rebellion failing is sorta like saying"There's no crying in baseball." A normal person understands that doesn't mean there's a law against crying within the confines of a baseball stadium during a regulation game. This apparently escapes you, however.
“And if the oppression is wholly imaginary on the part of the party claiming to be oppressed then why should the other states roll over and freely give up all their constitutional protections? “
What Constitutional protections do you speak of, and just as importantly from what? Do you speak of some perverted concept of being protected from losing the ability to impose upon other States?
That rather sounds like imperial protection rather then Constitutional protections... Protection of the governing rather then protection of the governed.
Believe it or not you have no natural right to rule anyone else. The right to rule is a right given by God to the individual over themselves ONLY, Not to government or the majority which control such government.
“But that’s not what Madison said. He wasn’t talking about 49 states seceding from the U.S. but those 49 expelling the 50th from the nation. “
I’m afraid your mistaken, his logical chain quite literally and logically was speaking of the former.
That being said I don’t know why your bothering to dispute this fact. It really only matter insofar under an existing union the same absolute unanimity consent is not required for every new amendment as is the case of a new union.
“Why not? Why can’t we kick them out? What prevents it? That was Madison’s question, and I’m still waiting for your answer. “
You were given my answer yes 49 States can leave the union and form a new one without the 50th.
As to your assertion that we can’t kick em out, my only 2 reasons:
1: The fact that the Federal Constitution as you say contains no provision authorizing the Federal Government to kick out an existing State, therefore we have no means of kicking a state out of the existing union.
2: Nor could we amend the constitution to allow for such a power as the already violated(17th amendment) article 5 provision that prohibits an amendment that would depriving a State of their representation in the Senate without their consent, would seem to apply.
We can only leave the union ourself and deny them entrance into the new union, assuming they would even want entrance into that union.
All in all its not that serous of a disability which makes me wonder why you bring it up...
“”Did you make a law against speech as well as revolution and self-determination?”
I realize that you live in a very rigid world, but you might want to understand the concept of “rhetorical expression.” Saying that you’re not allowed to whine about your rebellion failing is sorta like saying”There’s no crying in baseball.” A normal person understands that doesn’t mean there’s a law against crying within the confines of a baseball stadium during a regulation game. This apparently escapes you, however.”
Ahh so it’s a matter of common decency that we not debate the merits of a choice made and a tyrant that once lived, on this here debate form.
I’m will to let you hold on to your pride, but not at the expense of the truth, nor the expense of our freedom.
If you don’t want to debate this matter anymore don’t respond anymore, its that simple.
But I urge you not to lie to yourself, about the truth of the matter as reviled by the test of reason and historic facts. Holding on to what the government schools taught you when reason and evidence says otherwise is the mark of an arrogant fool willing to be the lapdog of those who got to him first, rather then his own thinking man.
You don’t need to tell me of what you think but you do need to think for yourself. I know its hard to change, but the truth cannot be ignored.
“”Did you make a law against speech as well as revolution and self-determination?”
I realize that you live in a very rigid world, but you might want to understand the concept of “rhetorical expression.” Saying that you’re not allowed to whine about your rebellion failing is sorta like saying”There’s no crying in baseball.” A normal person understands that doesn’t mean there’s a law against crying within the confines of a baseball stadium during a regulation game. This apparently escapes you, however.”
Ahh so it’s a matter of common decency that we not debate the merits of a choice made and a tyrant that once lived, on this here debate form.
I’m will to let you hold on to your pride, but not at the expense of the truth, nor the expense of our freedom.
If you don’t want to debate this matter anymore don’t respond anymore, its that simple.
But I urge you not to lie to yourself, about the truth of the matter as reviled by the test of reason and historic facts. Holding on to what the government schools taught you when reason and evidence says otherwise is the mark of an arrogant fool willing to be the lapdog of those who got to him first, rather then his own thinking man.
You don’t need to tell me of what you think but you do need to think for yourself. I know its hard to change, but the truth cannot be ignored.
OK, what were the other states imposing on the Southern states? You toss out terms like oppression and imposing. What form was this oppression taking and what was being imposed upon the South. Can you answer a simple question?
I’m afraid your mistaken, his logical chain quite literally and logically was speaking of the former.
Are you that addled that you can't read a simple sentence? Madison said, "An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them." Turn it out of its union with them. Not leave the state but kick the state out. How can you pretend that he meant otherwise?
You were given my answer yes 49 States can leave the union and form a new one without the 50th.
You are avoiding the question, Madison's and mine. I will take that to mean that you can't come up with an answer.
The fact that the Federal Constitution as you say contains no provision authorizing the Federal Government to kick out an existing State, therefore we have no means of kicking a state out of the existing union.
Madison isn't talking about the federal government. Again, if you would read his quote, he asked if the STATES could turn one of their fellow states out of the union with them. What prevents the states from doing that? Since it isn't a power reserved to the U.S. and since nothing in the Constitution prevents it then by your own logic it should be legal, right? Right?
Nor could we amend the constitution to allow for such a power as the already violated(17th amendment) article 5 provision that prohibits an amendment that would depriving a State of their representation in the Senate without their consent, would seem to apply.
Again an illogical response. If a state is turned out of the union by the other states then it isn't entitled to any representation to begin with. So Article V doesn't apply.
Says who, short stuff? You?
You'd better bring more than two moral midgets to the party, to make that writ run.
Wasn't that a Carole King tune? I think it was. Sounds like one -- but then, Carly was the one with the bitch in the fight. Which reminds me, apropos your post, of the person you're posting to. How very droll. Habes, amice!
To recognize it in a mirror, or to practice it?
Run along now, little doggie, and quit leg-humping Bubba, or I'll have to spray you with Dog-Off.
Oh, sorry, didn't see you'd already got there and swatted the trollpup.
But that's good advice to a new guy about not feeding the energy creatures.
YAWN
Is that the best you got lentil-breath?
Carly Simon.
Which reminds me, apropos your post, of the person you're posting to.
As I was previewing the lyrics I replaced 'party' with 'forum' and 'song' with 'thread' and it fit the El Capitan of the Coven so nicely....
Perfect....
And if the oppression is wholly imaginary on the part of the party claiming to be oppressed then why should the other states roll over and freely give up all their constitutional protections?
Wow, how many false premises can you roll into one long, absurd question? Very good.
First of all, the South's oppression was NOT "wholly imaginary". John Brown was no figment, nor "bleeding Kansas", nor the "Secret Six". Neither were the sinister black-clad companies of the Wide Awakes, who'd already drawn arms from federal stocks in Illinois, and crossed over to Missouri to take part in the overthrow of the State government and the MMV, the Missouri Militia.
Wide Awakes were also sending bands of arsonists to Texas to raise the slaves and burn the towns. The Texans erased all the evidence for this conspiracy by hanging everyone in sight -- including their witnesses for the prosecution. That's the problem with lynch-law justice. It's so imprecise. They should have availed themselves of the services of Col. Lee, who'd hanged Brown, to help them with their Wide Awake problem; at that time, he was stationed in San Antonio. I suppose Gov. Sam Houston didn't want to give any countenance to the secessionists, so Col. Lee remained undisturbed.
And we've all been through your piffle about secession "destroying the Union" and the rights of the other States. You might as well argue that my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, should be abrogated by you, unilaterally, because my silence deprives you of your "right" to justice, i.e. revenge. Sound about right? Sounds like your style of argumentation ..... straw men by the battalion, by the division and corps.
Don't forget your ad hom general disclaimer: but your opponent is a stinking Southerner!! That always works well, and I see you've been exercising it, you and Bubba.
The States that remained in the Union continued to enjoy the benefits of their association undisturbed by the absence of he Southern States. Hell, they even managed to fight a huge war without the South!
Make your position known, negotiate a settlement of all questions of disagreement with the remaining states, and go on your merry way. Don't walk out, repudiate all responsibility for your share of the obligations......
We've been over all those tired old chestnuts, too.
The first thing Lincoln did in office after giving his inaugural was to refuse to receive the South Carolina commissioners who wanted to talk to him about apportioning the federal debt. Lincoln. Refused. To. Talk. To. Them.
So that's enough of your prattle about "repudiation" and "stealing" things.
But then, you have been told that before, by presenters of argument as cultivated, resource- and quote-rich as rustbucket and 4CJ/4ConservativeJustices, and here you are again, running your cheesy grift on a new guy de novo, as if you had never heard of the Civil War before, and had just discovered your beeves in a book.
This after being refuted God knows how many times since 2002.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.