Posted on 09/07/2010 12:43:35 PM PDT by gjmerits
I did. It says that if Canada adopted the articles then it would be admitted. It doesn't say that Canada will be admitted and then be expected to adopt the articles.
Virginia's secession document clearly says it was dependent on a popular referendum. Yet that didn't stop the confederate congress from admitting Virginia weeks before the referendum was held. Likewise, the confederate congress was passing bills admitting North Carolina four days before it seceded. Kind of jumping the gun don't you think?
Since I'm representing the south in this analogy, let's say I stole it from you.
yaddi yaddi yaddi blah blah blah
Reverting to baby talk again? Or maybe that's how you write off theft.
Well, actually you can.
Really? Try it. Go outside (since there's no one I know of to whom you'd have to turn in paperwork on this), announce that you reject the social contract and see what happens. Have you reverted to Hobbes' "state of nature" with the Bellum omnium contra omnes? I assume that, as Hobbes described man there, you're already "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short," so we won't be able to tell that one.
Now commit a crime, since the state of nature is one of perfect liberty to do what you will. When you're arrested, tell the court that you rejected the social contract and all the instruments of society and are bound by no social contract or government and see what happens to you.
It should be common knowledge that, throughout the course of history, all societies have undergone change.
And your choices to advance the change you desire are either to live within society and the present government (which is basically the administrative arm of society), changing it through its institutions, or you revolt, make the existing society powerless over you. But you continually refuse to consider the possibility of change within the current goverment, even though the rules for doing so are not that ridiculous (simple majorities for most things, supermajorities for more major things). Get a majority of voters in each of 38 states and you can pass an amendment that dissolves the Union. Given the usual voter turnout, and the fact that larger states have an equal vote to smaller states, that's probably not even a quarter of the population
But you can't do that. Because for all the noise you make about that south seceding any day now, just you wait, the fact is that you're the lunatic fringe and you can't even get your secession in front of South Carolina voters or the state legislature because it doesn't have enough support. You're as much a crank to the general population as much as Lyndon Larouche is. A punchline on the body politic.
We do not live in a static universe and for one to argue as if we do demonstrates the smallness of his mind.
Really? Because your position is the one that has little to do with the real world.
Where do you think the credit cards got the idea for all those "You're Pre-Approved" notices.
Virginia's secession document clearly says it was dependent on a popular referendum. Yet that didn't stop the confederate congress from admitting Virginia weeks before the referendum was held. Likewise, the confederate congress was passing bills admitting North Carolina four days before it seceded. Kind of jumping the gun don't you think?
By the time the Confederacy admitted Virginia on May 7, 1861, Lincoln had declared a blockade against Virginia and North Carolina, which were both officially still in the Union at that point. Some Federal facilities had been seized by Virginia, but not until after Federal troops had done their best to destroy the facilities (Harper's Ferry, Norfolk Navy Yard). Virginia needed to prepare to defend herself in case Lincoln invaded them, which he did. That was the primary reason for joining the Confederacy early.
The ratification of the Constitution of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America by Virginia in April was subject to the approval of secession by Virginia voters. If the Virginia voters didn't approve secession on May 23, the ratification of the Constitution by Virginia was no longer valid. So said the April 17 Virginia Ordinance for the Adoption of the Constitution of the Provisional Government. Without the approval of the Confederate Constitution, the state could not be a member of the Confederacy.
Virginia's membership in the Confederacy was thus temporary until the voters spoke. The April 24 convention and agreement between Virginia and the Confederacy that defined the Union between them says that it was temporary. On May 7 the Confederate Congress advised and consented to the ratification of that temporary convention and agreement.
Living outside the bounds of your social contract, eh?
Really? Try it. Go outside (since there's no one I know of to whom you'd have to turn in paperwork on this), announce that you reject the social contract and see what happens.
It's rather interesting that you seem to idolize Hobbes, an English pig who advocated submitting to authoritarian rule. More of the Great Yankee Way?
When you're arrested, tell the court that you rejected the social contract and all the instruments of society and are bound by no social contract or government and see what happens to you.
Would you have the same resentment for African slaves if they had rejected the Southern social contract that was imposed upon them as you have for the Confederacy for rejecting the yankee social contract?
And your choices to advance the change you desire are either to live within society and the present government (which is basically the administrative arm of society), changing it through its institutions,
You do realize that the present government is broken in relationship to the original constitution. The power brokers (the elitist yankees) have totally perverted the system and all but eliminated any possibility for reducing the size and power that the government has over We The People.
But you continually refuse to consider the possibility of change within the current government, even though the rules for doing so are not that ridiculous
And you ignore reality, sir. The change that I advocate, as most conservatives do, is a return to the original constitution. The reality is, it ain't gonna happen.
Because for all the noise you make about that south seceding any day now,
Show one post, just one, where I've made any such 'noise'.
the fact is that you're the lunatic fringe
You get your talking points from the elitist yankee liberals, I see.
You're as much a crank to the general population
If believing that every man is born with the God given right of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness qualifies me as a 'crank', then so be it.
However, you're a blight on the general population as you would have all non-elitists submitting to your authority in perpetuity.
Because your position is the one that has little to do with the real world.
What position? That men have God given rights and are free to choose their own destiny?
Like obama, you see the world through your academic prism, which, as you and obama have demonstrated, has little to do with the real world.
According to you, I'm just negotiating, engaging in the contact sport of persuading you to do what I want.
It's rather interesting that you seem to idolize Hobbes
No idolizing. I just find that his cynical impression of man outside of society is borne out in the headlines every day. What are you one of those Rousseau-ian "noble savage" believers?
Would you have the same resentment for African slaves if they had rejected the Southern social contract that was imposed upon them as you have for the Confederacy for rejecting the yankee social contract?
Southern slaves had the same natural right of rebellion that anyone else has and a better cause for it, since they had no voice in their governing at all. Would you cheer on a southern slave rebellion? It's interesting that you steadfastly refuse to accept the notion of rebellion, but just as steadfastly refuse to accept remaining within the existing structure.
...and all but eliminated any possibility for reducing the size and power that the government has over We The People.
I disagree, and while your solution appears to be to run, mine is to stay and work for change.
Show one post, just one, where I've made any such 'noise'.
Are you rejecting the possibility of secession now, too? After all those posts where you demand to know what side people are going to be on when it happens?
When did I ever say that negotiation included stealing a gun and holding it to someones head?
Would you cheer on a southern slave rebellion?
Would you?
It's interesting that you steadfastly refuse to accept the notion of rebellion, but just as steadfastly refuse to accept remaining within the existing structure.
OK, you're making shit up again. Cite where I posted that I refused to accept the notion of rebellion.
I disagree, and while your solution appears to be to run,
Ah, the old 'cut-n-run' charge again. Let's see, stick with a festering wound and get sicker and sicker, or remove the offending appendage....hmmmmmm.....
mine is to stay and work for change.
Exactly what kind of change, and what are YOU personally doing to accomplish your idea of change? You guys always blab on and on about how you're staying and working for change but I think you're just a bunch of blowhards.
Are you rejecting the possibility of secession now, too?
As I've stated before, the universe is NOT static, therefore secession is always a possibility.
After all those posts where you demand to know what side people are going to be on when it happens?
Ah, so you read the exchange between ns and myself. Then tell me, did you read the post where he definitively stated who he would choose between us Rebs or obama? Didn't think so....
Speaking of choosing, who's side would you choose? Rebs or obama?
Your definition doesn't exclude it. And since you consider taking what you want, then offering to talk about paying for once it's already in your possession to be negotiating, how can you say differently now? The gun is just to make the other guy negotiate in good faith instead of walking away.
Would you?
About as much as I cheer on any rebellion against oppression. Did slaves have a natural right of rebellion? Did slaveowners have a right to suppress their rebellion?
Cite where I posted that I refused to accept the notion of rebellion.
Every time you deny that the south rebelled.
Let's see, stick with a festering wound and get sicker and sicker, or remove the offending appendage....hmmmmmm.....
You remind me of the the guy I read about who rolled over his van on a freeway median, pinning his arm. After ten minutes, deciding it was hopeless, he pulled out his Swiss Army knife and amputated his arm. Just about the time he was finishing, the police and ambulance showed up and easily lifted the van to collect the arm the guy was so impatient to amputate.
Speaking of choosing, who's side would you choose? Rebs or obama?
A scenario so far in the fantasy realm that you might as well ask me if I'd be on the side of the munchkins or the martians when their inevitable war begins.
From the Articles of Confederation?????
So you admit that Lincoln's extension of the blockade to Virginia may have come before her admission to the confederacy, but after she had already joined the rebellion by seizing federal property. So what's your point?
But how would that have invalidated the act of the confederate congress admitting Virginia as a state?
Virginia's membership in the Confederacy was thus temporary until the voters spoke.
Of course it was. And had the voters spoken against secession? I suppose y'all would have given the arsenal and the naval base back? </sarcasm>
If you are talking about Lincoln's blockade (your response was not clear), then no, that act did not invalidate the admission of Virginia. I didn't claim it did.
But you may be talking about the case where Virginia voters disapproved secession. In that case, Virginia's ordinance to approve the Confederate Constitution no longer had any effect. Says so in the ordinance to adopt the Confederate Constitution. Without approval of the Confederate Constitution, Virginia couldn't be a member of the Confederacy. Without the support of the great majority of its people it couldn't have waged war against the US. It necessarily would have remained under the US Constitution and a member state of the US.
The "temporary convention and agreement" permitting the admission of Virginia into the CSA for safety and defense purposes was on condition that it be approved by the appropriate authorities in both governments. The voters were the appropriate authorities in Virginia.
If some state official had tried to do secede the state against the wishes of the great mass of its voters, there would have been civil war in Virginia or the complete breakup of the state. Consider the formation of West Virginia. Because the western part of Virginia did not vote for secession although the state as a whole overwhelmingly did, they formed their own state out of western Virginia (aided and abetted by the US).
My comment was directed to your statement that before the South had been admitted to the confederacy, and long before secession had even been approved, Virginia had already joined the rebellion by seizing the arsenal at Harper's Ferry and the navy base in Tidewater. Whether or not they had formally joined the non-existent, in Lincoln's eyes, CSA was irrelevant.
The "temporary convention and agreement" permitting the admission of Virginia into the CSA for safety and defense purposes was on condition that it be approved by the appropriate authorities in both governments. The voters were the appropriate authorities in Virginia.
A look at all the legislation passed on May 7 doesn't show the words 'temporary convention and agreement' in any of them. Link
From your link:
Resolved by the Congress of the Confederate States of America (two-thirds of the Congress concurring therein), That the Congress advises and consents to the ratification of the convention and agreement entered into on the twenty-fourth day of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, at Richmond, Virginia, between the Commonwealth of Virginia, by her commissioners, and the Confederate States of America, by their commissioner, the Honorable Alexander H. Stephens.
I take it that you haven't looked at the "convention and agreement" that the Confederate Congress advised and consented to the ratification of in the paragraph above. That document itself clearly states that it is temporary. Alexander Stephens, when imploring the Virginia Convention to agree to it in April, called it a "temporary alliance."
Perfect! You sound like obama describing the Bill of Rights as 'negative'.
About as much as I cheer on any rebellion against oppression.
What's your definition of 'oppression'?
Every time you deny that the south rebelled.
That's an illogical argument.
After ten minutes, deciding it was hopeless
You must be immune to pain.
Just about the time he was finishing, the police and ambulance showed up
And if they hadn't? Is it your contention that people should never take matters into their own hands? That we should all sit around and wait for .gov to come to our rescue?
A scenario so far in the fantasy realm that you might as well ask me if I'd be on the side of the munchkins or the martians when their inevitable war begins.
Where did I mention war? (you've been a good little student of ns)
Like ns, your refusal to answer is an answer. You hate us Rebs so bad that you would join ranks with obama before you would us. Is that a correct statement?
If so, it's good to know. As the saying goes, 'know thine enemy'.
By which you mean, "correct, even though you don't like it." The Bill of Rights is, in legal philosophy terms, "negative" in that it tells the government what it can't do. It negates government powers. It doesn't mean bad.
You're the one who described negotiation as "a contact sport" and that "The purpose of negotiation is to pursuade (sic) others to listen to your arguments, consider them and then to decide to help you achieve your goals." In what way is holding a gun to someone's head the make them listen, consider and agree excluded?
What's your definition of 'oppression'?
Slavery as practiced by the south certainly qualifies. But I notice you didn't answer the questions: Did the southern slaves have a right to rebellion? Did the slave owners have a right to suppress their rebellion?
Is it your contention that people should never take matters into their own hands?
No, I'm saying that you shouldn't rush into doing something drastic, irreversible and quite possibly stupid.
Where did I mention war?
Post #768, "I so look forward to meeting you on the battlefield. It'll be just like old times: the south fighting for freedom and independence and the North attempting to 'preserve the union' at gunpoint." I can find more if you want. It's a pretty constant theme with you. But if you're now denying that you mean war, does that mean that rebellion is off the table?
Lets see if this generation of Yankees is as adept at running North as was the one of 150 years ago.
Thanks for your that extremely insightful explanation! I don't what us dumb Southrons would do without you geniuses from the north. /sarc
You're the one who described negotiation as "a contact sport"
I guess you went to the school of literal thinking. Oh well....
In what way is holding a gun to someone's head the make them listen, consider and agree excluded?
Once again, where did this 'gun' come from? You're just making up crap.
Slavery as practiced by the south certainly qualifies.
Is slavery the only thing that qualifies as 'oppression', in your opinion?
Did the southern slaves have a right to rebellion? Did the slave owners have a right to suppress their rebellion?
Yes and yes. If the slaves had rebelled, do you believe that the suppressors had the moral obligation to kill all the rebels, steal all their property, burn their homes and rape their women?
No, I'm saying that you shouldn't rush into doing something drastic, irreversible and quite possibly stupid.
As opposed to doing nothing which could be equally as stupid. You're like the frog in the kettle. You swim around in ever warming water under the illusion that somebody will eventually put out the fire.
Post #768, "I so look forward to meeting you on the battlefield. It'll be just like old times: the south fighting for freedom and independence and the North attempting to 'preserve the union' at gunpoint." I can find more if you want. It's a pretty constant theme with you.
You and ns must be joined at the hip. You both do love to take things out of context.
But if you're now denying that you mean war, does that mean that rebellion is off the table?
Unlike you, I don't live under the illusion that the universe is static. Everything is a possibility.
Imagine that Bubba - pokie’s non-answers are indistinguishable to your average garden-variety leftist.
Oh, please. Now you're just making stuff up -- phony quotes? Please.
Opening positions in negotiations are just that -- negotiable. Or do you pay some guy the exact price he advertised in a newspaper for his car, because he put it there? Or ignore his ad because you didn't want to pay 100% of his ask? Come on.
If anyone ever finds the doubtless-confidential instructions the Carolina and Confederate commissioners (which last Lincoln refused even to talk to -- POINT!), it would be nice to see what they were.
Until then, you're just woofing.
The South offered to settle the national debt.
Which leaves him doing nothing of the sort.
Where the People were consulted directly, to give a comparison, the People backed the secession conventions, even in the Upper South where first they had voted for continued Union.
When the People changed their minds and voted for secession, they voted the same way the conventions did, and the informed opinion represented in the conventions did reflect the popular feeling, only in even more decisive degree.
You Union triumphalists always try to represent secession as a Chinese fire drill or a hooraw stampede, when it was nothing of the sort. These people weren't playing. It was very much for real, but you will go to any length to blink the fact that your Southern neighbors, knowing you well, rejected you completely at the moment of decision.
That is what sticks in your craw, to this very day.
And nothing you did later, then or now, has ever vitiated that judgment of you.
You're welcome.
I don't what us dumb Southrons would do without you geniuses from the north.
Continue to revel in your willful ignorance, I suppose.
Once again, where did this 'gun' come from?
I made it. I bought it. I found it. I stole it. What possible difference does it make?
You're just making up crap.
Just a second ago you were accusing me of being too literal.
Yes and yes.
So there is a right to put down a rebellion?
You both do love to take things out of context.
Pretty rich, coming from you.
So what is it when I steal your car, then tell you that I’m prepared to negotiate a price for it? As I keep saying, a negotiation involves two parties, either of which can walk away whole if no agreement is reached. The south was never going to let the United States keep it’s forts, lighthouses, armories, etc, were they?
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.