Posted on 09/09/2001 10:23:19 AM PDT by Constitution Day
There is no way for a State to withdraw from the Union without a constitutional amendment legalising it. There was none therefore the legislative actions on secession were illegal and unconstitutional. Thus, the Slaveocracy was promoting treason against the United States.
Your idiotic comments about me being indoctrinated are funny but cannot hide your weak reasoning and illogical ideas. You ignore the fact that I used to believe as you do having spent my formative years in the South wallowing in the self-pitying glorication of a pack of aristocratic traitors as was so common to Southerners. MOst have outgrown it by now.
You also clearly don't understand the U.S. Constitution.
The framers all agreed that the powers specifically delegated to the US government were all the powers that government had, all other powers being reserved to the states and the people. The saying among them was, "That which is not granted is prohibited", and that saying applied to the federal government, not to the states.
The opposite of what you maintain is true; for secession to be prohibited as a state power, an amendment would be necessary. The basis for my position is the 10th Amendment. You've never been able to cite the text of the Constitution which supports your position. Until you do, you're the one exhibiting ignorance of the founding document.
Have you read the commentary on the war which was written between 1865 and 1930? Have you actually studied the federal government's own official version of the history of the war, the Official Record of the War of Rebellion? No, you haven't and you probably didn't know that such a collection of documents existed.
What passes for conservatism in Illinois, Massachussetts and California is typical of your idiotic positions taken on the subject of Lincoln's war. You represent the "mainstream republican" view of history, which is no different from the view pushed by communist and socialist academia. Yes, you're the victim of Marxist indoctrination. Your "institutions of higher learning" are dominated by Marxists and have been since the early 20th century.
Even your favorite catchphrase, "slaveocracy", is an invention of the Marxist dominated American Historical Society's "scholars". It's comical, because you don't even realize what a liar you are. The lies you doggedly repeat were invented by radical republican socialists in the aftermath of the war to cover the overthrow of our form of government by your wretched party. Stick to your version. You wouldn't survive the shock of actually learning the truth.
Do you believe that the creation of the U.S. Mint is constitutional?
Even Madison and Jefferson initially upheld the view that there were implied powers within the constitution or otherwise it would have had to be a thousand pages long to cover its needs.
One of the clearest indications that a disputant has a weak case or insufficient knowledge is the constant attempt to claim that his opponent is "Marxist" as in your case. Not that they actually know what Marxist means as indicated by your absurd accusation that I am Marxist indoctrinated. While I have read a lot of Marx, as any who actually wanted to understand his enemy should, I have read little from Marxist American historians. None of my assertions come from Marxists though it is impossible to disagree with them that slavery was an unmitigated evil and a blight upon the nation and especially the South.
The term Slaveocracy was created in the early 1800s long before Marx was born so of course, you are wrong about that.
The tenth amendment gives no power to secede and your contention that it does completely obliterates your opposition to the implied powers argument since you are willing to accept that the ability to legally secede is implied. The amendment, to the extent that it has any real meaning, is merely an acknowledgement that the state has police powers and the ability to pass laws wrt to health, sanitation, religion etc. it has no bearing (and never did) upon relations between the state and other states which clearly secession would bring up.
Your evaluation of the educational system is typically ignorant and merely raises the suspicion that you have little formal education. Marxism had little impact upon it until the last half of this century. (Care to tell me some of those "Marxists" I have been reading?) Marx condemned the socialistic viewpoints which were rampant before the turn of the century since they were mainly generated from religiously inclined people upset by the rampant poverty of the working classes which existed alongside the vast wealth of the newly emerging monopoly capitalists. Marx had no love of the sentimentality which motivated these socialists. He demanded "scientific socialism" based upon the theory of class struggle and the system of value based upon labour.
I would not mind reading those books you recommend for I find invariably that the Defenders of Slaveocracy misinterprete and misunderstand the knowledge therein.
Only a complete D.S. believes that Lincoln caused the Civil War and hatred of him indicates some sort of pathological mentality. There was no way of avoiding that war as long as the Slaveocracy controlled the South through its tyrannical supression of free speech and murder of opponents. Its adherents even went so far as to attack Congressmen on the floor of the Senate. It well understood (and freely admitted) that for them the war was over slavery and that it could not allow free speech on the issue anywhere its murderous arm could reach to suppress such speech.
Do you believe that the creation of the U.S. Mint is constitutional?
Even Madison and Jefferson initially upheld the view that there were implied powers within the constitution or otherwise it would have had to be a thousand pages long to cover its needs.
One of the clearest indications that a disputant has a weak case or insufficient knowledge is the constant attempt to claim that his opponent is "Marxist" as in your case. Not that they actually know what Marxist means as indicated by your absurd accusation that I am Marxist indoctrinated. While I have read a lot of Marx, as any who actually wanted to understand his enemy should, I have read little from Marxist American historians. None of my assertions come from Marxists though it is impossible to disagree with them that slavery was an unmitigated evil and a blight upon the nation and especially the South.
The term Slaveocracy was created in the early 1800s long before Marx was born so of course, you are wrong about that.
The tenth amendment gives no power to secede and your contention that it does completely obliterates your opposition to the implied powers argument since you are willing to accept that the ability to legally secede is implied. The amendment, to the extent that it has any real meaning, is merely an acknowledgement that the state has police powers and the ability to pass laws wrt to health, sanitation, religion etc. it has no bearing (and never did) upon relations between the state and other states which clearly secession would bring up.
Your evaluation of the educational system is typically ignorant and merely raises the suspicion that you have little formal education. Marxism had little impact upon it until the last half of this century. (Care to tell me some of those "Marxists" I have been reading?) Marx condemned the socialistic viewpoints which were rampant before the turn of the century since they were mainly generated from religiously inclined people upset by the rampant poverty of the working classes which existed alongside the vast wealth of the newly emerging monopoly capitalists. Marx had no love of the sentimentality which motivated these socialists. He demanded "scientific socialism" based upon the theory of class struggle and the system of value based upon labour.
I would not mind reading those books you recommend for I find invariably that the Defenders of Slaveocracy misinterprete and misunderstand the knowledge therein.
Only a complete D.S. believes that Lincoln caused the Civil War and hatred of him indicates some sort of pathological mentality. There was no way of avoiding that war as long as the Slaveocracy controlled the South through its tyrannical supression of free speech and murder of opponents. Its adherents even went so far as to attack Congressmen on the floor of the Senate. It well understood (and freely admitted) that for them the war was over slavery and that it could not allow free speech on the issue anywhere its murderous arm could reach to suppress such speech.
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.