It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Did the leniency after the Civil War lead to our present North/South dynamic???

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Floridagoat

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Treason is when you betray your country and try to overthrow the government. The CSA seceded because they didn't like what the government was becoming. They wanted to secede and leave it at that. That's why it's referred to, as the gentleman below your OP stated, the War of Northern Aggression.



The south was soverign US soil...


If you take over a piece of a country but don't try to take the whole thing over. It is still treason...

Literally by definition..



Your comprehension skill is seriously low, as was pointed out to you on page one "states right's" if you can't graps that with your "the south was sovereign US soil" there's no helping you form a logical conclusion because your perpetuating propaganda and straight up lies!



The federal government has always superseded states rights. Always.



"The Supremacy Clause is a clause within Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which dictates that federal law is the "supreme law of the land". ... Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict."



I'm assuming because no date was provided and it is article 6, that it dates to the founding of the union.




posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Tempter
I think your idea of US history is a little clouded.

See, the United States did not exist in the way it does today before the war. The Federal government wasn't the all-powerful foe it is today. At the time, it was a collection of states with a VERY small Federal government. Power remained in the States hands.

If you understand it from that perspective, you'd realize that your duty and honor were to your state, not an agreement of union.



So the south was not sovereign US soil pre civil war???


And I'm who doesn't know history?!?!

Lol


No, it wasn't. Not in your terms.

What I'm trying to tell you is that the federal government wasn't paid much attention to at the time. States had much more power and the agreement to even be in the union was voluntary.

The US Civil War changed that. It shifted power away from the states and created the Federal monster we have today.

Now, history books won't tell you that because who runs the Dept of Ed?



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: desert

the reason it wasnt resolved as the article you quoted says is because Lincoln did it in such a divisive way causing people below the mason dixon to never forget and mentioning th e"pardon" was a good way to get killed for years after.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: TheAlleghenyGentleman
You mean the war of northern aggression?

Actually, I'm just marking my place because I want to answer more serious when I have time.




No I mean when a bunch of traitors rejected the United States of America, disavowed the US constitution (and wrote their own) while trying to annex a third of US sovereign soil.


By ANY definition from an American POV the south were traitors who commited treason.


They literally went line to line checking all the treason boxs they could find.

PS I'm a MS boy born and raised who might not exist if they had executed all the sympathizers.


Lincoln was the actual traitor. He broke the LAw/constutution. The 10th used to allow a state to secceed if it wanted to. but after Lincoln won he had it changed to suit his and the norths needs.
He illegally passed laws and amendments going against th e law by not allowing the souther representatives their legal right to challenge the bills in congress and the senate.


Just a little more to add to that:

Both the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781, and the United States Constitution, ratified in 1789, established a union of sovereign states under the governance of a federal system. This union was widely understood by both the states and the federal government to be voluntary, and the Constitution was interpreted to reinforce this perspective. At the same time, the founding fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson, recognized the states' right to secede. Although he did not advocate the exercise of that right, he acknowledged that the entitlement remained with the states and was a right that continued throughout the initial drafts of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. States' Rights The concept of states' rights, which formed the foundation of any right or entitlement to secede, was well-grounded in the founding documents of the United States, although the entitlement to act upon these rights remains a contentious issue. Further complicating the question of states' rights is the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that the powers that are neither delegated to the states nor prohibited from the states remain the states'. Confounding the question, however, is the fact that when states' rights created issues contradictory to the Southern states' positions, such as freed slaves in Northern states having the right to vote or to assemble, the Southern states asserted that these rights undermined the continuation of the United States as a union.


The Law today:

The Law Today The question of a state's legal right to secede was addressed in the 1869 Supreme Court decision of Texas v. White. In that decision, the Supreme Court stated that beginning with the Articles of Confederation the agreement between the states to form a union was to "be perpetual." The court went so far as to state that when the states agreed to "form a more perfect Union" there was nothing that more clearly asserted the belief in their indissoluble unity. The significance of this decision was reinforced by Justice Antonin Scalia, who in 2006 wrote that if there was any single right decided by the Civil War it was that there is no right for a state to secede from the union. This position, asserted by the founding documents of the United States, remains the position the United States and its Supreme Court maintain to this day.


Source

edit on 30-11-2016 by FauxMulder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

You can't make a horse drink the water but you can lead him to it, drink it in front of him and it's still the horse's choice to drink the water that's right in front of him or thirst to death!

The civil war demolished states rights and created the federal monster we have today, spot on!



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Yoda would say, short of history is this one!

All southerners were required to repudiate the Confederation and swear oath to Federal Government before being allowed to vote in elections. Federal appointees were forced upon the south for years after the war.

The cause is still debatable, which is states right as a sovereign entity to withdraw from the union.

Civil war victors say no, but that decision is and was under extreme duress.

Disclaimer, I am from deep Yankee country but have read and understood what happened and reject the "new" educational system with its revisionism, distortions and outright lies.

My advice, go read pre 1960's history books that were based on facts not wishful self serving outcomes.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Treason is when you betray your country and try to overthrow the government. The CSA seceded because they didn't like what the government was becoming. They wanted to secede and leave it at that. That's why it's referred to, as the gentleman below your OP stated, the War of Northern Aggression.



The south was soverign US soil...


If you take over a piece of a country but don't try to take the whole thing over. It is still treason...

Literally by definition..



Literally, by definition, treason is the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

I believe the act of secession was legal back in 1860 and wasn't deemed to be illegal until the north beat the South. The CSA didn't commit treason when they seceded.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Treason is when you betray your country and try to overthrow the government. The CSA seceded because they didn't like what the government was becoming. They wanted to secede and leave it at that. That's why it's referred to, as the gentleman below your OP stated, the War of Northern Aggression.





What?!? I'm hung up on the slavery aspect which is why I made absolutely no mention of it....


Yea...

You are definitely not hung up on it as you were the only one who mentioned it..at all..the entire thread..



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
In 1876 the presidential election was not even close. Hayes, a republican had lost the election to the Democrat, Tilden.

The southern states, were still in the aftermath of the civil war. After the civil war, union troops were stationed in the former slave states. And former confederate persons were forbidden from holding office. In the election of 1876, Tilden a democrat won, he was in, but the southern states refused to cast their elector votes for him or anyone, they just refused. And the result was the 1876 compromise, where the votes would go to Hayes, in exchange for concessions, one being that the removal of the troops from the south and that the restrictions placed on the ex slave states would be removed.

That is what I believe is the reason for part of the problems that we are seeing today.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

Which in turn left each state being ruled by the Union hand with no recourse.

Much like how the talk is to pull funding from Cali if they want to secede.

Anyone that touts the federal government line and how awesome sauce it is, is just plain out of touch with reality.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Floridagoat

What State Rights, exactly?


This should be good.


Go read the Declarations of Secession. You can find what you're looking for in there. 95% to 97% of the Confederates who were on the battlefield were fighting for freedom from a tyrant government and states rights.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Treason is when you betray your country and try to overthrow the government. The CSA seceded because they didn't like what the government was becoming. They wanted to secede and leave it at that. That's why it's referred to, as the gentleman below your OP stated, the War of Northern Aggression.



The south was soverign US soil...


If you take over a piece of a country but don't try to take the whole thing over. It is still treason...

Literally by definition..



Literally, by definition, treason is the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

I believe the act of secession was legal back in 1860 and wasn't deemed to be illegal until the north beat the South. The CSA didn't commit treason when they seceded.



treason Translate Button
[tree-zuh n]
noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.(means country, not us type state).


The south was not independent. They were ruled by and part of US soverign territory.

Like I said by definition..both of them..

As they overthrew the US government offices and military bases in the south..
edit on 30-11-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Funny you claim to be from Miss but are clueless to the 7th grade history text book propaganda about how lincoln is a savior and freed a nation.

:pukes
edit on 30-11-2016 by Floridagoat because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Dude you're seriously thick as a brick. The South wasn't trying to overthrow the Northern Union, Earth to Josh come in Josh!!!!



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Floridagoat

What State Rights, exactly?


This should be good.


Go read the Declarations of Secession. You can find what you're looking for in there. 95% to 97% of the Confederates who were on the battlefield were fighting for freedom from a tyrant government and states rights.




Every rebellion thinks they are fighting a tyrannical government...

There is nothing historically unique about the souths rebellion..


Your talking about it as if the south wasn't a part of us soil....

Like they found unclaimed land and the us attacked.

When the south was already US territory. The confederates had to take it from the US.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Josh,

This brings up the relevant point about why the south seceded.
The North wasn't giving taxes to the South, the north wasn't slashing their steel prices and factory goods prices for the South.
The north demanded the South can't sell Cotton over seas for 5$ a bale and would only purchase the same bales for 2$ max.
Again the South got nothing from the North but inflated priced goods they sold overseas for the same prices.


So again Josh would you care to address why that wasn't taught to us in school?

Would it be better to brush it under the rug and suffer the same federal government reign?

Are you gonna be mad when Session's attacks states for Marijuana, because that's the same damn deal in light of reality!



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Floridagoat

What State Rights, exactly?


This should be good.


Go read the Declarations of Secession. You can find what you're looking for in there. 95% to 97% of the Confederates who were on the battlefield were fighting for freedom from a tyrant government and states rights.




Every rebellion thinks they are fighting a tyrannical government...

There is nothing historically unique about the souths rebellion..


Your talking about it as if the south wasn't a part of us soil....

Like they found unclaimed land and the us attacked.

When the south was already US territory. The confederates had to take it from the US.





Until you can put your mind in the frame of context of the time they lived in, you will not understand the significance of the Civil War.

You are truly not understanding the romantic cause for the South to fight. It was for freedom.



Another way to put it is, although laws may have been in effect, the people of the nation didn't reflect the laws imposed upon them until after the war.
edit on 30-11-2016 by Tempter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Floridagoat

its funny..the south was going to leave peacefully and continue to share common defense but lincoln refused to remove his troops and instigated the war.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
This debate may go better if "current north/south dynamic" is defined more clearly.

As I see it it more like wish for bi-coastal dictat to country in between.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Josh,

You obviously lack a basic grasp of the facts.

States rights as of now allowed states to put medical and retail marijuana on their ballots despite the federal government bans. And those states voted the way they wanted and did what their "rights" told them they could.

That is state rights so when Jeff Sessions starts punishing legal marijuana states for voting in legal marijuana, what's your feelings gonna be?
Is the federal government in the right to step in an arrest every retailer?

Did the Union have the right to dictate who the States could sell their products to?

13 states choose to challenge that dictator type rule but failed and you and I live in that hell today!
edit on 30-11-2016 by Floridagoat because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join