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.

 

Rise of The Offengers

page: 9
29
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2017 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

So much is wrong with what you said.

1. Confederates fired first shots at Ft. Sumter

2. There is NO legal basis for secession from 'our more perfect union'. However, there is wording in the Articles, Constitution, and D of I that suggest secession isn't legally possible. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has generally stated secession is not a legal option, thus creating precedence.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that states have legal rights to secede. They do not, and historically, only Anti-Federalists who opposed the Constitution and idea of a strong central government believed in the right to secede. Though most of them believed that it would only be possible on moral grounds, such as an oppressive or unbearable government.

I am a high school US History teacher, and there are many, many primary source documents that support what I stated.
edit on 13-5-2017 by lambs to lions because: Sp




posted on May, 13 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


They certainly seem to think so.



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

The states gave up any sovereignty with the ratification of the Constitution. There is no right to secede from the Union. And, comparing the EU to the United States is problematic for a variety of reasons. The two are not remotely comparable. The EU is made up of individual nations, with their own governments under the idea of mutual advantages. The US is a union of states, who agreed to a central federal government who's laws supersede state laws in order to keep the Constitution solvent.



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Lysergic

That began changing just about the time I reached HS, that would have been '79...or thereabouts. As I recall.

Now, if you aren't minding someone else's business you're a threat apparently.



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: lambs to lions

Not really trying to refute you but what is your opinion on the Star of the West?



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Technically, the first shots fired were at her, by confederacy. Although, I don't believe there were casualties. Still, she was sending fuses, munitions, and food to troops stationed at Sumter which may have been provocative, but legal.



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: lambs to lions

The article I linked actually went through all of that...As the framers of the Constitution intended they should be able to do so, especially those original 13 states, however after the civil war presidents and the supreme court have since ruled/made arguments against it. Reading through that whole article though the arguments for them having the right to secede were much better than the ones against it, many holes were poked in the arguments against it. At the end of the day now though you'd face an insurmountable amount of military force to ensure it wouldn't happen, but states were intended to have the right to leave the union if those states had a majority who wanted out. Many quotes from those responsible for the Constitution showed that in the article. In fact I was kind of stunned they had done such a good job of showing both sides of the argument in full and tried to put you in the frame of mind to view it from each side...However they saved the side for seceding which pokes many holes in the against argument for last and leaves that last on the readers mind, but still very well presented and worth the read.

From said article:


Waging war “against them (the States)” is an act of treason, and as per the Constitution, a State can only be “protected” by the central government on the application of the legislature or the executive in the case of invasion. Lincoln violated both constitutional safeguards against coercion by the central government in 1861, of course only if the states remained in the Union, as he insisted they did. If not, war required a declaration from Congress, something Lincoln did not have, and by declaring war, Congress would have recognized the Confederate States as a legitimate government. Either way, Lincoln violated the Constitution, thus rendering the “bloody nose” argument against secession void.


By Upshur:

The checking and controlling influences which afford safety to public liberty, are not to be found in the government itself. The people cannot always protect themselves against their rulers; if they could, no free government, in past times, would have been overthrown. Power and patronage cannot easily be so limited and defined, as to rob them of their corrupting influences over the public mind. It is truly and wisely remarked by the Federalist, that “a power over a man’s subsistence is a power over his will.” As little as possible of this power should be entrusted to the federal government, and even that little should be watched by a power authorized and competent to arrest its abuses. That power can be found only in the states. In this consists the great superiority of the federative system over every other. In that system, the federal government is responsible, not directly to the people en masse, but to the people in their character of distinct political corporations. However easy it may be to steal power from the people, governments do not so readily yield it to one another. The confederated states confer on their common government only such power as they themselves cannot separately exercise, or such as can be better exercised by that government. They have, therefore, an equal interest, to give it power enough, and to prevent it from assuming too much. In their hands the power of interposition is attended with no danger; it may be safely lodged where there is no interest to abuse it.


And a very good argument put forth in the comments section at that:


The mental gymnastics against secession are astounding.
The states declared themselves to be free, sovereign and independent states in 1776 under the Declaration of Independence; and this is what they officially became in 1783 under the Treaty of Paris.
It really is that simple.

Nor did any “unions” among them change that status.
In defining their various intended meanings, The Founders adhered to the newly-written Law of Nations by Emerich de Vatel, The Articles of Confederation formed a “federal republic,” which is defined under the Law of Nations as ” several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements.”

Accordingly, each state fully intended to achieve and retain its status as a sovereign state. Rather, each state was supremely ruled and owned by its respective People; and they simply delegated powers to their state and federal governments as subordinates.

In denying this, the various officials doth “protest too much to believe the protesting;” for history clearly and unequivocally shows that the People of the states fully intended to retain that status under the Constitution.

Likewise Unionists’ claims are highly inconsistent, with some claiming that the states formed a nation in 1776, others in 1781, and others in 1787.

However the point is moot, in that they all deduce their claims by inference, alleging that states intended to relinquish their respective sovereignty through implied meaning in the various documents.

But of course, the simple fact is that sovereign states cannot relinquish their sovereignty by implication– but only by express language. For otherwise, any would-be conqueror could, like Lincoln, simply invade any sovereign state via similar allegations, and similarly declare all pesky legal technicalities “settled on the batttlefield.”
Under such a claim, all national sovereignty would be null and void, replacing it with the Law of the Jungle and Brute Force, and resulting in global despotism; no claims could be made to original intent.

And of course, neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution contains any express intent to relinquish the sovereignty of any state. On the contrary, a thorough study of the issue proves that every state fully intended to retain its sovereignty, and was expressly assured of such.

The problem, of course, is that history is written by the victors, while the first casualty of war is always truth; and meanwhile the war transferredvirtually all sovereignty from the People of each state to the federal government, which became a ruling de facto oligarchy ever since.

Therefore these arguments against the right of secession, are simply token responses by an empire in validating its own absolute power.

The solution, of course, is the standard response to any lie: THE TRUTH. Specifically, the People of every state must assert the fact of their sovereignty, while expounding the self-serving lies of the federal government; likewise, they must call upon all other sovereign states in the world to recognize their sovereignty, as their duty in retaining their own.

Only one state needs to do this; but this is how they must do it; doing so on a false theory, meanwhile, is worse than doing nothing at all, since it discredits the movement.


edit on 13-5-2017 by RickyD because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: lambs to lions

Also would you not consider from the Confederate point of view the union soldiers trying to hold onto a fort on territory within the boarders of their state which was no longer apart of said union an act of hostility?



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

It's an interesting read. It was obviously published in a conservative magazine, and biased towards states' rights. The author interjects his feelings on the matter, and being conservative myself, I tend to agree with their perspective. However, opinions and attempts to analyze quotes are not paramount to legality. The truth is, there are historical statements to be found by the FF and others that either support or deny the idea of secession being legally possible. However, there is not a legal process that exists for secession. In reality, any real attempt to secede would be indistinguishable from rebellion. Which I believe is a good thing for the long term strength of our nation.
edit on 13-5-2017 by lambs to lions because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: lambs to lions

I was more swayed by what I quoted above and the parts of those arguments I didn't include due to how big the post would be. But they captured the main ideas.

Edit: But yes you are correct the Article does show bias, but not so bad that he doesn't at least give a good run down of arguments against his view...Which is something you don't see much outside of academics these days.
edit on 13-5-2017 by RickyD because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-5-2017 by RickyD because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-5-2017 by RickyD because: I hate smart phones that can't spell the word I want...



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Was it a new item in the store or did she just not see it before? Apparently it was a non issue to shoppers if it or other flag products(flag, rugs, etc,etc) were there before. Anyway, sad they caved to that, wonder if there will be a counter protest?



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: lambs to lions

Also would you not consider from the Confederate point of view the union soldiers trying to hold onto a fort on territory within the boarders of their state which was no longer apart of said union an act of hostility?


No. Remember, these are fellow countrymen finding themselves at odds with one another politically. The Confederacy themselves struggled with how to deal with the Union troops refusal to leave. They weren't sure what to do, but finally opened fire. It was a pissing contest. They should've just sat outside the fort, in a few weeks the Union soldiers would be begging for food. Regardless, the war was bound to be ugly and bloody anyway. But, remember, the South voluntarily attempted secession. Lincoln had promised to not interfere with existing slavery laws in slave states. He was against slavery as an institution, but believed in his own white superiority. The reality is that the South would be forced to move on from slavery as their primary economic engine soon anyway. The industrial advances in agriculture would supplant much of that 'cheap' labor in due time. Change can be painful, and the South was clearly tied to slavery economically. They feared it would be taken from them, so they took a stand against a more powerful, better supplied, and advanced force. In short, it was stupid. They could have held out politically on the platform of protecting states rights for years to come, and eventually innovation and progressivism would have brought change. Although it would have been slow, it would have saved about 1 million lives...just my opinion on that though
edit on 13-5-2017 by lambs to lions because: Sp



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: lambs to lions

I was more swayed by what I quoted above and the parts of those arguments I didn't include due to how big the post would be. But they captured the main ideas.

Edit: But yes you are correct the Article does show bias, but not so bad that he doesn't at least give a good run down of arguments against his view...Which is something you don't see much outside of academics these days.


Agreed. It was a good article, the comments below it weren't bad either



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: lambs to lions

That's a very fair point, I do agree slavery was a poor business model (atrocities aside) and was due to be replaced within 20ish years anyway. I would counter with the point of view that if the central government could take that from them and again I don't mean the horribleness that is slavery but more such a pillar of the South's economy what's to stop them from taking something else later the same way. I would think in the states eyes this was a danger.



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

I agree with that. Nice talking to you, have a good one



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Yea like every single primary source lol..


Gel it even really started over the southern fire eaters using the same "they are coming to get your guns mentality.. " except it was "they are coming to get your slaves and make your daughters marry them!!!"

When without succession slavery lasts atleast another generation... because Lincoln had zero want to free the slaves..

The black soldiers that fought for America won the public opinion of Americans and won the end of slavery..

a reply to: lambs to lions



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
What??!?!


Where do you get that from lol?!?!

Would it have lasted to the modern day?? Doubtful..

But was it just about to end anyway??

Absolutely not...

20 years wouldn't have led to the south just voluntarily ending slavery..


The same people would have still been in charge, and they all made it abundantly clear, they would never end slavery voluntarily.. a reply to: lambs to lions



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: lambs to lions
a reply to: RickyD

It's an interesting read. It was obviously published in a conservative magazine, and biased towards states' rights. The author interjects his feelings on the matter, and being conservative myself, I tend to agree with their perspective. However, opinions and attempts to analyze quotes are not paramount to legality. The truth is, there are historical statements to be found by the FF and others that either support or deny the idea of secession being legally possible. However, there is not a legal process that exists for secession. In reality, any real attempt to secede would be indistinguishable from rebellion. Which I believe is a good thing for the long term strength of our nation.


Has any country in the history of the world allowed "states" to leave their nation any time they wanted???

Has that ever been a logical way to run a nation state??!

No ...

If that were true there would be no America today...



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: lambs to lions
a reply to: JinMI

Technically, the first shots fired were at her, by confederacy. Although, I don't believe there were casualties. Still, she was sending fuses, munitions, and food to troops stationed at Sumter which may have been provocative, but legal.



Only if you are saying rebellion and succession were legal..

If not then it is rebels and traitors attacking us service members on their own soverign soil..

It would be the same as me saying my household seceded and shooting at police because they came armed to my property.. that was really US property, not mine..



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You mean the land the state owned which was rightfully theirs to secede? The same land that had garrisons full of what was US troops who remained loyal to the union inside what was now a sovereign state not a part of the union. Yes exactly...Your twist on history seems to not be so accurate...More like twisted to fit your take on things.

Edited to add: we just saw the UK leave the European Union...Same situation as what states are to the US. We are a union of states where states have the right to vote to leave said union...Do you really know anything about US civics and history or do you just open your mouth and let whatever comes out just spill onto your post. I remember learning this stuff in grade school civics classes...Did you?

Maybe read up


No one owned property themselves...

No one ..

Without a government allowing you to "own " that property. It doesn't belong to you.. it belongs to the most powerful local warlord..

If the government disappeared tomorrow, we only own what we can hold...

And the south couldn't hold anything.. they lost badly.. America beat them with one hand tied behind their back..



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join