A quote from the civil war, before it ended. You all should read this.

reply to post by kyviecaldges



You have made your point very well indeed, with clear concise arguments and historical data to back up your post. I ,for what it's worth think you did brilliant- if every poster on here was as logical and thorough instead of sticking their fingers in their ears then it would be even better. Thank you for teaching me a little more on a subject which I like.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges


It must be some kind of a case of stockholm syndrome, but on a large scale, because the people who complain the most about not having freedom will go to any length to defend the very entity responsible for placing them in bondage.

Of course it is some kind of stockholm/programming issue. The people you are arguing with believe that we are "one nation indivisible" because they've been taught that since they were little. They don't realize that the pledge they were taught was not even voted by Congress to be our "national" pledge of allegiance until 1942 and was written by one of the biggest socialist of his time (1890's) as a commitment to the nationalized flag after the defeat of those "evil enemies" (i.e. the seceded southern confederate states).

I personally don't believe you're going to be able to get through to anybody anymore because every farking politician we've had at the national level since Reagan left the scene has referred to our country as a "democracy" (whether they were Democrat or Republican). If the top political leaders of our country don't know we're a constitutionalized republic of sovereign states then how in the world do you expect anybody else to buy it?

The whole concept seems to be lost. They did an awesome job of losing it.

Civilization is based on slavery. Electricity and thermodynamic engines replaced muscle as the primary source of power during the industrial revolution.

If you are against slavery you are against civilization.

War is the only way to end a condition of slavery and we are headed for a world of peace.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Your attempt to translate Lincoln's arguments against the legitimacy of secession is a laugh.

A misguided, deluded, and tyrannically power-hungry orator

Lincoln was not tyrannical, the South seceded before the man could even assume office. Prior to Lincoln, the Southern backed Democrats held majority control of congress and both presidents were Southern backed Democrats.

Lincoln is supposedly power hungry and tyrannical in the eyes of confederate apologists because he won the war and put the South back in place. History is not "fair" now is it?

If I am self governing and I don't want to participate in something then I don't participate.

Oh really? So you don't pay taxes? You have a choose in whether you want to contribute to the military? You have choice to participate in paying for roads? Parks? Don't be naive. Those black slaves back in those days didn't have any rights what so ever, many were raped and abused at the hands of their slave holders (I'll say some black slave holders as to not "offend" Honor). Women had minimal writes those days. The fact that confederate apologists today yap on about liberty and tyrannical governments is a complete joke, it is hypocrisy at it's finest.

The power of secession is an inalienable right

And yet the South failed to secede back in the civil war? You sit here today in these United States, have you failed to notice?? How could it be an inalienable right if the South could not secede? It doesn't matter how you intepret the documents prior to the civil war, the victor writes history, the victor writes the rules, the victor in the civil war was the North. The North won the civil war, they established that secession was not a right. This is not too hard to understand. How many people care to debate the contract the patriots broke with the British empite in the the revolutionary war? None from my count.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Your attempt to translate Lincoln's arguments against the legitimacy of secession is a laugh.

A misguided, deluded, and tyrannically power-hungry orator

Lincoln was not tyrannical, the South seceded before the man could even assume office. Prior to Lincoln, the Southern backed Democrats held majority control of congress and both presidents were Southern backed Democrats.

Lincoln is supposedly power hungry and tyrannical in the eyes of confederate apologists because he won the war and put the South back in place. History is not "fair" now is it?

If I am self governing and I don't want to participate in something then I don't participate.

Oh really? So you don't pay taxes? You have a choose in whether you want to contribute to the military? You have choice to participate in paying for roads? Parks? Don't be naive. Those black slaves back in those days didn't have any rights what so ever, many were raped and abused at the hands of their slave holders (I'll say some black slave holders as to not "offend" Honor). Women had minimal writes those days. The fact that confederate apologists today yap on about liberty and tyrannical governments is a complete joke, it is hypocrisy at it's finest.

The power of secession is an inalienable right

And yet the South failed to secede back in the civil war? You sit here today in these United States, have you failed to notice?? How could it be an inalienable right if the South could not secede? It doesn't matter how you intepret the documents prior to the civil war, the victor writes history, the victor writes the rules, the victor in the civil war was the North. The North won the civil war, they established that secession was not a right. This is not too hard to understand. How many people care to debate the contract the patriots broke with the British empite in the the revolutionary war? None from my count.

This entire argument is circular and nonsensical. They DID secede. Don't mix the loss of the war with the success of the secession. And why are you continuing to bring the slavery issue into a discussion that is now centered on whether the states' have the right to secede? At this point the slavery issue is moot, though it was not moot at that time.

To use whether a citizen can decide to not pay taxes as an argument that a sovereign state cannot secede is ludicrous. It's banal even. One of those things is not like the other. A citizen cannot violate a law. A state's right to secede is inherent to the structure of our government. Check the constitution.

And then check the Declaration of Independence. This country's creation began with an act of secession. That right and power is inherent to our make-up.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

You are totally wrong. The states were completely successful in secession. They lost the war that the north forced into action.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Oh really? So you don't pay taxes? You have a choose in whether you want to contribute to the military? You have choice to participate in paying for roads? Parks? Don't be naive.

The reason that taxes are required is because we are property by contract to a democratic government, the USA inc.
We do not have access to a truly republican form of government.
This was denied to us because of the war between the states.

What you have been taught in school is a lie. Don't be naive.

In actuality, Income taxes are not congruent with the original wording of the Constitution.
Taxes that are direct must be apportioned.
Article I, section 9 states-

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

link to source

It took an Amendment to change this; however, the Supreme Court found in 1895 that income taxes are not constitutional because they are not apportioned to state population.
This is from the Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust decision.
link to source

Keep in mind that this was after the war between the states ended.
The war between the states changed everything, and it did so because Lincoln enacted maritime powers to take the South by military occupation.
This idea is honestly the only argument that you have.

You don't have a constitutional argument, as I have proven time and time again...
And will continue to do so.
You don't have historical documents to validate your perspective... because it is wrong and they don't exist.
The only real argument that you have is.... "hey we kicked their ass".
That's it.
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT

Anyway. Where were we?
Oh snap...
The first graduated income tax was levied by (wait for it)-

President Abraham Lincoln

This was known as the Revenue Act of 1861.
And it was used to fund the war between the states.
It was renewed in 1862 but expired in 1873 before the Supreme Court could take it up.

Yet another income tax was levied in 1894, however...
After the Pollock decision, it became obvious that a constitutional amendment was needed.

And regarding conscription...(that is drafted military service, in case you didn't know)

The first congressional act of forced conscription happened under (wait for it)-

President Abraham Lincoln
(I am beginning to notice a pattern. You?)

LIncoln signed the Enrollment Act of 1863 in order to supply fresh soldiers for the war.
In keeping with his reputation as a fair player, Lincoln made sure that the act had a clause that allowed for commutation of conscription for a 300$ payment.
He didn't want no rich kids dying!
Irish immigrants were being granted immediate citizenship as soon as they got off the boat in New York, which lead to the New York draft riots.
Did you ever see the movie Gangs of New York?
AH-HA!!

You see, prior to the war between the states, these two forced behaviors would have never happened.
And paying taxes was wholly voluntary.
If someone didn't like it, then they can move.
If a state didn't like it, like say, the confederate states, then they could secede.
All perfectly legal.

Those black slaves back in those days didn't have any rights what so ever, many were raped and abused at the hands of their slave holders (I'll say some black slave holders as to not "offend" Honor).

This argument is getting way old man.
I have shown you innumerable documents that completely contradict this statement.
In fact, if you were to check out the post that I made, then you would see that the history of slavery in the South is all lies.

It's all propaganda.

When you get backed into a corner, the only recourse that you have is to bust out this tired argument.

This is because you do not have any historical substance whatsoever to back you up.

You are brainwashed.
Big, fact, propaganda-voodoo-brainwashing-mojo-matrix/network going over time on your brain.
It's not working.
Your premise is weak and your support substandard.

You sit here today in these United States, have you failed to notice?? How could it be an inalienable right if the South could not secede? It doesn't matter how you intepret the documents prior to the civil war, the victor writes history, the victor writes the rules, the victor in the civil war was the North.

MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

That is all you got. That's it. Finis.

You got served dude. Just admit it and move on.

Originally posted by Valhall
This entire argument is circular and nonsensical. They DID secede.

Explain to me what the point of secession is if independence does not follow suit? While the South declared secession, they never sucessfully gained sovereignty.

And why are you continuing to bring the slavery issue into a discussion

Who are you to tell me that I can't mention slavery in this thread? If you don't want to discuss the ethics of slavery in this discussion, don't bring it up, simple. My initial response regarding slavery was as to the motive of southern secession, it initially had nothing to do with the ethics of it, until other members here decided to bring it up.

Maybe you should read the thread and my responses before actually posting.

To use whether a citizen can decide to not pay taxes as an argument that a sovereign state cannot secede is ludicrous.

Again you're not reading properly, my references to "taxes" were in response to another member who complained about the loss of the ability to "self governing". We were never "self governing" individuals once we entered a contract with the rest of society. That specific debate was with another member, not with you.

This country's creation began with an act of secession.

With that act of secession followed actual independence for the United States, independence successfully achieved by force against British forces. By your logic, any acts of secession inevitably leads to automatic independence, but history proves otherwise. Secession is meaningless without actual independence following suit.

The states were completely successful in secession.

No they weren't, the South lost the war at the hands of Union forces. Get back to reading your history books.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Explain to me what the point of secession is if independence does not follow suit? While the South declared secession, they never sucessfully gained sovereignty.

What are you daft? They succeeded at seceding, that's why the U.S. government decided to treat them as enemy states. Losing the war has nothing to do with the act of secession. That the U.S. government chose to react to that secession the way they did is beside the point. They acted as tyrannical power-mongerers who could not let a confederacy of states remain a separate confederacy. It does not mean the secession was unsuccessful. It means the confederacy was unsuccessful at defending itself from the occupation and invasion of the Union.

Who are you to tell me that I can't mention slavery in this thread? If you don't want to discuss the ethics of slavery in this discussion, don't bring it up, simple. My initial response regarding slavery was as to the motive of southern secession, it initially had nothing to do with the ethics of it, until other members here decided to bring it up.

Maybe you should read the thread and my responses before actually posting.

I have read it. YOU are the one that used slavery at a talking point when the discussion has turned to the right of secession. YOU inserted that point. Strawman at best, obfuscation as a middle charge against you, and downright underhanded dealings in a debate as the worst charge I can think of. Doesn't matter that several pages ago it was a hot topic. It's not really now...is it?

Again you're not reading properly, my references to "taxes" were in response to another member who complained about the loss of the ability to "self governing". We were never "self governing" individuals once we entered a contract with the rest of society. That specific debate was with another member, not with you.

No, it's with me now, as well. We ARE self-governing. The constitution garantees that the states will operate in a republican form of government. That means we are self-governing. Self-governing does not mean we can opt to be lawless and just ignore the laws of a union we stay part of. It does mean we can opt to no longer remain a part of a union that we feel is oppressing us. WE are the sovereign powers. That's us as individuals. That's what a republican form of government is.

With that act of secession followed actual independence for the United States, independence successfully achieved by force against British forces. By your logic, any acts of secession inevitably leads to automatic independence, but history proves otherwise. Secession is meaningless without actual independence following suit.

Nope, you are wrong. Secession is automatic independence. You are still confused between secession replete with the independence it inherently represents, and the retaining of that against a warring opposing government trying to prevent its retention.

No they weren't, the South lost the war at the hands of Union forces. Get back to reading your history books.

Why don't you start? You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about. And you just proved my point. You're talking about the war. Try reading a few real historical documents.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
The reason that taxes are required is because we are property by contract to a democratic government, the USA

Yes, many of us are born into that contract, none of us chose to enter that contract, we have little choice in opting out of that contract. None of us were ever "self governing" as you so insisted was lost with the civil war. The only time any of us are truly self governing is in an anarchist society, beyond that it's your own little definitions and intepretations of what self governance really is.

The war between the states changed everything, and it did so because Lincoln enacted maritime powers to take the South by military occupation.

Lincoln only assumed office in March of 1861, the first batch of Southern States seceeded in December of 1860. Lincoln wasn't in office to do anything to cause those states to declare secession, Lincoln's election win on the other hand did, it was the final spark, and various southern delegates and governors warned so prior to his election win.

The only real argument that you have is.... "hey we kicked their ass".
That's it.
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT

Invading the northern lands of Mexico was not necessarily the "right" thing to do, forcing the Hawaiian king to sign a contract of annexation was not the "right" thing to do. History is not a pretty thing, history has no need to be fair to anybody. Just because you think it was "unfair" for the north to retake the South does not mean that history in anyway has to cater to your sense of "fairness". The victor writes the rules, the North established the rules after the civil war regarding secession, this is something you and the others here have to understand and come to terms with. Had the South successfully won the war against the North, it would be a different story, but they didn't, and I'm sorry you take great offense to that, but that's life sir.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Explain to me what the point of secession is if independence does not follow suit? While the South declared secession, they never sucessfully gained sovereignty.

I have explained to you ad naseum that the states were sovereign prior to the Organic Act of 1871.
The act of secession creates independence.

She is right.

You are wrong.

Who are you to tell me that I can't mention slavery in this thread?

You can't mention slavery in this thread.
I am Kyvie.

We were never "self governing" individuals once we entered a contract with the rest of society.

And what pray tell exactly is the contract that we entered into that relieved us of our ability to self-govern?
I am really interested to see you answer this question.

With that act of secession followed actual independence for the United States, independence successfully achieved by force against British forces. By your logic, any acts of secession inevitably leads to automatic independence, but history proves otherwise. Secession is meaningless without actual independence following suit.

The Declaration of Independence, which is a declaration of secession, was actually the document declaring our sovereign independence, believe it or not.
I would bet green money that this is the reason why the founding fathers named it...
The Declaration of Independence.

What exactly is so confusing about this for you?

No they weren't, the South lost the war at the hands of Union forces. Get back to reading your history books.

I have to hand it to you, that statement was utterly devoid of any and all wit.
Your books are all lies.
This has been proven to you time and time again, yet you still hold onto these myths.
Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance-

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.

link to source

I'm going to leave you with this belief of yours that the South successfully seceeded the Union.

reply to post by Valhall

YOU are the one that used slavery at a talking point when the discussion

My use of slavery was in response to a other member who claimed that South did not secede because of slavery. My first post was not a debate about the ethics of slavery. Nevertheless, if I want to debate the ethics of slavery, this is my choice. Nobody is forcing you to participate in such a debate, so why don't you stop thrusting yourself into one eh?

We ARE self-governing.

No you are not, you have rues and laws to abide by. The only time you are ever truly self-governing is with government out of the equation. Beyond that we only have our personal views on that specific definition.

Secession is automatic independence.

No it's not, if it was history would be rather different. True secession from any state requires the achievement of independence, independence is more than often not granted automatically by virtue of some magical heavenly "right". The South declared secession, and yet were to able to successfully acheive it through the force of the Union, the South lost the war. It is a fact today, in these United States, that the South is merely described as a region of States in this nation, it is not a sovereign and independent nation. It never became one because of the civil war. If secession was "automatic independence" as you describe, the South would have won the war. This isn't too hard to understand.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Yes, many of us are born into that contract, none of us chose to enter that contract, we have little choice in opting out of that contract.

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!!!
Finally, I think that you are beginning to understand.

None of us were ever "self governing" as you so insisted was lost with the civil war. The only time any of us are truly self governing is in an anarchist society, beyond that it's your own little definitions and intepretations of what self governance really is.

Man.... CarpetBaggerGuardian- You let me down, son.

Here I was beginning to think that you were actually catching on to the truth and you gotta say this.
You see, the reason that you have no idea what it is like to self-govern is because you have lived in bondage all your life and you simply can't fathom the idea that our founding fathers laid out for us.

This is why you cannot grasp what I am saying.
What happened is a process called "dumbing down".
This is why our public school system is results based.
Instead of learning ideas and how to apply them, Americans have been taught an outcome based education.
Memorize and repeat like a monkey.
That is the point mate.
They want to make Americans stupid so that it is impossible to understand exactly how bad we got screwed.

the North established the rules after the civil war regarding secession, this is something you and the others here have to understand and come to terms with.

And the South seceded before the war, so the rules did not apply.

It's kind of fun watching you learn.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
And what pray tell exactly is the contract that we entered into that relieved us of our ability to self-govern?
I am really interested to see you answer this question.

Government, civilization, that invisible contract that you and I were born into. I was not born into anarchy, I may have the ability to govern my actions, but I do not have the ability to completely do so without government in the way. I can't make the decision to "opt out" of paying taxes, it is a requirement. I can't opt out of contributing to the police, to my roads, it's a requirement, it is a mandate. I can't make up all these choices through "self-governance". You were never a self governing individual right before and after the civil war, maybe that definition would flow well millenia ago, but not in the last few centuries. We are mandated to do various things, this is the price we pay to live in society, and frankly it is a necessary part of society.

You want to experience true self-governance? Go live in Somalia, it is a very good example of one.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
And the South seceded before the war,

The South never seceded, it only declared secession. It lost the war over it's ability or "right" to become a sovereign and independent nation.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
And the South seceded before the war,

The South never seceded, it only declared secession. It lost the war over it's ability or "right" to become a sovereign and independent nation.

Do you have some kind of vested interest in continually being proven wrong, because maybe I am trippin', but I would swear that we have already been over this issue.

Do you remember when Valhall told you that your arguments are circular?

Clue: This is exactly what she was talking about.

Are you trying to tell me that because the War of Northern Aggression ended with the South under military occupation that the North had the ability to revise history to meet their political needs?

You have yet to address Federalist Paper no. 39, which states explicitly that the States are free, independent and sovereign and enter into a binding federation voluntarily.
Let me post that again for you.

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.

This paper states that the people are the ultimate source of authority.
If they can give it then they can take it away, i.e. secede.

link to source

Here you go.

Prove this wrong.

I am waiting to respond to your previous comment until you can rationalize your stance on this issue in light of the previous post regarding the Federalist Paper no. 39.

I am patiently waiting.

The colonies declared their Independence. They were independent at that point. The crown decided to fight to revoke that declaration. They lost and the declaration remained. The southern states seceded. They were seceded and independent at that point. The north decided to demand occupation and an attempt to revoke that secession. The secession did not remain after the desolation of the south. The Union absorbed the defeated confederacy of seceded sovereign states back into the Union.

It took 2/3'ds of a million people dying to absorb them back in.

They referred to them as acting "against the United States" from before the first shot at Fort Sumter until long after the end of the Civil War. You don't say "you are being viewed as acting against the United States" if you are part of the United States. You say, "you are being viewed as acting against your government" when you are still part of that government.

Even the official communications from Washington acknowledged they were a separate entity and declared them enemies.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Invading the northern lands of Mexico was not necessarily the "right" thing to do, forcing the Hawaiian king to sign a contract of annexation was not the "right" thing to do. History is not a pretty thing, history has no need to be fair to anybody.

"History," is an abstraction. "History," is not a thinking, feeling human being, who (one hopes, at least) is supposed to be possessed of a conscience, and know better.

During said history, decisions were made, by human beings who were responsible for their actions. As a result, attributing the responsibility for potentially immoral acts to history itself, is not a rationally legitimate argument.

Also, Southern Guardian...

Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.

-- 1:12, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

This has, at times, been the rhetorical position of a number of people, throughout history. If it is your position also, then I will accept it without judgement. I would, however, appreciate it if you would honestly admit it; rather than making implicit statements to that effect, and then ducking and weaving when confronted with their logical conclusion.

Originally posted by Valhall
The colonies declared their Independence. They were independent at that point. The crown decided to fight to revoke that declaration.

The colonies declared their indepedence, this is true, and they fought for that indepedence and successfully won it against British forces. Had the patriots of that time failed in their efforts against British forces, history would have shown differently, and American independence would have been delayed, possibly right into the 19th century. Tibet, the province of China, may consider itself at heart "independent", was it is part of China, we both know it is not a sovereign and independent State. Chechnya, Catalan, all had at one point attempted secession, called upon independence, but we both know that they are neither independent nor sovereign.

There is a difference between declaring secession and independence, and actually achieving it. The latter is what actually counts. Any Federalized State, province or county can declare secession and independence, very few are able to actually achieve it. The argument that secession grants automatic independence is outside of reality.

Even the official communications from Washington acknowledged they were a separate entity and declared them enemies.

The Union never officially recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign and independent state, they rather viewed them as a rogue set of states within the Union. The Confederacy actually failed to gain any real recognition, Britain refused to officially acknowledge the Confederacy (there were clues that London was leaning to some kind of recognition, but no official form of recognition was ever released), France made no such recognition. Mexican reluctance to recognize the Confederacy was fairly obvious, the South had strongly supported and gained from the invasion of her northern lands in the 1840's. I'm not personally aware of any state that formally recognized the Confederacy, there were European military observers sent during the civil war but no official recognition.