This is what emboldened white supremacists look like

[Town Heretic]

Mere opinion, with no evidence

I assumed you had at least passing familiarity with the history. lain:

Let's peel away your attempt this way. I wrote:

Claim #1. What that would leave would be a lesser version of the United States

Inarguably true given the loss of resources and agricultural productivity of the South to say nothing of the military loss of men and trained leaders.

Claim #2: weakened by treachery

As set out in my last note on both the S. Ct holding relating to the charge and the legal definition.

Claim # 3: and the South would be established as a confederation of slaver nations

Inarguably true as every state that attempted to leave the Union was a slave state and left over that issue.

Claim #4: vying for territory against its interests, at the very least.

The point of their leaving was the understood restriction a number of the states noted in their declarations. As I commented earlier, the writing was on the wall.

Claim #5: An ideological enemy of the U.S. established from it.

Arguable, but if the north continued to build toward emancipation (and there's every reason to believe it would have) then it would the ideological enemy of our nation.

Says the revisionist..

No, that's your camp and the ridiculous movement to lose sight of why states tried to use their idea of states rights to withdraw. You're a blind man trying to lead the sighted into a blurred version of the truth and shame on you for it.

 

[ok doser]

All the Confederate statues should be melted down and recast into statues of Lincoln, Grant and Sherman and then put back up in the same locations.

Forth Option: Harriet Tubman.
Those are your choices.

snoop dogg

 

[drbrumley]

Let me ask you this Town....

In your view, why was southern seccession unjustified?

 

[drbrumley]

I assumed you had at least passing familiarity with the history. lain:

Let's peel away your attempt this way. I wrote:

Claim #1. What that would leave would be a lesser version of the United States

Inarguably true given the loss of resources and agricultural productivity of the South to say nothing of the military loss of men and trained leaders.

But that is not what you said to Lon...You said the United States won the right to exist (nothing about pre war United States) if the North lost. That's an untrue statement, I called you on it and now you give a caveat.

Never understood why the term civil war was used to begin with. They were not fighting for the rights to Washington.

 

[kmoney]

Oh go grow some sprouts...

lain:

I do. I have bunches! :banana:

 

[Town Heretic]

But that is not what you said to Lon...

It was, in fact, literally what I said to Lon and precisely what you commented on, divided into parts and with an examination of those parts that were contrary to your assertion that it was "Mere opinion with no evidence." lain:

This is what you posted before that declaration:

Originally Posted by Town Heretic What that would leave would be a lesser version of the United States, weakened by treachery, and the South would be established as a confederation of slaver nations vying for territory against its interests, at the very least. An ideological enemy of the U.S. established from it.

All I did was to take the above point for point and show why your declaration lacked merit.

You said the United States won the right to exist (nothing about pre war United States) if the North lost. That's an untrue statement, I called you on it and now you give a caveat.

You posted that quote and made that claim. Now you're trying to back out of it with some larger thing you aren't actually quoting.

So... lain:

Never understood why the term civil war was used to begin with.

Because it is by definition a war between peoples within a country.

They were not fighting for the rights to Washington.

They didn't have to be.

 

[drbrumley]

Ok, so why was southern secession unjustified?

 

[Ktoyou]

Ok, so why was southern secession unjustified?

It was a justified fight over cotton. The South had a better deal selling to England, while it was in the interest of the North.

 

[drbrumley]

It was a justified fight over cotton. The South had a better deal selling to England, while it was in the interest of the North.

Town may disagree...I don't know being he hasn't answered the question yet, since he feels the confederacy was wrong to secede.

 

[Ktoyou]

From reading Town, it seems he is of a different culture, as culture is three generations deep and these generation do not always overlap.

My grandfather remembered those who fought in the war and were family heroes, yet they never considered slavery. It would have been the generation before me which wanted slavery, before my grandfather, yet in his generation, such being his grandfather.

My grandfather's time was one which believed in black inferiority, yet my mother was more perplexed by it and my father avoided it. I grew up believing whites were mentally superior as some IQ tests confirmed, however, I take this less as certain today, while my children do not think so and my grandchildren never believed it.

 

[Town Heretic]

Ok, so why was southern secession unjustified?

I understand the argument that states both entered and should have been entitled to exit voluntarily. Certainly Jefferson and a number of the founders would have agreed. What the South leaving the Union accomplished was as I set out in definition and S. Ct. holding.

Additionally, see Texas v. White 74 US 700. In that landmark case the Court held the agreement between states as far back as the Articles of Confederation was meant to be perpetual.

Among those who've addressed the issue since, Antonin Scalia, who in a 2006 letter responding on the point wrote, "I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."

It's a dead issue. And while it would have served the interests of the South to have been allowed it, Lincoln and the remaining states were contrary to the notion. I can't help but find a dark sort of amusement in the fact that the same corners that demanded unanimity to begin our experiment were among the first to attempt to throw off that notion when it suited them and the service to the evil engine of their financial empire.

Hoisted on their own petard, after a fashion.

 

[Ktoyou]

Town may disagree...I don't know being he hasn't answered the question yet, since he feels the confederacy was wrong to secede.

He lives in Alabama yet I do not know if he is rooted in the South, or if so, perhaps his grandfather believed more like my kids ??

 

[drbrumley]

I understand the argument that states both entered and should have been entitled to exit voluntarily. Certainly Jefferson and a number of the founders would have agreed. What the South leaving the Union accomplished was as I set out in definition and S. Ct. holding.

Additionally, see Texas v. White 74 US 700. In that landmark case the Court held the agreement between states as far back as the Articles of Confederation was meant to be perpetual.

Among those who've addressed the issue since, Antonin Scalia, who in a 2006 letter responding on the point wrote, "I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."

It's a dead issue. And while it would have served the interests of the South to have been allowed it, Lincoln and the remaining states were contrary to the notion. I can't help but find a dark sort of amusement in the fact that the same corners that demanded unanimity to begin our experiment were among the first to attempt to throw off that notion when it suited them and the service to the evil engine of their financial empire.

Hoisted on their own petard, after a fashion.

Thanks for the answer..

For further clarification

What the South leaving the Union accomplished was as I set out in definition and S. Ct. holding.

Where did you set out in definition? Link, Citation would be helpful.

 

[fool]

snoop dogg

Sure, why not.

 

[drbrumley]

I understand the argument that states both entered and should have been entitled to exit voluntarily.

I understand you understand...but where do you fall in relation to secession? White vs Texas means nothing to me....I know what it says, they are wrong....I might add they were under tremendous pressure to make that exact ruling, otherwise they throw Lincoln's reasons under the bus.

What are YOUR feelings toward it, law or no law?

 

[fool]

So, just to re-cap we're going to melt down all the Confederate Battle Statues and replace them with one of five choices:
1 Abraham lincoln
2 Ulysses S Grant
3 William Tecumseh Sherman
4 Harriet Tubman
5 Snoop Dogg

What's your pick?

 

[drbrumley]

So, just to re-cap we're going to melt down all the Confederate Battle Statues and replace them with one of five choices:
1 Abraham lincoln
2 Ulysses S Grant
3 William Tecumseh Sherman
4 Harriet Tubman
5 Snoop Dogg

What's your pick?

Whosoever your least OFFENDED by

 

[Tambora]

So, just to re-cap we're going to melt down all the Confederate Battle Statues and replace them with one of five choices:
1 Abraham lincoln
2 Ulysses S Grant
3 William Tecumseh Sherman
4 Harriet Tubman
5 Snoop Dogg

What's your pick?

The one worthy enough to stand on sacred ground that Lee stood upon would be #3.

That there is a fella you want on your team.

 

[Town Heretic]

I understand you understand...but where do you fall in relation to secession?

Did the South have the right? I think it was at the very least arguable. Jefferson would have said yes, but then Jefferson's America lacked the connections of nearly a hundred years of struggle. In Lincoln's time I think it was far less clear. Or, technically and considering a lot of what the founders had to say I think it's more likely than not that they'd have reluctantly agreed with the South's right to withdraw.

But as with you and Texas v. White, who cares? What I mean is that dead founding fathers don't get to control the issue. Lincoln and 23 states said no, there's no such right. The Court agreed. If the founders had wanted to they could have set out unambiguous language on the point in the very Constitution they cobbled. The country had an issue, slavery. Upon that issue it was split. The South tried to play lawyer to preserve their economic power and political clout and the greater part of the Union answered.

I'm okay with that given the stakes and the point. I hope (without revolution) at some point in the future the American people feel as strongly opposed to abortion.

White vs Texas means nothing to me.

Okay. The intent of the founders on the point means nothing to me...or to Lincoln and the prevailing side. Might may have thwarted technical right in the moment. It's arguable. But it served an inarguable good and avoided prolonging a stench in the nostrils of any man of conscience, which sadly found little purchase in my South.

...I know what it says, they are wrong.

Okay.

What are YOUR feelings toward it, law or no law?

I hope that helped clarify our differences more succinctly.

 

[Town Heretic]

The one worthy enough to stand on sacred ground that Lee stood upon would be #3.

That there is a fella you want on your team.

Sherman? You may have moved to Texas ma'am, but there's no way you're from the South. Sherman. Cover the ears of your children at what would have proceeded from the mouth of any Southerner asked about that one. In my South he has long been considered a war criminal and is detested. Of course, he didn't set Texas to the match and Texicans are notorious for not seeing past their own grievance, so...

Why is Sherman so reviled and charged?

He ordered the shelling of citizens in Atlanta. Said Sherman, “No consideration must be paid to the fact they are occupied by families, but the place must be cannonaded.”

From Discerning History:

​

​

What distinguished Sherman from most other armies was the intentionality of his destruction. His actual orders were not far from the ordinary, but in his correspondence made his intentions clear. Although other armies wrought similar kinds of destruction, Sherman was different. He launched a campaign for the sole purpose of making war on civilians and turning them against the war. Where other generals tried to constrained the depredations of their men, Sherman encouraged them.​

The only thing I ever heard my grandfather say about him, when his name came up in a conversation. "Damn him and all of his kind and kin."