War Between the States about slavery? No way

The Tampa Tribune ^ | April 25, 2011 | Al Mccray

[phi11yguy19]

See post 945.

Rebellion (here or here) is a term used for citizens (or groups of citizens) who take up arms against their respective government. It has no applicability to the actions of political entities (republican States seceding from a federation). [ahem!]

Lincoln used the term because he needed the "legal" justification to invoke his military powers upon States...I mean "groups of citizens", of course. Thus he referred to the "rebellions within the states" of SC, FL, et al. even though there was nothing "within" about it - the States merely exercised their political right to leave the voided contract.

[driftless2]

Take a poll sometime and see how many of the people you know think they’re citizens of the state of Pennsylvania or The United States of America. I guess the people who think they’re citizens of the U.S.A. are all craven bootlickers, huh?

[phi11yguy19]

i'd hope they all say "both", but i'm sure many ignoramuses like yourself don't have a clue...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Prior to the 14th, state citizenship was primary, and U.S. citizenship was the derivative. That truth drove the 14th amendment which flipped that, making U.S. citizenship the primary and state citizenship the derivative - to prevent states from impeding black citizenship by restricting state citizenship.

Either way, the answer to your poll for the constitutionally literate should always be "all of the above." So what was your point again, genius?

[driftless2]

"derivative"

Yeah, I guess that's why all the northern volunteers signed up for the federal army after Lincoln asked for volunteers. They wanted to defend states rights, I guess.

[phi11yguy19]

"derivative"
Yeah, I guess...(some rambling nonsense)

Only those who lack information need to guess...

Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855):
By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage - arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy - has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states.

Shall we take a poll to see who's the big tool in the room?

Keep on guessing at your "history". One day you'll have a fantastic tale to tell your grandkids.

[driftless2]

Have fun on planet Nutzo.

[newguy357]

@newguy - thanks for joining the discussion and immediately bringing your level-headed opinion, (forgetting “@$$h0les” of course)

Hi phillyguy--my chief objection is not with the historical debate regarding the nature of the civil war, as interesting as it is. Rather, there is someone posting on this thread who specifically stated that he would fight for his state to secede--today--even if that state were seceding so that it could hold slaves. That is utter madness. I realize that the civil war period is incredibly complicated and that it has been grossly oversimplified far too often. But to not see the superiority of individual rights to every form of corporate rights (including "states' rights") in today's context is shameful. With the way the country is headed I am greatly encouraged when certain states (TX) talk of secession. My problem is with little adolphs running around still dreaming of some fictional glory days of states-as-sovereign-nations who would be perfectly alright putting chains around the necks of their fellow men if that meant the sovereignty of their states.

[phi11yguy19]

But to not see the superiority of individual rights to every form of corporate rights (including "states' rights") in today's context is shameful.

I'd say anyone who justifies rape, pillage and murder of 600,000+ in the name of "morality" is "shameful". No one is arguing for slavery, and your conflation of what people are saying with what you assume they're saying is the only thing "fictional" about this discussion. (Well, that and "putting chains around the necks of the fellow men" - as that was much more a visage of the northern slave capture, shipment and trade than slavery as it ever existed in the south - and telling southerners they "sold other human beings" - when that too was particularly an area of the north's expertise).

Most here are simply arguing the essential principle of federated republics echoed through our founders - that the central behemoth, the states and the people all must live under the strict rule of law, for better or worse, because the rule of man is ultimately always worse.. You don't do the discussion any justice by conflating the timeless principles of separated powers and self-determination with the institution of slavery (that was a national and global problem at that time).

If states want to secede from the union because some states want to control the others, they retain the right to do so as their union of "mutual benefit" has been voided. Let those who take the moral high ground let the world to see, while those who do not accept the moral, political and economic scorn of the world while their evils die a slow, natural death. (Hint, the principles hold, and no one dies that way.) But any perceived moral authority flies right out the window when you start an unnecessary war.

Instead, once we permitted centralization, it grew by it's nature, and sovereignty shrunk. Though you could shout from the rooftops if you lived in state X that state Y was evil, while handling things a better way, now we're just an alphabet soup and we're all under the behemoth's thumb. The same principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" you claim were violated by some states (though arguably all) with slavery, now we all violate them together tenfold with no escape hatch. Compare the 4 million slaves built up over centuries with the "convenience" slaughtering of 50 million+ infants in mere decades since Row v Wade.

There is no manumission from slavery under tyranny. I'd say be careful what you wish for, and try really hard to grasp the principles of the discussion before you burst out with emotion again.

[Who is John Galt?]

pg19: Prior to the 14th, state citizenship was primary, and U.S. citizenship was the derivative.

d2: Yeah, I guess that's why all the northern volunteers signed up for the federal army after Lincoln asked for volunteers. They wanted to defend states rights, I guess.

Actually, the vast majority of "northern volunteers signed up" for service with State units (the 2nd, 6th & 7th Wisconsin, for example, in the 'Iron Brigade'). They were, in effect, State militia units. The actual "federal army" remained relatively small throughout the hostilities.

Thanks for bringing up the point!

;>)

[driftless2]

And thank you once again for avoiding my question.

[Who is John Galt?]

And thank you once again for avoiding my question.

Actually, there was nothing to 'avoid.' The post to which I responded (#954) did not contain a question. But thank you for the expression of gratitude, in any case...

;>)

[newguy357]

I'd say anyone who justifies rape, pillage and murder of 600,000+ in the name of "morality" is "shameful". No one is arguing for slavery, and your conflation of what people are saying with what you assume they're saying is the only thing "fictional" about this discussion. (Well, that and "putting chains around the necks of the fellow men" - as that was much more a visage of the northern slave capture, shipment and trade than slavery as it ever existed in the south - and telling southerners they "sold other human beings" - when that too was particularly an area of the north's expertise).

Most here are simply arguing the essential principle of federated republics echoed through our founders - that the central behemoth, the states and the people all must live under the strict rule of law, for better or worse, because the rule of man is ultimately always worse.. You don't do the discussion any justice by conflating the timeless principles of separated powers and self-determination with the institution of slavery (that was a national and global problem at that time).

If states want to secede from the union because some states want to control the others, they retain the right to do so as their union of "mutual benefit" has been voided. Let those who take the moral high ground let the world to see, while those who do not accept the moral, political and economic scorn of the world while their evils die a slow, natural death. (Hint, the principles hold, and no one dies that way.) But any perceived moral authority flies right out the window when you start an unnecessary war.

Instead, once we permitted centralization, it grew by it's nature, and sovereignty shrunk. Though you could shout from the rooftops if you lived in state X that state Y was evil, while handling things a better way, now we're just an alphabet soup and we're all under the behemoth's thumb. The same principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" you claim were violated by some states (though arguably all) with slavery, now we all violate them together tenfold with no escape hatch. Compare the 4 million slaves built up over centuries with the "convenience" slaughtering of 50 million+ infants in mere decades since Row v Wade.

There is no manumission from slavery under tyranny. I'd say be careful what you wish for, and try really hard to grasp the principles of the discussion before you burst out with emotion again.

You're an idiot, Mr. "Row v wade". And your basis for morality is antithetical to our republic.

[phi11yguy19]

Wait, what just happened? Did you really just stew on a post for nearly two weeks only to come up with a couple attempts at insults? Let's see what you came up with after all that work:

You're an idiot, Mr. "Row v wade".

It's Roe v. Wade, genius. And calling someone "Mr. X" means they champion X, not the opposite...as in "Way to go, Mr. Shmuck".

And your basis for morality is antithetical to our republic.

Fascinating. For a "basis of morality" to be antithetical to something, that something would have to express a competing basis of morality, no? Instead you chose "our republic" (i.e. a form of government).

Not sure how/why you chose to equate those two, but (playing along) what exactly is the "basis of morality" of our republic? Is it just our republic, or all republics (like the People's Republic of China) that "my" basis of morality is antithetical to? Here I thought you were mixing apples and oranges with that sentence, but please elaborate, Mr. Philosophy. That post was deep.