American civil war question

[Emily Lake]

They committed treason, plain and simple.

So did George Washington and Donald Trump.

It's the American way.
Tom

My point is, Emily wants to pretend for whatever ulterior reason that they didn't break their oaths to the constitution, that they were not prohibited legally from doing what they did, and particularly in the way they did it.

They did break their oaths to uphold the constitution. This is unequivocally the truth.

What element of the constitution did they violate?

 

[Emily Lake]

And they did it so that they could hold people as slaves.

Nope, I don't think so. Unionists pretended that the War of Northern Aggression was about rescuing black people, just like Christianists pretended that the Invasion of Iraq was about rescuing Iraqis from Muslim tyranny.
Nope, I don't think so.
Tom

Ehhh... well, yeah, the south did secede in large part so that they could continue holding slaves. Not because they had some deep seated desire to be evil assholes, but because they didn't want to be turned into a destitute poverty-stricken hellhole overnight.

 

[Emily Lake]

It doesn't matter. Their oath was to uphold it. It doesn't matter whether the contract specifically says "breaking the contract is a breach of contract" inside it. That part is tautological. They swore to uphold the constitution, and it is the oath they took, and the breaking of it, that put them on the wrong side of the parts in the constitution that explicitly states what a traitor is.

Secession didn't violate any part of the constitution.

Look - when a person joins the military, they take an oath to uphold the constitution too. By your logic, when they exit the military, they are traitors, because by ending the relationship that required the oath, they are breaking their oath.

 

[Emily Lake]

"It doesn't matter" is the main point of your argument.

According to British law of the day, Ben Franklin was a traitor. But you don't care about law, unless it suits you. If it does suit you, you consider law the ultimate moral code.


We didn't just meet.

BLM supporters regularly break the law.
Tom

No, I don't consider the law an ethical authority in any way. But some of y'all pretend to, so I'm going to show both the argument from law that is being leaned on by Emily, and the argument from ethics that you fall back on, which still fails, because it still hinges on the acceptability of holding humans as slaves in the face of ethical considerations such as "love thy neighbor".

That's bull shit.
You keep insisting that the Secession was about slavery, when it wasn't.

Get over your modern self. Lots more was going on in 19th century America than what you prefer to know about and understand.
Tom

It was about slavery. It just wasn't ONLY about slavery.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

They attacked a Federal Fort - US of America Property. Just because you want to take your ball and go home doesn't mean you get to take ALL the balls on the playground by force.

aa

 

[Emily Lake]

The above are only quotes from the article linked, which contains original documents--what the states who succeeded had to say for themselves.

Cessation was about slavery.

Secession. Not Succession, nor Cessation. Secession.

Secede. Seceded. Secession.

/grammarian

 

[zorq]

That's bull shit.
You keep insisting that the Secession was about slavery, when it wasn't.

Get over your modern self. Lots more was going on in 19th century America than what you prefer to know about and understand.
Tom

It was about slavery. It just wasn't ONLY about slavery.

I suspect that if you closely examine those "other reasons " for secession you'll find that they all tend to circle back toward slavery too. Go ahead and name some of those "other reasons" so we can see.

 

[Emily Lake]

They attacked a Federal Fort - US of America Property. Just because you want to take your ball and go home doesn't mean you get to take ALL the balls on the playground by force.

aa

Imagine a scenario.

A: Look, we clearly aren't getting along, and this disagreement is unsolveable. So I'm drawing a line down the middle of the room. You stay on your side, I'll stay on my side. Also, btw, this box is full of your balls, please take them to your side of the room.

B: *Starts rolling more balls over the line and shooting them into the box*

A: Dude, seriously, take your balls and go the fuck back to your side of the room.

B: *rolls a few more balls onto the other side of the room* I don't recognize your right to have a side of the room.

A: *Punctures some balls with a sharp object*

B: You aggressor! You've started a war now!

 

[Toni]

That's bull shit.
You keep insisting that the Secession was about slavery, when it wasn't.

Get over your modern self. Lots more was going on in 19th century America than what you prefer to know about and understand.
Tom

It was about slavery. It just wasn't ONLY about slavery.

Sure it was. Other arguments are simply masterbatory.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

They attacked a Federal Fort - US of America Property. Just because you want to take your ball and go home doesn't mean you get to take ALL the balls on the playground by force.

aa

Imagine a scenario.

A: Look, we clearly aren't getting along, and this disagreement is unsolveable. So I'm drawing a line down the middle of the room. You stay on your side, I'll stay on my side. Also, btw, this box is full of your balls, please take them to your side of the room.

B: *Starts rolling more balls over the line and shooting them into the box*

A: Dude, seriously, take your balls and go the fuck back to your side of the room.

B: *rolls a few more balls onto the other side of the room* I don't recognize your right to have a side of the room.

A: *Punctures some balls with a sharp object*

B: You aggressor! You've started a war now!

I imagine that would be annoying, but that is no parallel to how the civil war started. Could Texit or South Carolexit happened peacefully? I doubt it. But the point is the South didn't even try. They had plenty of land, forts, military, but no they wanted the federal forts too. And for all that they had and for all that they could have been, they sucked at it. They were only good enough to brutalize and enslave a people to create their prosperity. And did they ever abandon this untenable position? Not really, not for over 100 years after the fact. I don't claim the north was 100% altruistic in motive, but truthfully what position are you defending?

aa

 

[Gospel]

Yall are so cute with this. I agree there was nothing in the constitution at the time that disallowed secession but there wasn't anything in the constitution that allowed secession either. so that leaves us with what was in the constitution at the time. Right?

Think about it.

I'm pretty sure that leaves us at...

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution did not prohibit the right to secede, therefore the States had the right to secede.

Even more adorable.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”


What powers were granted to the united states during this alleged succession? Oh, let me guess, was levying war against the United States one of them.

Barney style:

Emily The Devil's Advocate: The North started it!

Gospel: So fucking what, you gathered an Army to fight and you fought. Kick rocks!

 

[Toni]

The above are only quotes from the article linked, which contains original documents--what the states who succeeded had to say for themselves.

Cessation was about slavery.

Secession. Not Succession, nor Cessation. Secession.

Secede. Seceded. Secession.

/grammarian

Right. Stupid autocorrect on stupid smart phone while making dinner.

Now, learn some history from some original sources.

The south wanted to keep its slaves and was offended that the north got all uppity about thinking that maybe slavery wasn't such a great idea and even allowed abolitionists to hold meetings. That hurt the south's little fee fees and they decided to take their slaves and go home where they could play by their own rules and keep slaves.

Look, for the most part, the rest of the world was against the South because the rest of the world also thought slavery was wrong.

 

[Bomb#20]

What element of the constitution did they violate?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." - Article VI, Clause 2

Acts of Secession are state laws.

 

[Bomb#20]

And they did it so that they could hold people as slaves.

Nope, I don't think so. Unionists pretended that the War of Northern Aggression was about rescuing black people, just like Christianists pretended that the Invasion of Iraq was about rescuing Iraqis from Muslim tyranny.
Nope, I don't think so.
Tom

But Jarhyn didn't say the North did it to rescue black people; he said the South did it so that they could hold people as slaves. Those aren't the same thing. It's perfectly possible for the South to have seceded over slavery and for the North to have stopped them for some completely different reason; more than possible, it's a near certainty.

 

[Bomb#20]

They attacked a Federal Fort - US of America Property. Just because you want to take your ball and go home doesn't mean you get to take ALL the balls on the playground by force.

aa

Imagine a scenario.

A: Look, we clearly aren't getting along, and this disagreement is unsolveable. So I'm drawing a line down the middle of the room. You stay on your side, I'll stay on my side. Also, btw, this box is full of your balls, please take them to your side of the room.
...

More like also, btw, this box is full of your balls, but they're on my side of the line I drew so they're my balls now. Fort Sumter had been South Carolina's property, but in 1836 South Carolina voluntarily gave Fort Sumter to the federal government so the federal government would have to pay for its upkeep. Not clear how the federal government was supposed to take a fortress to the other side of the room.

 

[SLD]

The war was not over slavery. The war was over Union vs disunion.

The south seceded because of slavery. But the military action that followed was about preserving the Union. Freeing the slaves was a consequence of the war, but not the goal of US forces.

 

[Gospel]

The war was not over slavery. The war was over Union vs disunion.

The south seceded because of slavery. But the military action that followed was about preserving the Union. Freeing the slaves was a consequence of the war, but not the goal of US forces.

hahahahhahaha. It wasn't about Slavery! (same person) It started because of slavery! hahahahaha

 

[Gospel]

They attacked a Federal Fort - US of America Property. Just because you want to take your ball and go home doesn't mean you get to take ALL the balls on the playground by force.

aa

Imagine a scenario.

A: Look, we clearly aren't getting along, and this disagreement is unsolveable. So I'm drawing a line down the middle of the room. You stay on your side, I'll stay on my side. Also, btw, this box is full of your balls, please take them to your side of the room.
...

More like also, btw, this box is full of your balls, but they're on my side of the line I drew so they're my balls now. Fort Sumter had been South Carolina's property, but in 1836 South Carolina voluntarily gave Fort Sumter to the federal government so the federal government would have to pay for its upkeep. Not clear how the federal government was supposed to take a fortress to the other side of the room.

Not to mention that the line in the ground itself was an act of war. what big dummies they were. It's almost as if they didn't read the constitution or something. Did they really not see what was coming?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The war was not over slavery. The war was over Union vs disunion.

The south seceded because of slavery. But the military action that followed was about preserving the Union. Freeing the slaves was a consequence of the war, but not the goal of US forces.

Yes. I learned the same in school also. But I always wondered why this fine point was so important? The South had slaves; the North didn't. The south wanted the North to enforce their state laws by returning escaped slaves. The North refused to do this in their states. The country expanded. The North wanted the new states to be slave free. The South did not. The south attacked. But yet the war was about states rights? There are many many differences between the states: abortion rights; drugs; min wage; consent age; drinking age; gay rights; right to die, and etc. And yet only one issue ever caused a civil war, and that was slavery. Why is it so important to emphasize that the side against slavery wasn't fighting to end slavery?

 

[Gospel]

And they did it so that they could hold people as slaves.

Nope, I don't think so. Unionists pretended that the War of Northern Aggression was about rescuing black people, just like Christianists pretended that the Invasion of Iraq was about rescuing Iraqis from Muslim tyranny.
Nope, I don't think so.
Tom

But Jarhyn didn't say the North did it to rescue black people; he said the South did it so that they could hold people as slaves. Those aren't the same thing. It's perfectly possible for the South to have seceded over slavery and for the North to have stopped them for some completely different reason; more than possible, it's a near certainty.

We don't mind you having slaves and are willing to take what we said back but hundreds of thousands of us have to die over this threat to Secede over the slaves we don't mind you keeping. Yup, fits right in with the rest of European history.