- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: An editor for Military Times found it humorous to desecrate AP Hill's grave yesterday
Posted on 12/15/22 at 2:54 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
Posted on 12/15/22 at 2:54 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
That may be the net effect, but Auburn was arguing that the question of secession was addressed DIRECTLY and SPECIFICALLY during the Constitutional Convention.
I do not think that THESE minutes support that contention. Maybe they addressed elsewhere, but I've not been unable to find it.
Hence my request that he show me the evidence in support of his assertion.
I do not think that THESE minutes support that contention. Maybe they addressed elsewhere, but I've not been unable to find it.
Hence my request that he show me the evidence in support of his assertion.
This post was edited on 12/15/22 at 2:56 pm
1
Posted on 12/15/22 at 3:11 pm to AggieHank86
It's possible the poster to whom you were responding was thinking of what many of us call a "conspicuous" absence or omission.
In the Articles of Confederation, under which the colonies/states operated during the War for American Independence, the idea of a perpetual union was expressed and included in the verbiage.
Years later, when the states were considering the Constitution for the federal government, many portions of the Articles of Confederation were included. It was a good plan overall that needed a bit of tweaking, so it provided a good base for creating the Constitution.
One item from the Articles of Confederation that was not carried over to the Constitution was the idea of a perpetual union. Because it was in one but not included in the other, many consider it to be a "conspicuous" absence and thus one that was very much considered undesirable.
I think that should the idea of a perpetual union ever be ratified as part of our Constitution, the States would find themselves subservient to a central government rather than the source of political authority. (A good argument can be made that such is currently the case anyway.) To create a perpetual union would be akin to joining the mafia - once you're in, you're in for life. And, in so doing, states would necessarily and logically relinquish any claims to sovereignty and actual statehood. They would simply be relegated to being subservient provinces with no recourse to address the possible wrongs and atrocities that might be committed against them and their citizens by the federal government.
In the Articles of Confederation, under which the colonies/states operated during the War for American Independence, the idea of a perpetual union was expressed and included in the verbiage.
Years later, when the states were considering the Constitution for the federal government, many portions of the Articles of Confederation were included. It was a good plan overall that needed a bit of tweaking, so it provided a good base for creating the Constitution.
One item from the Articles of Confederation that was not carried over to the Constitution was the idea of a perpetual union. Because it was in one but not included in the other, many consider it to be a "conspicuous" absence and thus one that was very much considered undesirable.
I think that should the idea of a perpetual union ever be ratified as part of our Constitution, the States would find themselves subservient to a central government rather than the source of political authority. (A good argument can be made that such is currently the case anyway.) To create a perpetual union would be akin to joining the mafia - once you're in, you're in for life. And, in so doing, states would necessarily and logically relinquish any claims to sovereignty and actual statehood. They would simply be relegated to being subservient provinces with no recourse to address the possible wrongs and atrocities that might be committed against them and their citizens by the federal government.
This post was edited on 12/15/22 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 12/15/22 at 3:54 pm to Swamp Angel
quote:
To create a perpetual union would be akin to joining the mafia - once you're in, you're in for life. And, in so doing, states would necessarily and logically relinquish any claims to sovereignty and actual statehood. They would simply be relegated to being subservient provinces with no recourse to address the possible wrongs and atrocities that might be committed against them and their citizens by the federal government.
Which circles back to why the American revolution was fought in the first place. The colonies had no sovereignty and were subservient to the crown. Creating a perpetual union would have simply recreated that same existence, denying state’s sovereignty and making them subservient to the union. Lincoln’s mindset was no different than the King’s in that he waged war to maintain the union just as the king waged war to preserve the British empire.
Realistically though if you accept that slavery was the sole reason for the war, then then war extremely short sighted and unnecessary. Slavery was on its way out regardless of southern states desire to maintain it. It was outlawed by the British and they controlled the seas. From a practical standpoint alone it would have been increasingly impossible for the enterprise of slavery to continue. Industrial Revolution would have put the final nail in the slave trade’s coffin.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 4:03 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Your heroes are democrats who sought to destroy America.
FTFY
Posted on 12/15/22 at 4:17 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
Back to my point about Crockett, it’s extremely hypocritical to label him and the many other southern men who died at the Alamo as heroes while simultaneously slapping a traitor label on the southern men who fought and died in the civil war. Both groups of men left the United States, either physically or verbally and paid the ultimate price for their decision. Imo, any man that makes a decision that he is willing to fight and possibly die for is a hero. You may not agree with his decision, but that’s not the point
Posted on 12/15/22 at 4:19 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Signed- A self-loathing Southerner.
Nah, I'm plenty proud of all the good things that southern culture brings to the table, hence why I still live in Bama. My ancestors betraying the country so that the rich could maintain slavery is not one of those things. I do think it's funny that yall try to project guilt onto it as if people give a frick about the shitty things their great-great-great-great grandpappy did
Posted on 12/15/22 at 4:39 pm to terriblegreen
quote:
Are there any fricking journalists left?
He’s not a journalist. He’s a shitty, smartass, woke ex-Marine who needed a job and “could write good”. Pretty much the type that MT hires.
This is also yet another example of why Southern men have no business in the modern military. Let the woketards go die in Ukraine for the Big Guy’s ten percent.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 4:50 pm to Fells
quote:
My ancestors betraying the country
This is where I think you need to focus. You’ve been taught country first, but that is not the mindset of your ancestors. Their first loyalty was to their state. That loyalty is why the constitution is structured the way it is structured and the power resides within the people of each individual state and not in a central govt. Robert E Lee was offered command of the union army but turned it down because he refused to take up arms against HIS state of Virginia. Betraying your own state, taking up arms against your state, refusing to fight for your state (your home) was what the men of that era (both north and south) considered treason.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 4:57 pm to Fells
quote:
My ancestors betraying the country so that the rich could maintain slavery is not one of those things. I do think it's funny that yall try to project guilt onto it as if people give a frick about the shitty things their great-great-great-great grandpappy did
This reeks of superior ignorance.
Confederate soldiers fought for a number of different reasons. Yes, slavery was one of them for some. For others, it was for loyalty to family, home, state, a sense of adventure, etc. it’s not cut and dry the way we view the past dynamics through a modern lens. Your statement could easily be applied to America’s founders in that they betrayed their country so the rich could maintain their interests of representation.
And this...
quote:
I do think it's funny that yall try to project guilt onto it as if people give a frick about the shitty things their great-great-great-great grandpappy did
Is pure, clear dishonesty on your part. To pretend like guilt (not by people here but others) is not being projecting on the American past, specifically the Confederacy, and that people don’t care about such and it isn’t a central theme in today’s political exploitation landscape is either wholesale dishonesty or complete ignorance on your part.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 5:20 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
Both groups of men left the United States, either physically or verbally and paid the ultimate price for their decision.
The situation isn’t exactly the same.
One group fought the U.S.; the other didn’t.
For the record, I’m very much pro-states’ rights and am disgusted by the modern treatment of Confederate war heroes and monuments.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 5:27 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
Dude's got too many teeth, he can't think straight.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 5:42 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
Confederate soldiers fought for a number of different reasons.
Like dude gets a pass for killing others to maintain the the ability for the rich to own other people because he wanted adventure lol.
quote:
Is pure, clear dishonesty on your part. To pretend like guilt (not by people here but others) is not being projecting on the American past, specifically the Confederacy, and that people don’t care about such and it isn’t a central theme in today’s political exploitation landscape is either wholesale dishonesty or complete ignorance on your part.
Absolutely not. The idea that white non-republicans, especially Southern white non-republicans hold guilt or any kind of responsibility, or that society expects them to hold that guilt is absolutely absurd and almost exclusively held by Republicans. Just because you saw some Poli board post about some random Twitter account supporting this doesn't mean that it exists in real life in any statistically relevant amount.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 5:44 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
This is where I think you need to focus.
Nah, I think it's more appropriate to focus on people being willing to kill others so that the wealthy class could continue to enslave people.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 5:48 pm to EKG
quote:
The situation isn’t exactly the same. One group fought the U.S.; the other didn’t.
Correct but both groups chose to leave. My point is that no one ever says Crockett is a traitorous piece of trash because he left the country. In fact, is you look at the Alamo as a microcosm of that time period of America, there was already an undercurrent of southerners looking for new beginnings outside of the United States. Sam Houston, Jim Bowie, Crockett and Travis were all southerners who left the country. Why is it any different if men decide 25 years later that they also want to leave the union? Whether they physically packed up their shite and left or verbally declared themselves to no longer a part of the union, they chose to leave. The only difference is that the federal govt didn’t send the army to Texas to retrieve Crockett and others and return them to the United States under threat of force.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 5:54 pm to Fells
I don't get why southerners are so proud of ante bellum times.
Your forefathers made a grave mistake with slavery then went to war at least partially over slavery...then fast forward to today. Boy they really put this country in a world of hurt.
Over a century of open border, forced immigration. And now look at the results.
Your forefathers made a grave mistake with slavery then went to war at least partially over slavery...then fast forward to today. Boy they really put this country in a world of hurt.
Over a century of open border, forced immigration. And now look at the results.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 6:39 pm to Fells
quote:
Nah, I think it's more appropriate to focus on people being willing to kill others so that the wealthy class could continue to enslave people.
Interesting you say that. let’s focus on those wealthy people. In 1859, the last slave ship arrived in the United States, in Mobile Bay. That is a full 50 years after congress had banned the importation of slaves. The illegal importation of slaves continued in part because of slave traders based in New York. So to your point, enslaving people was the business of wealthy men in both the north and the south. Slavery had a symbiotic relationship with both the north and the south because without southern demand there is no supply via northern wealth. Likewise, if there is no supply via northern wealth, southern demand is forced to find another solution to meet its labor demands.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 6:55 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
Illegal trade slavers in New York, or northern demand for goods that could jot be met with a free labor force do not justify slavery in the South. It's a dumb point that doesn't really mean anything, other than support the primary of Marxism, that human history is defined by the rich brutally maintaining their power over the poor, which is fair and all but not really relevant.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 7:49 pm to Fells
They were trying to save the country as it was founded. They were the side fighting for the founder’s vision.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 8:12 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
SCLibertarian
This SCV member likes the cut of your jib.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 8:17 pm to Fells
When Obama paralleled himself to Lincoln he was spot on. They both hate/hated southerners.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News