- 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: Can Someone Explain Something To Me?
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:39 pm to themunch
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:39 pm to themunch
quote:
It's existence means that it was in the constitution. It doesn't make it constitutional in the sense that just because it's in there it legitimately reflects the integrity of the rest of the document.
Just because it's in the constitution doesn't make it constitutional.
Spoken like a truly Wise Latina
0
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:40 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Then why did representatives in South Carolina and other southern states vehemently object to New York having the state's right to enact a law preventing slave owners from retrieving their runaway slaves who had made it into states that had outlawed slavery?
Because it violated the fugitive slave law of 1850.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:40 pm to OBReb6
quote:
Because that’s what my direct ancestors fought for and I respect them over non blood opinions no matter what. That’s the simple answer
Thanks for answering the question and it's obviously the answer for pretty much everyone else too.
I think it's a completely strange answer—if I was related to Adolf Hitler I wouldn't glorify or justify what he fought for just because I was related to him—but thanks for articulating that it really is that simple for y'all.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:42 pm to Kashmir
quote:
Because it violated the fugitive slave law of 1850.
Exactly.
In that case they wanted the federal government to take precedence over "states rights."
That is exactly the point.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:43 pm to themunch
quote:
I think we are done here.
Not surprised.
Can't answer what I asked you.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:44 pm to wackatimesthree
Dude really? Less than 1% of the population owned slaves. You think those dirt farmers fought so aristocrats could own slaves? Dang you're dumb. They were very tribal in a sense and they were state citizens before they were American. The north started pushing them around economically and politically, and in a nutshell it was on. Owning slaves had become extremely expensive and the inventing of the tractor and combine would soon make owning slaves obsolete. But here we are, still arguing over this crap.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:45 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Why do they not have a right to their opinion on it?
Who says they don't? I don't, they can build as many monuments or whatever to remember slavery is fine by me. But at the same time I don't think they should be able to tear down and destroy historical stuff on the other side.
None of it on either side mean anything to me. My family didn't come to the USA until around 1900 but I don't care what others want to remember and honor either.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:45 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
So you think that slavery is constitutional, then? How about rape? That's not specifically mentioned in the constitution. How about abortion? Again, not mentioned.
States can make laws allowing rape because there's nothing in the constitution about it?
Do you not understand civil law and criminal law?
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:46 pm to bostitch
quote:
Just pointing out that in your very first bullet you threw out an inconvenient part of the constitution and based your argument on intent that you read into it.
So again.
Let's see if anyone claiming that the constitution can say anything without contradicting itself has the guts to answer.
Imma say naw.
If an amendment was passed classifying women as being 3/5s of a person and rape was specifically allowed just like "importing persons" was allowed in the constitution back then, would it be constitutional?
That's a simple yes or no answer.
Bonus question for those of you appealing to ridicule: What's worse, raping a woman once or owning her and raping her any time you feel like it?
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:46 pm to Kashmir
quote:
Do you not understand civil law and criminal law?
Not as it relates to this issue.
Do tell.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:48 pm to Topisawtiger
quote:
Dude really? Less than 1% of the population owned slaves. You think those dirt farmers fought so aristocrats could own slaves? Dang you're dumb. They were very tribal in a sense and they were state citizens before they were American. The north started pushing them around economically and politically, and in a nutshell it was on. Owning slaves had become extremely expensive and the inventing of the tractor and combine would soon make owning slaves obsolete. But here we are, still arguing over this crap.
That's a great analysis.
Why don't you re-post those great ideas as specific responses to the links I posted? Then we can discuss them.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:51 pm to Ponchy Tiger
quote:
Who says they don't? I don't, they can build as many monuments or whatever to remember slavery is fine by me. But at the same time I don't think they should be able to tear down and destroy historical stuff on the other side.
You'd be in the minority around here.
Most people here would melt down if some black people somewhere succeeded in getting a town square to erect a BLM statue or started flying a black liberation flag as part of an official municipality, especially if the idea was to intimidate white people in the community like the intent was to intimidate black people back in the 1950s.
But that's fine if you're consistent on the issue.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 10:57 pm to wackatimesthree
Why is it that people on the left glorify taking it up the arse and sucking dick?
Posted on 9/8/24 at 11:05 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
The problem with citing the EP is that it couldn't have been the cause of the war since it took place three years into the war.
Ahh, but that's where you are wrong. Very wrong.
If your argument is the premise of the war was to end the wrongs of slavery, (North was on the right side of ethics, South on the wrong) then after being 3 years into it, Lincoln would certainly have freed them in areas he had control over.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 11:06 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
That's a great analysis. Why don't you re-post those great ideas as specific responses to the links I posted? Then we can discuss them.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 11:08 pm to wackatimesthree
Virtue signal received.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 11:10 pm to wackatimesthree
Because only 1% of Americans owned slaves. There is a lot more to our heritage than a few rich folks owning slaves.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 11:10 pm to beauxgy
OP is def a Harris voter. Loves Walz because he is a fake liar as well.
This post was edited on 9/8/24 at 11:22 pm
Posted on 9/8/24 at 11:18 pm to wackatimesthree
Do you simply spew bullshite you have been force fed? You are a simpleton. The South fought over States Rights. You really should consider moving north of the Mason Dixon line so you can feel better about yourself.
Posted on 9/8/24 at 11:19 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
In that case they wanted the federal government to take precedence over "states rights."
The law, part of the compromise of 1850, was passed with support from northern states as a “gift” to the south so Kalifornication could enter the union as a free state (which partly violated the agreed upon boundary for slave/free territory established by the missouri compromise of 1820).
The great effort to keep a 50-50 balance was forever changed after this. While a noble effort, the C of 1850 only postponed the inevitable war.
The south had ten more years of getting screwed and the lid blew off the kettle to the delight of radicals on both sides.
The southern slave system was doomed to failure eventually. Cotton wore out the soil. it couldn’t be grown in west Texas. Oklahoma was Indian Territory. Where else could the south expand? New Mexico territory? Arizona territory?
As a poster stated earlier, the war was fought over money and power….and states rights was a major reason.
To argue against that as one of the major reasons for the war is simply stupid. Lots of southerners wanted war in 1832 over the nullification issue, and states rights was THE reason for that sentiment.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News