Runboard.com
You're welcome.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


Page:  1  2  3  4  5 

 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 2381
Karma: 16 (+24/-8)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


Cooter, have you ever been alone, confronted by a couple of dozen blacks who call you obscene names and threaten to do unspeakable damage to your person?

I had occasion to be treated by whites in much the way I described. It is terrifying.
8/23/2017, 1:30 am Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3948
Karma: 2 (+14/-12)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


How many times do wish recounted. Worked as a mechanic for the electrical supplier in East St. Louis, Washington Park, Alorton, Sauget and other nasty sectors of that area of IL. Know at least two dozen names for White that do not contain ANY of those letters, know what it is like to have a dozen or more Blacks yelling and chanting as to 'Kill da whitey sumbich", had one very large obnoxious woman complaining the lineman (Also White) was not getting her power back on fast enough while I worked to free his truck from the mattress spring assembly laying in the waist high grass along her driveway where she hiked her skirt squatted beside the truck and attempted to pee ON me. Had men spit at and ON me, had bottle thrown on and at me, had to have IL State Troopers escort myself and two BLACK linemen into Washington Park to restore power to a disabled persons home when the gang banging meth heads nearby shot the transformer feeding their home as suspected it held a camera watching them, they shot twice at the troopers(ALSO Black men) while we worked.

Your point?
8/23/2017, 1:40 am Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3948
Karma: 2 (+14/-12)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


Then there are these small, insignificant points of ponder

Jim Crow Laws were found to be illegal ending with the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Voting Act was the year after 1965

Schools desegregation found illegal by SCOTUS in 1954, forced busing has done nothing to cure this as populations still move away from those districts.

To which, how many of the protestors were EVEN Alive then, how many Black members of BLM were alive then? How many had opportunity HANDED to them and shot it into the gutter? How many DID take that opportunity and did make something of and for themselves other than squalling they need more FREE money?

How many Actually Voted in the last five elections?
8/23/2017, 2:45 am Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5505
Karma: 5 (+20/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


I was taught that tariffs and not slavery were the main cause of the Civil War. That was WI in the 1950s.

And while many consider secession illegal, it can't be.
The states were sovereign first, and created the federal government under strong restrictions. When the federal government violates it contract, it can always be fired.
The federal government has NO sovereign authority at all, but only borrow upon what is delegated to it.
That is easy to prove because the United States is not the original federal government. The Articles of the Confederation were, in 1776.
But they were decided to be too weak, were desolved, and replaced by an entirely different federal government later, in 1789.

{...
The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 original states of the United States of America that served as its first constitution.[1] Its drafting by a committee appointed by the Second Continental Congress began on July 12, 1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification on November 15, 1777. The Articles of Confederation came into force on March 1, 1781, after being ratified by all 13 states. A guiding principle of the Articles was to preserve the independence and sovereignty of the states. The federal government received only those powers which the colonies had recognized as belonging to king and parliament.[2]

The Articles formed a war-time confederation of states, with an extremely limited central government. While unratified, the document was used by the Congress to conduct business, direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with foreign nations, and deal with territorial issues and Native American relations. The adoption of the Articles made few perceptible changes in the federal government, because it did little more than legalize what the Continental Congress had been doing. That body was renamed the Congress of the Confederation; but Americans continued to call it the Continental Congress, since its organization remained the same.[2]

As the Confederation Congress attempted to govern the continually growing American states, delegates discovered that the limitations placed upon the central government rendered it ineffective at doing so. As the government's weaknesses became apparent, especially after Shays' Rebellion, individuals began asking for changes to the Articles. Their hope was to create a stronger national government. Initially, some states met to deal with their trade and economic problems. However, as more states became interested in meeting to change the Articles, a meeting was set in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. This became the Constitutional Convention. It was quickly realized that changes would not work, and instead the entire Articles needed to be replaced.[3] On March 4, 1789, the government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the Constitution.[4] The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government by establishing a chief executive (the President), courts, and taxing powers.
...}
8/23/2017, 4:04 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3948
Karma: 2 (+14/-12)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


Nothing other than the legal 'Interpretations' of those that cannot envision a change in the United States actually states a state may not secede. There are dubious distinctive conceptions as to the forever binding or arbitrary binding of a acceptance to the Constitution as a rule of law and encompassing a strict attachment of that state into the Union.

Nowhere save the allowance of 'Revolution' does it state a state may or may not dissolve its partnership within the Union and is not that what the CSA performed?

[sign in to see URL]
8/23/2017, 11:45 am Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 1763
Karma: 13 (+22/-9)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


Cooter, did you read the article at the link you gave us? Here is a paragraph from that article:

The Constitution does not directly mention secession.[55] The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century, with Southerners often claiming and Northerners generally denying that states have a legal right to unilaterally secede.[56] The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union.[55] There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.[57] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation.[58] Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question. Had the Confederacy won, any illegality of its actions under U.S. law would have been rendered irrelevant, just as the undisputed illegality of American rebellion under the British law of 1775 was rendered irrelevant. Thus, these scholars argue, the illegality of unilateral secession was not firmly de facto established until the Union won the Civil War; in this view, the legal question was resolved at Appomattox.[56][59]

[sign in to see URL]

Here's a description of a Supreme Court case declaring unilateral secession unconstitutional.

The [Supreme] court ruled [in Texas v. White in 1869] … that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".[2]

[sign in to see URL]

You are aware, are you not, that the Supreme Court has the last word on what is constitutional and what is not. Unless the Supreme Court has rescinded that decision, in a later case, unilateral secession is still unconstitutional.
8/23/2017, 12:13 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
John1959 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1476
Karma: 12 (+16/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


So now we've moved on to arguing whether states had the right to secede.

How about we talk about WHY they seceded, which is because they didn't want the federal government telling them they could not have slavery.

---
“I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” - NRA president Karl T. Frederick, 1938
8/23/2017, 12:16 pm Link to this post PM John1959 Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3948
Karma: 2 (+14/-12)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


Is NOT what occurred. What occurred was the active taxation, tariff and otherwise obtrusive nature of Congress against those southern states economies that was BASED on their slave ownership/use. The North never stated they would have to give them up they unfairly applied financial pressure of the day to make it less financially viable. Conspicuous applied unfair trade rules, regulations and tariffs with the inability of the southern states to effectively fight off the maligning northern politics in a political arena off balance to the power of the northern states.

They had right to rebel against a unfair tactic of financial burden/hardship.

While inserted throughout is the applied language of 'Slavery' the arguments return to those tariffs, taxes and processes placed arduously upon the southern states in regard to exports. The slavery aspect seemingly leads to nowhere even as the writer adds in to context continually, just the economic functions stand clear and pronounced in this note of history.

[sign in to see URL]

8/23/2017, 1:37 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
John1959 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1476
Karma: 12 (+16/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


quote:

cooter50 wrote:

Is NOT what occurred. What occurred was the active taxation, tariff and otherwise obtrusive nature of Congress against those southern states economies that was BASED on their slave ownership/use. The North never stated they would have to give them up they unfairly applied financial pressure of the day to make it less financially viable. Conspicuous applied unfair trade rules, regulations and tariffs with the inability of the southern states to effectively fight off the maligning northern politics in a political arena off balance to the power of the northern states.

They had right to rebel against a unfair tactic of financial burden/hardship.

While inserted throughout is the applied language of 'Slavery' the arguments return to those tariffs, taxes and processes placed arduously upon the southern states in regard to exports. The slavery aspect seemingly leads to nowhere even as the writer adds in to context continually, just the economic functions stand clear and pronounced in this note of history.

[sign in to see URL]



Bullcrap. That is exactly what occurred.

You and others simply do not want to accept it because it means the Confederates were fighting for slavery - which you know is wrong - but that's just what happened.

Only the issue of slavery was so important to the South - at least for those with wealth and power.

Only the issue of slavery was something the South knew they could not fight in Congress.

Only the issue of slavery was something they knew that if new states joined the union as non-slave states it would put them in the minority.

And only by seceding did they have any hope of continuing the institution of slavery into the foreseeable future.

As Georgia wrote when seceding;
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

As Mississippi wrote;
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

As South Carolina wrote;
...an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

As Texas wrote;
...an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

[sign in to see URL]

---
“I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” - NRA president Karl T. Frederick, 1938
8/23/2017, 2:15 pm Link to this post PM John1959 Blog
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 1763
Karma: 13 (+22/-9)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


I'm inclined to believe the states about their reasons for seceding, instead of believing Cooter.
8/23/2017, 2:30 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4  5 





You are not logged in (login)