Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie...

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:31:45 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:25:17 -0600, the heekster <heekster@xxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:36:32 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:22:50 -0600, the heekster <heekster@xxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:25:45 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:51:44 -0600, the heekster <heekster@xxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:15:36 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:19:37 -0800 (PST), Ken Denny <ken@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Jan 25, 4:21 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:54:37 -0800 (PST), Ken Denny <k...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
[snip to save bandwidth]

If the southern states had been
allowed to secede there would have been no war. Our only difference is
that you believe that secession was illegal and I don't.

Sorry, but the only legal way to have done it would have been to have
dissolved the whole Union.

Not at all. The US could have done the same thing the British did;
remunerate the slaveowners upon emancipation.

That was not a power that was available to them.

Oh, it was available. Just not politically expedient.

No. It was not available.

You must remember
that the British government acts on behalf of the crown, as such it
can pass a law like that with Royal Assent. The US government is tied
to the constitution. It would have required an amendment and at that
time it would not have got one -

No, it would not have required an amendment. The Congress passes
appropriations bills all the time. The Civil Rights act of 1964 did
not require an amendment.

Because it was based on existing amendments and rights.

Which amendment? Which rights?

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Long title: An Act To enforce the
constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district
courts of the United States to provide relief against discrimination
in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to
institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities
and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to
prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a
Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

Now, I read that as saying the act was designed to protect and promote
rights that already existed.


why should the North have paid out to
free Southern slaves?

Given that most US exports were from the South, what makes you think
that the North would have paid? You think the Southern states didn't
pay federal tariffs? Guess where the fed got most of its money before
the advent of income tax.

The North continued to run slaves, to South America and Cuba, even as
late as 1870. Ironically, much of the abolitionist funding came from
old New england families made wealthy running slaves, or building
slave ships. Besides, as the northern states outlawed slavery, the
northerners didn't emancipate them, they sold them to the South, "down
the river".

That may well have been true, but it does not change the fact that
there was no provision to pay southern slave owners compensation.

No one said that there was. So this is your strawman.

However, Lincoln seriously considered what he called gradual
emancipation, and it included compensation to slave owners.

And that may well have happened in the long run - if the South had
kept within the law.

Again you repeat the disingenuous claim of a law being broken.
You are now to the point where you appear blatantly intellectually
dishonest.


As that was something that nobody wished to
see, and as there was no legal way for a state or states to secede,
the southern states acted illegally when they took the actions they
did.

If true, then you can of course provide the relevant text of the law
which was broken.

There is no right given by the constitution for a state or states to
secede.

The constitution does not give rights. If you read it, you will see
that the language is that of constraint against infringement upon the
pre-existing natural rights by the federal government. In fact, the
9th and 10th amendments reserve rights and powers not expressly
granted to the fed govt. to the people or to the states.

The reality can be seen in miniature here in the UK. The 1707 Act of
Union that united England and Scotland, as the United Kingdom, is the
single British law which our parliament has no rights over. If
Scotland wanted to secede from our union it would first have to
persuade the UK parliament to dissolve itself and allow a new
parliament to be called in both countries. Only with the two
parliaments and with the agreement of both sets of people, can the AoU
be renegotiated or rescinded.

It is the same, though more complicated because of the number of
states, in the USA. Only be agreement to dissolve the Union and then
reform it according to the wishes of its new members can the change
the south wanted be considered legal.

Fiction. If you had any familiarity with what was taught in the
antebellum US regarding the constitution and secession, you would
know that some authorities did in fact believe that secession was
allowable.

You will always find someone to agree with any view. It doesn't make
them right.

I was 40 years ago that I studied this in a UK school, so
excuse me for not having exact details to hand. However, of one thing
I'm 100% sure - the South started the war.

Sorry to pop your 100% bubble, but...
There is significant information available that a cascade of Union
bungling started the war, starting with Buchanan, who assured the
agents of South Carolina that the garrison at Moultrie would not be
reinforced. Not being aware of these negotiations, Anderson, the
commander, decided to skulk into the unfinished Fort Sumter, without
orders, under cover of night. He was afraid, due to the indefensible
nature of Moultrie from an attack on the land side. This action of
occupying the fort, then under construction, prior to its being handed
over to the govt., was taken by the South as Buchanan, or Lincoln, not
keeping their word. This was exacerbated by the attempt to run a
supply ship to Anderson's command, an action which was unnecessary,
inasmuch as the fort had always obtained provisions locally. It was a
calculated attempt to antagonmize the seceded states.

But it is still the seceded states that broke the law and started the
war.

No. There was no law against secession.

They were part of the UNITED States.

Moron, after the War, as part of Reconstruction, it was a
pre-requisite for the former Confederate states to ratify the 13th or
14th amendment, prior to being re-admitted to the Union. I know that
causality isn't your strong suit, but it is necessary to leave the
Union, before you can be re-admitted back into it.

You may claim there were justifications. I, and others, disagree
with you. However, you cannot escape the single pertinent fact - the
southern states broke the law of the USA when they seceded - and it
was that act which started the war.

Since you are unable to produce any reference to such a law, it stands
to reason that you are either ignorant, or a liar.

Look bud, the fact that YOU do not understand how the law works is not
my fault. Blame it on a poor education if you want.

OK, you have a pisspoor education.

The fact is that the Union did not, and does not, have an opt-out
clause.

It was not required, for reasons which you are too benighted to
understand, and too ignorant to acknowledge.

As to the first shot being fired, it may well have been in Bloody
Kansas, or at the Harper's Ferry Arsenal.

The seeds of the war were sown when the compromises necessary to win
the southern states over to ratify the Constitution were made. Unless
the British solution of compensation was adopted, the war was
inevitable.

The point is that the south DID join the Union, it DID ratify the
constitution and accept the rules of Union membership.

You are just making things up, at this point. What rules? Have you
ever read the state ratification documents of the constitution?

I don't need to. I have read and studied the Constitution itself.

Thank you for admitting that you have no idea of what you are talking
about.
I
seriously doubt that you have even a passing familiarity with the
constitution itself, since most of what you have posted about it,
simply isn't accurate.

Your opinion only.

Post something that refutes it, and proves that it is my opinion only,
or shut the *** up.

Your points, are not points. They are mistakes.

The only mistake was in thinking you could understand some of the most
basic concepts of law.

Which law, ament? The one that you imagine?

.

Loading