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

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:51:37 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:42:22 -0600, the heekster <heekster@xxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 04:41:34 GMT, Klaus H
<badgerbadgerbadger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:39:10 -0600, in talk.origins
Klaus H <badgerbadgerbadger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<ji6pj.6742$nK5.196@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:04:08 GMT, in talk.origins
Klaus H <badgerbadgerbadger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<sN5pj.1833$xq2.249@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:36:10 GMT, in talk.origins
Klaus H <badgerbadgerbadger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<_u4pj.5503$Ch6.1913@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:10:54 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
Ken Denny <ken@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<b70a39b2-0216-4762-bc37-6a9bdeeba6e0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Jan 28, 7:31 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:19:37 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
Ken Denny <k...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<101ebbd5-eb95-40c3-b082-d3aa86ab5...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:





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:
On Jan 24, 7:18 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:40:22 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
Ken Denny <k...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<dc3fc867-7bbc-4ac1-9bca-db6f6351c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Jan 23, 8:35 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
More excuses. In the United States, Christians who didn't approve of
slavery kept fighting it until it was abolished. Supposed Christians who
owned slaves revolted against the government and started a long, bloody
war. Why do you make excuses for the immorality of enslaving people?
Not quite historically accurate. The slave owners withdrew from the
United States and the United States government started a long bloody
war to force them to remain.
So the attacks on Federal troops were the US's doing? Sorry.
"Withdrawing" from the Union and attacking the troops who were still
there is an act of war.
The US government was given ample opportunity to withdraw their troops
from confederate soil and refused.
Why would the Union want to remove troops from what was legally its
own soil?
The southern states even offered to
pay but Lincoln refused to negotiate. Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
"The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the
federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United
States.
They were part of the United States. There was no legal way they could
"Withdraw" from the Union unless all the states agreed to dissolve the
Union.
Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents on
the grounds that the Confederacy was not a legitimate government,
Correct.
and
that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of
it as a sovereign government. However, Secretary of State William
Seward engaged in unauthorized and indirect negotiations that failed.
"Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina was one of four remaining
Union-held forts in the Confederacy, and Lincoln was determined to
hold Fort Sumter, sending ships on their way to resupply the fort.
Under orders from Confederate President Jefferson Davis, troops
controlled by the Confederate government under General Pierre Gustave
Toutant Beauregard bombarded the fort with artillery on April 12,
forcing the fort's capitulation. Northerners rallied behind Lincoln's
call for all of the states to send troops to recapture the forts and
to preserve the Union."
The war was a direct result of the Union's refusal to allow the
southern states to secede.
No. The war was a direct result of the southern states attempt to
illegally secede.
This is not to be taken as condoning slavery as I too believe to be
totally immoral, but merely to set the record straight about who
started the war.
The slaveholders.
No. The United States.
Wrong again.
--
Bob.
Actually it seems we agree. The war was the result of the North's
refusal to allow the South to secede. 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.
Muggings are the result of the refusal of people to give up their
wallet. Our only difference is that you think that robberies are legal,
I don't.
There are laws against robbery. Perhaps you can point me to the laws
against secession.
"To suppress insurrections." If the states had wanted to leave, they
needed to ask. Remember, the Constitution had already been perverted to
accomodate the slaveholders in the first place.
Also:

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation ...

...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a
foreign Power, or engage in War...

Amazingly enough, those events did not happen until AFTER the first 7
states seceded. Try Again?
Klaus
You keep making excuses for the revolt of the slaveholders. Feel free
to. I'm done. You have made it clear that you will excuse their behavior
no matter what.

Wrong again. I have already stated, in this thread, my opposition to
slavery and racism. I am, however, consistently upholding truth, which
in this case, is the fact that the US government started the Civil War
and that the states were within their constitutional rights to secede,
primarily as stated in the 10th Ammendment.
Klaus
Yes, you have told us your opinion, again and again. There is no
evidence from the adoption of the Constitution that the 10th Amendment
was designed to allow states to opt out of the Union unilaterally, so I
see no reason to accept your claim.

Other than the fact that the States' right to secede is a subset of "The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution".

Where did you get the idea that the states maintained their right to
secede when they signed the Constitution?


By the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit it,
therefore the 9th and 10th Ammendments apply.

Exactly right, the right was never explicitly given up, therefore it
was retained. The Union's forcible subjection of the seceded states
was in fact, illegal. To prevent this embarassing fact from being
made public, all of the indictments for treason against 38 former
Confederate officers and politicians were quietly nolle prossed on
February 15, 1869. One can easily guess what the defense would have
claimed. Nevertheless, the nolle prosequi event allowed the Union to
reap the fruits of having won the war, letting them "get way with it",
so to speak.

The Constitution's purpose was to be an instrument which would
form a "more perfect union".

The Articles of Confederation's full title was "The Articles of
Confederation and Perpetual Union", the latter of which, obviously,
it was not.

When the Constitution was ratified, states de facto seceded from the
government under the AoC, and joined the new federal government under
the Constitution. Hence, there is a precedent for secession.

Total rubbish.

No, historical reality. Deal with it.

The Kentucky Resolution and the Virginia Resolution, of 1798, both
imply that the states maintain the ability to stop a federal
government that oversteps its constitutional mandate.

The Supreme Court held that the Constitution did not permit states to
secede from the Union.

Not prior to 1865, it didn't.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie...
    ... war to force them to remain. ... "Withdrawing" from the Union and attacking the troops who were still ... southern states to secede. ... evidence from the adoption of the Constitution that the 10th Amendment ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie...
    ... United States and the United States government started a long bloody ... war to force them to remain. ... southern states to secede. ... evidence from the adoption of the Constitution that the 10th Amendment ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie...
    ... United States and the United States government started a long bloody ... war to force them to remain. ... "Withdrawing" from the Union and attacking the troops who were still ... southern states to secede. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Long post on Fort Sumter
    ... And so you now admit they started the war. ... violated the agreement between the federal government and Confederates. ... Union, there was no agreement to violate. ... The most obvious one is the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie...
    ... United States and the United States government started a long bloody ... war to force them to remain. ... southern states to secede. ... evidence from the adoption of the Constitution that the 10th Amendment ...
    (talk.origins)