I love Ron Paul but...

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

1. Who are you talking about?

The Ron Paul critics.

2. The issue wasn't nullification, it was secession.

The two are inseparable.

3. Because the Slaves in the South sure had a huge say it what happened down there.

I guess when you wrap in a flag, market it as freedom, and modernize it, it is no longer coercion or slavery.

Also, let's not forget who fired the first shot.

Yes let's not forget who initiated aggression as a foreign occupier and rebuffed all attempts of good faith negotiation to leave.

4. Many people viewed the South's secession as Treason and therefore punishable and justified.

5. The Constitution was ratified by all of the States in the Union, the South just decided they would do their own thing.

Like I pointed out, natural rights and the pursuit of happiness is ok so long as it doesn't include the people changing or rewriting their constitutions for any reason at any time.

6. Yes, the age-old American tradition of Slavery was destroyed forever. What a blow to my freedom

How about we just drop one on Iran and save ourselves the trouble.

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

The Ron Paul critics.



The two are inseparable.



I guess when you wrap in a flag, market it as freedom, and modernize it, it is no longer coercion or slavery.



Yes let's not forget who initiated aggression as a foreign occupier and rebuffed all attempts of good faith negotiation to leave.



Like I pointed out, natural rights and the pursuit of happiness is ok so long as it doesn't include the people changing or rewriting their constitutions for any reason at any time.



How about we just drop one on Iran and save ourselves the trouble.

2. If the two are inseparable then I guess Montana seceded by nullifying federal gun control laws right?

3. I think you're agreeing with me there? Not sure.

4. If you want to get down to gritty facts, Federal Troops already occupied and controlled Ft Sumter long before South seceded so it was the property of the Federal Government of the United States. Also, President Lincoln (President-elect at the time) did not believe states had the right to secede from the Union so the South's government was not considered a legitimate government and therefore the ambassadors that the South sent were rebuffed despite the fact the North (Lincoln in particular) didn't want military conflict. When the North sent unarmed supply ships to the starving troops at Ft Sumter they were fired on without response from the North. Eventually, Southern leaders advised the South Carolina army (I believe it was the SC army and not the Southern Federal Army) to use whatever means necessary to remove the Northern Troops despite calls for restraint for fear of losing the neutral states' alliance. In the end Southern military leaders opened fire on Sumter and started the Civil War.

5. Again, you're ignoring the fact that Slaves had no say whether the South seceded, or that Slavery existed at all.

6. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

2. If the two are inseparable then I guess Montana seceded by nullifying federal gun control laws right?

The two are inseparable because they are both components of the same states right doctrine of American tradition.

3. I think you're agreeing with me there? Not sure.

Not unless you are acknowledging the only thing that happened is one system of coercion was exchanged for another.

4. If you want to get down to gritty facts, Federal Troops already occupied and controlled Ft Sumter long before South seceded so it was the property of the Federal Government of the United States.

If you want to get down to gritty facts we can get into the terms of the 1805 agreement.

Also, President Lincoln (President-elect at the time) did not believe states had the right to secede from the Union so the South's government was not considered a legitimate government and therefore the ambassadors that the South sent were rebuffed despite the fact the North (Lincoln in particular) didn't want military conflict.

Someone better remind Arizona Obama does not like their their legislation and therefore it is not legitimate and they better axe it before the president invades.

When the North sent unarmed supply ships to the starving troops at Ft Sumter they were fired on without response from the North. Why would they send supply ships to supply something they agreed not to supply
Eventually, Southern leaders advised the South Carolina army (I believe it was the SC army and not the Southern Federal Army) to use whatever means necessary to remove the Northern Troops despite calls for restraint for fear of losing the neutral states' alliance. In the end Southern military leaders opened fire on Sumter and started the Civil War.

If you are going to be an occupier with no intention of leaving don't get upset if natives defend what is rightfully theirs.

 

[AggieforPaul]

You're presenting us with a false dilemma, i.e: a bloody war or continued slavery. What Lincoln should have done was freed the slaves through compensated emancipation (buying all the slaves and setting them all free) like every other civilized country in the world.

The Civil War was an exercise in power and in control to settle once and for all the debate about a state's right to secede, a debate Jefferson and Hamilton were having 100 years earlier. Lincoln ended the debate with an emphatic "fuck you" to state's rights advocates, setting the stage for an all powerful federal government that has persevered for another 145 years and counting.

The story of Lincoln the great emancipator is the biggest fairy tale of all time next to the Russians' celebration of Stalin. It is essential that any liberty candidate address this murderous megalomanical dictator, because without Lincoln, the beast we face today in Washington would not and could not exist.

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

The two are inseparable because they are both components of the same states right doctrine of American tradition.

No they aren't. Where in the Constitution does it say a state has the right to secede.

Not unless you are acknowledging the only thing that happened is one system of coercion was exchanged for another.

Um sorry, we're not on the same page with that one. I don't think the government is out to get me.

If you want to get down to gritty facts we can get into the terms of the 1805 agreement.

I don't know what that is. A quick google search didn't bring up anything other than european treaties and native american treaties.

Someone better remind Arizona Obama does not like their their legislation and therefore it is not legitimate and they better axe it before the president invades.

See, now you're just reaching and trying to draw false parallels. And besides, the war started when the South opened fire on Ft Sumter, not when they seceded to begin with. So let's make this very clear, the South declared war on the North.

If you are going to be an occupier with no intention of leaving don't get upset if natives defend what is rightfully theirs.

The North was "occupying" their own fort. It was United States government property, paid for and owned by the US federal government. Hell the material used to build it came from New England. So when the South seceded they lost their right to that land plain and simple.

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

You're presenting us with a false dilemma, i.e: a bloody war or continued slavery. What Lincoln should have done was freed the slaves through compensated emancipation (buying all the slaves and setting them all free) like every other civilized country in the world.

The Civil War was an exercise in power and in control to settle once and for all the debate about a state's right to secede, a debate Jefferson and Hamilton were having 100 years earlier. Lincoln ended the debate with an emphatic "fuck you" to state's rights advocates, setting the stage for an all powerful federal government that has persevered for another 145 years and counting.

The story of Lincoln the great emancipator is the biggest fairy tale of all time next to the Russians' celebration of Stalin. It is essential that any liberty candidate address this murderous megalomanical dictator, because without Lincoln, the beast we face today in Washington would not and could not exist.

You're missing the fact that Lincoln didn't start the war. Both sides wanted peace, but the South decided against it in the end and fired the first shots. Lincoln wanted to find a peaceful way to hold the Union together (ie bring the Southern states back in), but that unfortunately didn't happen.

 

[Carole]

Power, money, and control.

I have always believed the North could not compete with the South in production because of slavery, i.e. cheap --real cheap-- labor. Along with many other things stated in this thread, I believe this also was part of the problem.

 

[BW2112]

Keep telling it like it is Ron. And yeah, its an important issue. Most other countries freed their slaves without bloodshed, so why couldn't we? Instead we had a war which cost many lives on both sides.

About states rights. I wish some of you would shut the fuck up about "states dont have rights, people do". States rights is simply a phrase to summarize the 10th amendment. It is easier to say. Its very important that most laws be handled at the state level. Why? Because its better that a bad law be passed at the state level where it only affects the people living in that state, rather than at the federal level, where it affects everyone.

There, I've said my piece, flame away.

 

[fisharmor]

Of course you won't use most of the stuff you learn in school, the point of a rounded education is to give you an idea of what there is out there and hopefully you find something you like and pursue it.

Yes, this is the point of education - as taught by educators.
Those of us who have broken our conditioning think differently.
I do not believe any of what you say about education.
Also, you haven't addressed our concern that what is taught regarding the 1861-65 war by public schools is, on many counts, statist crap.
That Texas has also agreed to teach statist crap does not make it any less statist crap.

No they aren't. Where in the Constitution does it say a state has the right to secede.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The burden of proof is not on us to show that states have a power to secede: the burden is on you to show that the federal government has the power to stop secession.

Congress (not the executive) is given the power to suppress insurrection. An insurrection is by definition limited to a minority in the population - so the term doesn't apply. Putting down rebellion is mentioned in terms of public debt and also who can serve as a representative, but nowhere is the federal government given the power to stop a state peacefully leaving the union.

And another thing: please stop referring to state's rights.
Governments have powers. Individuals have rights.

You're missing the fact that Lincoln didn't start the war. Both sides wanted peace, but the South decided against it in the end and fired the first shots. Lincoln wanted to find a peaceful way to hold the Union together (ie bring the Southern states back in), but that unfortunately didn't happen.

Sure, the confederacy fired first....
After 106 days of attempting to get federal troops to leave their sovereign territory, during which time they had to watch Lincoln send ship after ship to the area to build up a large military presence.

Your whole opinion on the matter is colored by your state-conditioned presupposition that the North was unequivocally right.
If you take half a second to doubt that claim, evidence piles up against the Union pretty quickly.

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

Yes, this is the point of education - as taught by educators.
Those of us who have broken our conditioning think differently.
I do not believe any of what you say about education.
Also, you haven't addressed our concern that what is taught regarding the 1861-65 war by public schools is, on many counts, statist crap.
That Texas has also agreed to teach statist crap does not make it any less statist crap.






The burden of proof is not on us to show that states have a power to secede: the burden is on you to show that the federal government has the power to stop secession.

Congress (not the executive) is given the power to suppress insurrection. An insurrection is by definition limited to a minority in the population - so the term doesn't apply. Putting down rebellion is mentioned in terms of public debt and also who can serve as a representative, but nowhere is the federal government given the power to stop a state peacefully leaving the union.

And another thing: please stop referring to state's rights.
Governments have powers. Individuals have rights.





Sure, the confederacy fired first....
After 106 days of attempting to get federal troops to leave their sovereign territory, during which time they had to watch Lincoln send ship after ship to the area to build up a large military presence.

Your whole opinion on the matter is colored by your state-conditioned presupposition that the North was unequivocally right.
If you take half a second to doubt that claim, evidence piles up against the Union pretty quickly.

hahaha, look, if you want to be taken seriously (especially by me) then stop trying to say that I'm buying into "conditioned" education. All I'm doing is looking at facts by doing RESEARCH. I've studied history for almost 10 years, I know how to research topics. It doesn't take much to realize what really happened and the reasons for it. But like I've said before, if you have a predisposition as to what history is and should be and you have extremely hardlined political beliefs then it's not hard to view history with a certain (more than likely unintentional) bias. That means that your view of history may be different than what actually happened because it fits your belief system. I suggest you take a long hard look at the events leading up to the civil war from CREDIBLE sources. I find that the best way to research history is to look at many different points of view of the same event and come up with your own conclusion. After doing just that for the Civil War I stand by my stance made in this thread.

 

[Trimbeaux]

Credible

Maybe you need to start researching these supposed CREDIBLE sources and their associations and who really benefits from their version of history before you dismiss everyone who has a difference of opinion or source on the War between the States. I personally feel that both sides were forced into a war that should of never been fought. Like most wars in history they are wasteful, needless exercises in futility.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

No they aren't. Where in the Constitution does it say a state has the right to secede.

Are you serious? The very existence of the Constitution IS the evidence.

Articles of Confederation:

Article XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Constitution:

Article VII - Ratification Documents

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

This has already been articulated. As a matter of law people inherited sovereignty following the Declaration of Independence. States inherited it when the Articles of Confederation were recognized by the Treaty of Paris.

The Constitution was not a lawful amendment to the Articles of Confederation it was a fundamental new system of government based on the very concept of changing government at any time for any reason contained in the DoI that you are trying to call bullshit.

If the DoI is bullshit... so is the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

Um sorry, we're not on the same page with that one. I don't think the government is out to get me.

You must be a good little slave citizen who only keeps whatever fruits of your labor coercive government deems proper. I am also going to speculate you are a good little slave citizen who only exercises freedoms privileges government deems proper.

We must not be on the same page because you apparently think you are actually free to exercise natural rights absent coercion from government.

I don't know what that is. A quick google search didn't bring up anything other than european treaties and native american treaties.

And that is an example of why you are talking sideways out of your tailpipe on this whole issue of who actually started the Civil war and who acted in good faith and who did not:

An act to provide for the defense of certain ports and harbors in the United States

Sec. 1 Be in enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the following ports and harbors be fortified under the direction of the President of the United States, and at such time or times as he may judge necessary, to wit: Portland, in the district of Maine, Portsmouth, in the state of New Hampshire; Gloucester, Salem, Marblehead, and Boston, in the state of Massachusetts; Newport, in the state of Rhode Island; New-London, in the state of Conneticut; New York; Philadelphia; Wilmington, in the State of Delaware; Baltimore, in the state of Maryland; Norfolk and Alexandria, in the state of Virginia; Cape Fear river, and Ocracock Inlet, in the state of North Carolina; Charleston and Georgetown, in the state of South Carolina; and Savannah, and Saint Mary's, in the state of Geogria.

Note Mine: how come only one State is capitalized?

Sec. 2 And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to employ, as garrisons, in the said fortifications, or any of them, such of the troops on the military establishment of the United States as he may judge necessary; and to cause to be provided one hundred cannon, of a calibre, each, to carry a ball of thirty-two pounds weight, and one hundred other cannon, of a calibre, each, to carry a ball of twenty-four pounds weight, together with the carriages and implements necessary for the same, and carriages with the necessary implements for one hundred and fifty other cannon, with two hundred and fifty tons of cannon shot.

Sec. 3 And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to receive from any state (in behalf of the United States) a cession of the lands on which any of the fortifications aforesaid, with the necessary buildings, may be erected, or intended to be erected; or, where such cessions shall not be made, to purchase such lands, on behalf of the United States: Provided, That no purchase shall be made where such lands are the property of a state.

Approved, March 20, 1794

See, now you're just reaching and trying to draw false parallels. And besides, the war started when the South opened fire on Ft Sumter, not when they seceded to begin with. So let's make this very clear, the South declared war on the North.

I did not reach for anything. I applied the EXACT same standard to Arizona you are applying to to the South which was your assertion because the President thought it invalid it is null and void. If you don't like consistent application of your own damn argument change your line of thought.

The North was "occupying" their own fort. It was United States government property, paid for and owned by the US federal government. Hell the material used to build it came from New England. So when the South seceded they lost their right to that land plain and simple.

Hardly, it was null and void by terms and conditions imposed by South Carolina that were not met by the United States. No one contends the U.S. met the obligations of repair. People, such as you have, wrongfully assert it was purchased land all the time but that is probably because they got indoctrinated in a public school and are unaware of the text of the actual acts of Congress prohibiting the purchase of state land as a method of acquisition.

That, if the United States shall not, within three years of the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the Governor of this state, to the Executive of the United States, repair the fortifications now existing thereon or build other such forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein; in such case this grant shall be void and of no effect.

Statutes at Large of South Carolina, vol. 5, p. 501

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

Are you serious? The very existence of the Constitution IS the evidence.

Articles of Confederation:


Constitution:


This has already been articulated. As a matter of law people inherited sovereignty following the Declaration of Independence. States inherited it when the Articles of Confederation were recognized by the Treaty of Paris.

The Constitution was not a lawful amendment to the Articles of Confederation it was a fundamental new system of government based on the very concept of changing government at any time for any reason contained in the DoI that you are trying to call bullshit.

If the DoI is bullshit... so is the Constitution.





You must be a good little slave citizen who only keeps whatever fruits of your labor coercive government deems proper. I am also going to speculate you are a good little slave citizen who only exercises freedoms privileges government deems proper.

We must not be on the same page because you apparently think you are actually free to exercise natural rights absent coercion from government.



And that is an example of why you are talking sideways out of your tailpipe on this whole issue of who actually started the Civil war and who acted in good faith and who did not:





I did not reach for anything. I applied the EXACT same standard to Arizona you are applying to to the South which was your assertion because the President thought it invalid it is null and void. If you don't like consistent application of your own damn argument change your line of thought.



Hardly, it was null and void by terms and conditions imposed by the South Carolina that were not met by the United States. No one contends the U.S. met the obligations of repair. People, such as you have, wrongfully assert it was purchased land all the time but that is probably because they got indoctrinated in a public school and are unaware of the text of the actual acts of Congress prohibiting the purchase of state land as a method of acquisition.

Look, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore and here's why. You keep saying I've been "indoctrinated" through public schooling so clearly anything that I say you are automatically not going to believe. Just out of curiosity, where did you get your education?

Oh and btw, almost all of your arguments so far have been complete bs, I just don't have the time or feel like putting in the effort to wake you up to reality. Even the evidence that you presented argues in my favor

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

here we go again

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

here we go again

It's ridiculous isn't it? Even when people are shown the facts alongside reasoned arguments they still can't accept the truth. And the second you start making too much sense they just resort to saying you've been "indoctrinated" by the "government education system" and "conditioned" to believe whatever it is they don't like. But I guess I've been brainwashed by the evil government elites so I can be a good little slave and live out my days in ignorance of the "truth". I swear sometimes this forum's insanity is too much to bear.

 

[fisharmor]

hahaha, look, if you want to be taken seriously (especially by me) then stop trying to say that I'm buying into "conditioned" education. All I'm doing is looking at facts by doing RESEARCH. I've studied history for almost 10 years, I know how to research topics.

And if you want to be taken seriously, you need to learn a little logic.
Here's a starting point:
Any gratuitous assertion can be gratuitously denied.

Your assertion that the South started the war is a gratuitous assertion, unsupported by fact.
We didn't just gratuitously deny it, we went further and provided evidence that suggests that it is untrue.
Furnish some facts that support that claim, or contradict the facts we supplied which refute that claim.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Look, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore and here's why. You keep saying I've been "indoctrinated" through public schooling so clearly anything that I say you are automatically not going to believe. Just out of curiosity, where did you get your education?

Oh and btw, almost all of your arguments so far have been complete bs, I just don't have the time or feel like putting in the effort to wake you up to reality. Even the evidence that you presented argues in my favor

I stated a common reason for people making an invalid historical point:

People, such as you have, wrongfully assert ..... because they are indoctrinated.

I have not repeatedly stated you are indoctrinated and as such you are incompetent. Don't stretch it. Why should I or anyone believe anything you merely say if you can not back it up with historical citations for accuracy?

Your lack of rebuttal to 1) the existence of the Constitution is evidence people can change government at any time for any reason for the pursuit of happiness, or 2) legislative citations of congress or states does not make my arguments complete bs. It makes your arguments complete bs.

 

[Danke]

Look, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore and here's why. You keep saying I've been "indoctrinated" through public schooling so clearly anything that I say you are automatically not going to believe. Just out of curiosity, where did you get your education?

Oh and btw, almost all of your arguments so far have been complete bs, I just don't have the time or feel like putting in the effort to wake you up to reality. Even the evidence that you presented argues in my favor

LOL.

Lost the argument and we get "I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore and here's why...[you won't believe me, and I don't have the time]"

wtf kind of rebuttal is that?

What in the Constituion prevents people from breaking away from a contract/compact that some people generations ago signed (some of them anyway)? Aren't we Sovereign? Or are we still subjects?

 

[pacelli]

It's ridiculous isn't it? Even when people are shown the facts alongside reasoned arguments they still can't accept the truth. And the second you start making too much sense they just resort to saying you've been "indoctrinated" by the "government education system" and "conditioned" to believe whatever it is they don't like. But I guess I've been brainwashed by the evil government elites so I can be a good little slave and live out my days in ignorance of the "truth". I swear sometimes this forum's insanity is too much to bear.

Don't worry, a huge RESET button will be pressed if Ron declares a 2012 campaign. Don't sweat the small stuff.

All of these little arguments, "who said what, when?" will be a thing of the past as soon as RP declares.

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

Ok, this should end this pointless argument. The key argument here seems to be whether the South owned Ft Sumter after they seceded and that they had the rights to the fort but the North wouldn't leave anyway. So I did a little research using the Historical Hartford Currant (an online publication of every Hartford Currant article ever written) from around 1860 when all of this stuff was happening. I'll post a link to the article but I'm not sure if anyone will be able to see it unless they have a CT Library Card, so I'll type out what's important.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=4&did=826938332&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1273006961&clientId=61635

Washington, Feb 8 1861

The President, in his message transmitted to both Houses to-day, the correspondence between himself and Colonel Hayne. Much of it has already been published. The following is the sustance of the conclusion:--"Col. Hayne's letter of Jan. 31st, after stating the refusal to surrender Fort Sumter would be the occasion of war, and stating the question to be one of more property, says--If the evils of war are to be encountered, especially the calamity of war, elevated statesmanship would seem to require that it should be accepted as an unavoidable alternative of something still more disastrous, such as national dishonor, or measures materially affecting the safety or permanent interests of this people, that it should be choice and deliberation made and entered upon of set purpose; but that war should be an incident or an accident attendant on a policy professedly peaceful, and not required to effect the object which is avowed as the only end intended, can only be excused where no warning has been given. As to the consequences, Carolina cannot, by her silence, appear to acquicse (My input: that word is a little smudged) in the imputation that she is guilty of an act of unprovoked aggression in firing-on the Star of the West. Though an unarmed vessel, she was filled with armed men, entering her territories against her.

To Gov. Picken's instructions, which accompany Haynes's letter, Secretary Holt replied on the 6th acknowledging the President's receipt of Haynes's letter. He first gives the summary of Haynes's instructions which are to this effect. I do not come as a military man to demand the surrender of the fortress, but as a legal officer of the State, its Attorney General, to claim for the State the exercise of the claim. The proposition therefore is to buy Fort Sumter, sustained by the declaration in effect, if South Carolina is not permitted to make the purchase, she with seize the Fort by force of arms. An invitation for a negotiation transfers the property as between friendly governments. This is proposal impresses the President as having assumed a most unusual form. The House however investigated the claim on which is professes to be based, apart from the declaration that accompanies it. The thtle of the United States to the forst is complete. Were its interest in the property, in the ordinary acceptance of the term, it might probably be subjected to the exercise of the right of eminent domain. But it also has political relations of a much higher and more imposing character than those of mere proprietorship. It has absolute jurisdiction over the fort and soil on which it stands, which is clearly incompatible with the claims of eminent domain. This authority is derived from the peaceful cession of Carolina herself under a provision of the Constitution of the United States. Carolina can no more assert a right of eminent domain over Fort Sumter, than Maryland can over the District of Columbia. The President however is relieved from the further necessity of pursuing the enquiry by the fact that he has not the constitutional power to cede or surrender it.

There's more to the article but it strays to another topic. Guys this is straight from the source, a primary document from 1861. I don't know what else could possibly convince you because this is as straight forward as it gets.