Current Events

Re: The Secessionists & You

cab21 — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 01:20:12 GMT

unless the north was attacking the south, it's the private property of the north to do as the north sees fit.

it is absurd to say the government should give up land it owns because another government want to own it and make the current owners surrender, that is a act of war and a act of agression.

why should a nonowner be able to demand the owner surrender at the threat of a gun?

not sure what the link is, but i know i read letters from union soldiars about how the confederates treated blacks doing the war and reconstruction.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html here is a example of jury nullification when whites in the south murdered blacks

http://www.enotes.com/african-americans-reference/african-americans more of what whites did to blacks with reconstructionism

just leave it at the south wanting legal slaves and to expand legal slavery, if that's not a fail, what is?

there was no need to keep them in the union, but there was a need to defend federal land and property.

if people that want to own property are justified in demanding surrender of current owners, then there are no property rights.

real property rights, neither the union or the confederates were legitmate, so i see no reason why one gets to take over from another if neither would have a great claim.

Re: The Secessionists & You

shackleford — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:33:51 GMT

cab21:

lets see, the south had slaves, unless that's ok.

the south is the one that demanded the north surrender and started violence when the north did not.

when south carolina left the union, it did not own the federal land inside the state of south carolina, so why should the usa have to surrender that land . south carolina can either buy the land, or live peacefully with the usa using it's territory as it sees fit , demanding surrender was violent.

the north had taxes they wanted to impose on the south, then fought a war in a brutal way.

both north and south had people in the army raping people and the south killed blacks like it was nothing.

the union was demanded to surrender before the confederates were

Your assertions are absurd. It would have been stupid to let the North maintain their military bases in South Carolina. Kicking them out was the only sensible option. That's why they demanded surrender first.

Also, in war, there are always individual cases of pillaging and such. Provide documentation that "the south killed blacks like it was nothing." Why would they kill blacks if they were fighting for - among other things - their legal right to slaves?

All of this is moot. Lincoln was a mass-murdering tyrant. He even ordered a marshall to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for opposing his legislation. There was no reason for the Union to violently and forcefully keep the southern states in the Union other than tyrannical authoritarianism. Lincoln was an evil man.

Re: The Secessionists & You

cab21 — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:51:07 GMT

lets see, the south had slaves, unless that's ok.

the south is the one that demanded the north surrender and started violence when the north did not.

when south carolina left the union, it did not own the federal land inside the state of south carolina, so why should the usa have to surrender that land . south carolina can either buy the land, or live peacefully with the usa using it's territory as it sees fit , demanding surrender was violent.

the north had taxes they wanted to impose on the south, then fought a war in a brutal way.

both north and south had people in the army raping people and the south killed blacks like it was nothing.

the union was demanded to surrender before the confederates were

Re: The Secessionists & You

shackleford — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:36:59 GMT

cab21:

both sides were states and guilty of all sorts of crimes.

Such as?

Re: The Secessionists & You

cab21 — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:36:27 GMT

both sides were states and guilty of all sorts of crimes.

Re: The Secessionists & You

shackleford — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:32:15 GMT

cab21:

south carolina could have surrendered.

Hahah.

Re: The Secessionists & You

cab21 — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:27:58 GMT

south carolina could have surrendered.

Re: The Secessionists & You

shackleford — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:22:28 GMT

The way by which President Lincoln got the South to fire the first shot on Fort Sumter on April 15, 1861, and launch the Civil War (which the South called "the War Between the States") was shrewd. What Lincoln did was to order a Union fleet to relieve and reinforce Fort Sumter in the middle in Charleston harbor and other nearby forts — but to do so by having a lead vessel merely supply food to hungry soldiers at Fort Sumter. The move worked. Confederate President Jefferson Davis, holding that the Union fleet invading Confederate waters amounted to a declaration of war, ordered the Charleston shore batteries to fire on Fort Sumter. Our author quotes historian Bruce Catton that thus Lincoln neatly got South Carolina standing "before the civilized world as having fired upon bread."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/peterson/peterson12.html

Re: The Secessionists & You

shackleford — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:15:17 GMT

cab21:

negotiations can stop hot war. physical violence is not a required response.

it was war nontheless. south carolina demanded the surrender of the fort before attacking it, so that can be a cold example turning into hot from a lack of negotiations

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/85383.html

Re: The Secessionists & You

cab21 — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:09:22 GMT

negotiations can stop hot war. physical violence is not a required response.

it was war nontheless. south carolina demanded the surrender of the fort before attacking it, so that can be a cold example turning into hot from a lack of negotiations

Re: The Secessionists & You

shackleford — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:01:09 GMT

cab21:

a single shot does not a make a murder then.

a single attack on your home could be all you get, so i say a single shot starts a war.

Then why didn't the Cold War heat up to a "hot" war?

Re: The Secessionists & You

Zerubbabel — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:43:59 GMT

My apologies Anenome. Sometimes memory fails me. The compliment is still extended, that it was eloquently written.

I see the idea simplistically in that one must first secede and then he is free to form new voluntary associations. Otherwise it is a kind of infidelity to existing agreements/relations.

Re: The Secessionists & You

Zerubbabel — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:37:22 GMT

"a single attack on your home ... the conferate army attacked the union army."

Surely there is room in this for extenuating circumstances such as the Union Army occupying a piece of South Carolina.

IF the Union recognized CSA sovereignty then they needed to remove their troops from a sovereign foreign nation. IF the Union refused to recognize CSA sovereignty then they were in effect waging war on a fellow State, which is a clear violation of the general, and voluntary, Constitutional pact that binds all States in mutual defense, and specifically Art 4 Sec 4 "The United States shall ... protect each (State) against invasion," which would include invasion by other States or States United.

Re: The Secessionists & You

Anenome — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:07:02 GMT

Zerubbabel:

I think it was Clayton that has written eloquently about individual secession as the best path forward.

Ghandi developed the plan of peaceful non-cooperation with the British overlords. But to withdraw, or secede, from the legitimacy of the State means a material loss and/or personal risk that most Americans won't embrace.

Has Clayton? Hmm, I've written a bit about that.

It's one of the premises of, for instance, counter-economics.

But counter-economics and a replacement currency are only a piece of the equation. You also need a parallel legal system and dispute resolution, and it has to be broadly extensible. Perhaps an online legal system of some sort...

Re: The Secessionists & You

Zerubbabel — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:43:03 GMT

I think it was Clayton that has written eloquently about individual secession as the best path forward.

Ghandi developed the plan of peaceful non-cooperation with the British overlords. But to withdraw, or secede, from the legitimacy of the State means a material loss and/or personal risk that most Americans won't embrace.