Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Lincoln was a tyrant
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Lincoln was a tyrant (Read 668 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 37247
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #60 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 8:31am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 11th, 2019 at 8:04pm:
The Confederate forces attacked the occupiers on their territory because they were occupiers on their territory. 


Ft.Sumter was/is in U.S. waters.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 37247
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #61 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 8:44am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 11th, 2019 at 8:04pm:
As so often happens when you make up a position to argue against it, I said nothing like that.

The Confederate forces attacked the occupiers on their territory because they were occupiers on their territory. 

Since you have demonstrated that you understand that the constitution reserves powers to the states that are not granted to the federal government or forbidden to states, states had the reserved power to leave the Union and South Carolina had already done that.

I don't think you've made a good case that the powers reserved to the states include the power to leave the union, but, since SC attacked a U.S. military installation, a very good case can be made that they were in a state of rebellion.

How about an argument that, when a state chose to join the union, it's citizens became U.S. citizens in addition to being citizens of their state, and that their states did not and cannot represent them as U.S. citizens  and therefore can't make decisions at a state governmental level that affect the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens.

Thinking along that line, I would argue that a convention of the state's citizens, created and operating outside of the state legislature, would have to make the decision to withdraw from the union.

Anyway, the governments of the slave states were tyrannical.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 37247
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #62 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 8:49am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 11th, 2019 at 8:07pm:
Is that the standard?  The federal government can do anything as long as "it's one of those things that governments do . . . ?"


No, of course not, but one of the tasks assigned to the federal government was national defense, and in order to defend the nation (certainly at the time of the Civil War), it was necessary to defend the nations coastlines, which included building forts to protect various harbors in the U.S., including Charleston harbor.

Protecting the U.S. coast and the U.S. in general was served by protecting various harbors important to trade from and to the entire U.S.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 5891
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #63 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 8:51am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 8:44am:
I don't think you've made a good case that the powers reserved to the states include the power to leave the union, but, since SC attacked a U.S. military installation, a very good case can be made that they were in a state of rebellion.

How about an argument that, when a state chose to join the union, it's citizens became U.S. citizens in addition to being citizens of their state, and that their states did not and cannot represent them as U.S. citizens  and therefore can't make decisions at a state governmental level that affect the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens.

Thinking along that line, I would argue that a convention of the state's citizens, created and operating outside of the state legislature, would have to make the decision to withdraw from the union.

Anyway, the governments of the slave states were tyrannical.


Burnsred:  The tenth Amendment says all powers not granted to the Federal Imperial government are withheld from it

The town drunk:  Duh, dar, burp.  But how do we know that the right to leave the union is one of those rights?  Is it listed somewhere?

Sleep it off, Jeff.  Sleep it off ...

Jeff: but our great, great, great, grandfathers consented to be governed, that means we consented to be governed!

Declaration of Independence: "We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The town drunk:  Let no man put asunder anything their great, great, great, great grandfathers agreed to on their behalf.

So Thomas Jefferson was a traitor, huh drunkard?
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 37247
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #64 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:13am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 8:51am:
Declaration of Independence: "We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

That's what you think it should have said? I like the original better.

Anyway, the Declaration did establish the colonies as independent states, at which time, they did have all the powers that their constitutions granted to them.

They willingly gave up some powers when they joined the union. They were no longer independent states, but a part of a larger union of states.

What do you think of my argument that secession of a state could only be accomplished by the agreement of the people of that state, that the state government can't make that decision for the people?

What if I said that secession, being a matter that affects the entire union, can only be legitimately accomplished by agreement of the people of the whole United States?

Isn't that the argument being used in California, that the people of the entire state must agree before any part of the state is allowed to secede?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4742
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #65 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:49am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 8:44am:
I don't think you've made a good case that the powers reserved to the states include the power to leave the union,


It's not my case to make.  The constitution makes it:

X

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.

Does the Constitution delegate to the United States the power for forbid states from leaving the Union? 

No.

Does the Constitution itself forbid the power to leave the Union?

No.

Therefore, the power to leave the Union is reserved to the states or the people.

You want to amateur lawyer up some other interpretation, fine.  But to be consistent, you must accept that real lawyers do the same and the USSC often interprets the constitution in ways that differ from its plain meaning.  If you are right, they are  right.  If they are wrong, you are wrong.

Quote:
but, since SC attacked a U.S. military installation, a very good case can be made that they were in a state of rebellion.


By the time of the firing on Fort Sumpter, South Carolina had been out of the union for months.

Quote:
How about an argument that, when a state chose to join the union, it's citizens became U.S. citizens in addition to being citizens of their state, and that their states did not and cannot represent them as U.S. citizens  and therefore can't make decisions at a state governmental level that affect the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens.

Thinking along that line, I would argue that a convention of the state's citizens, created and operating outside of the state legislature, would have to make the decision to withdraw from the union.


It ok for you to argue that you want it to be that way.  But if you are claiming that the constitution actually says that, you need to cite the article and section.

Quote:
Anyway, the governments of the slave states were tyrannical.


Oh, of course!

I hope you will strongly agree that any government whose constitution allows slavery in any form is tyrannical.

Right, Jeff?


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8463
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #66 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 12:06pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:49am:
It's not my case to make.  The constitution makes it:

X

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.

Does the Constitution delegate to the United States the power for forbid states from leaving the Union? 

No.

Does the Constitution itself forbid the power to leave the Union?

No.

Therefore, the power to leave the Union is reserved to the states or the people.

You want to amateur lawyer up some other interpretation, fine.  But to be consistent, you must accept that real lawyers do the same and the USSC often interprets the constitution in ways that differ from its plain meaning.  If you are right, they are right. If they are wrong, you are wrong.


Absolutely beautiful logic. +1.

Little Big Man wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 10:49am:
By the time of the firing on Fort Sumpter, South Carolina had been out of the union for months.


I say that the US established the right to secede, by itself seceding. If the North doesn't believe in that right, they ought to apologise to the Crown and go crawling back to England.

Imagine if logic actually worked on people.

Spot o' tea, guv'nuh? Shall, we? Let's!

See, this suits me plenty. I actually want to be a cultured Brit.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4742
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #67 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 12:22pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 12:06pm:
Absolutely beautiful logic. +1.


I say that the US established the right to secede, by itself seceding. If the North doesn't believe in that right, they ought to apologise to the Crown and go crawling back to England.


Another good point.

Quote:
Imagine if logic actually worked on people.

Spot o' tea, guv'nuh? Shall, we? Let's!

See, this suits me plenty. I actually want to be a cultured Brit.


Yes, we should also give back the land that was taken from Americans who did the right thing and moved to Canada to remain loyal to their rightful King.
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 5891
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #68 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 12:36pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 12:06pm:
Absolutely beautiful logic. +1.


I say that the US established the right to secede, by itself seceding. If the North doesn't believe in that right, they ought to apologise to the Crown and go crawling back to England.

Imagine if logic actually worked on people.

Spot o' tea, guv'nuh? Shall, we? Let's!

See, this suits me plenty. I actually want to be a cultured Brit.


Just pointing out I made that argument like four posts up in reply #63
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8463
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #69 - Jan 12th, 2019 at 12:51pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 12th, 2019 at 12:36pm:
Just pointing out I made that argument like four posts up in reply #63


And it's a good case. I don't expect Jeff to be able to draw the parallel, though. He'll read the first sentence of that paragraph, get tired halfway through, and go, "What about the General Congress?! I think it's tyrannical that only generals should be congressman so your argument is wrong!"

We'll see what he says against having the right to secede as established explicitly by a country that only exists because it did secede.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15345511

Let him keep going down the road of secession having to be an explicit right.

We'll be sipping tea in no time.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Lincoln was a tyrant
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy