Nullification by states of federal laws

PT111 · Apr 16, 2011

Citizen said:
I used to be glad the Union was preserved, slaves freed, etc. But, over time, the more I've learned, the more my thinking has shifted. I'll probably shift s'more as time goes on, but for the moment I'm pretty convinced the North invaded for much more than just freeing the slaves and maintaining the Union.

Slavery was only one of the many factors in initiating the separation and war. As you say the destruction was much more than just freeing the slaves and preserving the union. There was a great deal of punishment involved especially in Sherman's march. Slavery was the catalyst but the true reason was power and economics. The South was becoming too wealthy and had too much power in Washington. Both had to be reduced and 150 years later we still see that punishment being handed out.

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 16, 2011

OldCurlyWolf said:
Once they seceded, the Confederate states were NOT part of the U.S.. Ergo, the War of Northern Aggression is actually much more accurate than calling it the civil war.

I suppose the question is, does the state have the right (authority?) to secede, and does the Federal Government have the authority (Constitutionally, or by military might?) to retain the state?

Citizen · Apr 16, 2011

Beretta92FSLady said:
I suppose the question is, does the state have the right (authority?) to secede, and does the Federal Government have the authority (Constitutionally, or by military might?) to retain the state?

Yep, that's the question.

At the risk of opening up this discussion for the zillionth time:

Yes, states have the right to secede. Little known is the fact that some north east states threatened to secede in the early years of the republic--back when it was still a republic.

Secession is not constitutionally prohibited to the states. Enforcing the union is not enumerated to the fedgov. See the also the 10th Amendment. Also, Virginia's official ratification of the federal constitution expresssly reserves the right to secede. I imagine other original state ratifications contained similar language.

SouthernBoy · Apr 16, 2011

Beretta92FSLady said:
Or, "Southerners Against Free Negros." There are tens of millions of Negro Americans, and 'Others' who are happy as hell that the so-called "Southerners" had their asses handed to them; I am one of those happy people.

I have been thinking about this and YES, it is a Civil War. Southern (s)tates seceded. The Southern (s)tates were (and are) part of the United States.

Lot of bitterness there.

And I am both proud and happy to be a Southerner.

SouthernBoy · Apr 16, 2011

Citizen said:
I used to be glad the Union was preserved, slaves freed, etc. But, over time, the more I've learned, the more my thinking has shifted. I'll probably shift s'more as time goes on, but for the moment I'm pretty convinced the North invaded for much more than just freeing the slaves and maintaining the Union.

You're on to the truth behind the War of Northern Aggression (for you sensitive types, I'll call it the War Between the States). This is a topic perhaps better left for another thread so I'll bow out.

SouthernBoy · Apr 16, 2011

OldCurlyWolf said:
You have one fallacy in your thought process.

Once they seceded, the Confederate states were NOT part of the U.S.. Ergo, the War of Northern Aggression is actually much more accurate than calling it the civil war.

Bingo! This was exactly my point. The states which left the union formed their own union and country. Whether or not the United States failed to recognize this means nothing... other than the fact that the victor writes (twists) history.

Freedom First · Apr 16, 2011

Definitions are key

Just to add to the confusion...

Revolution: Noun. (Politics) A fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or renunciation of one government, and the substitution of another, by the governed.

Secession: Noun. Formal withdrawal from an organization.

Federal: Noun. A group of soverign states or nations who willingly submit a portion of their self governance to a central body for the benefit of all.

So, which was it when the Colonists withdrew from Great Britain? And which was it during the war of 1861-65?

eye95 · Apr 16, 2011

Freedom First said:
Just to add to the confusion...

Revolution: Noun. (Politics) A fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or renunciation of one government, and the substitution of another, by the governed.

Succession: Noun. Formal withdrawal from an organization.

Federal: Noun. A group of soverign states or nations who willingly submit a portion of their self governance to a central body for the benefit of all.

So, which was it when the Colonists withdrew from Great Britain? And which was it during the war of 1861-65?

Did you mean secession?

Freedom First · Apr 16, 2011

eye95 said:
Did you mean secession?

Nah. I just like looking dumb. :lol:

stuckinchico · Apr 16, 2011

........--Moderator Comment--
Completely off topic - this is NOT a political stump.
KEEP IT ON-TOPIC: All gun rights discussions not directly related to open carry should take place in the "General Discussions" forum and topics that are not related to gun rights at all should take place in "The Lounge".[/QUOTE]

UMMm hello this appears to be the social lounge. SOoooo this comment is for what ?????

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 19, 2011

SouthernBoy said:
Bingo! This was exactly my point. The states which left the union formed their own union and country. Whether or not the United States failed to recognize this means nothing... other than the fact that the victor writes (twists) history.

I agree with you. Hell, they elected a President. I still think it worked out better this way.

Americans are chomping to get in another knock-down drag-out fight. I could be wrong, nah, I'm not. It seems like there are a number of Americans that are feeling the itch, and they want to scratch it. What 'itch' would that be? I don't think there is anything uncivilized about the 'people' literally fighting it out, and the winner takes all. I have a feeling the 'south' would lose again though.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 19, 2011

Beretta92FSLady said:
I agree with you. Hell, they elected a President. I still think it worked out better this way.

Americans are chomping to get in another knock-down drag-out fight. I could be wrong, nah, I'm not. It seems like there are a number of Americans that are feeling the itch, and they want to scratch it. What 'itch' would that be? I don't think there is anything uncivilized about the 'people' literally fighting it out, and the winner takes all. I have a feeling the 'south' would lose again though.

This time it isn't a south/north issue but that itch they feeling are for the same reasons, rampant unconstitutional, over bearing, aggressive Federal government.

Citizen · Apr 19, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
This time it isn't a south/north issue but that itch they feeling are for the same reasons, rampant unconstitutional, over bearing, aggressive Federal government.

You left out profligate, self-serving, power-hungry, and criminal.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 19, 2011

Citizen said:
You left out profligate, self-serving, power-hungry, and criminal.

My Bad! :lol:

Nullification by states of federal laws

PT111

Regular Member

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

SouthernBoy

Regular Member

SouthernBoy

Regular Member

SouthernBoy

Regular Member

Freedom First

Regular Member

eye95

Well-known member

Freedom First

Regular Member

stuckinchico

Regular Member

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member