It WAS ugly. 
[right][snapback]626915[/snapback][/right]

Your argument presuposes that there was any right to withdraw from the union.
[right][snapback]626863[/snapback][/right]

Unfortunately, the 10th ammendment has basically been abrogated by this enormous beast of a federal govt that we now enjoy.  This has been a major concern for southerners who have been historically disenfranchised from power since the inception of the nation.  [right][snapback]627265[/snapback][/right]

10 pages of thread over a tacky sequined prom dress? Holy crap.
[right][snapback]626906[/snapback][/right]

How so?  Pre-election, weren't you saying that if Kerry couldn't carry a southern state, he wouldn't win?  You were right.  So how is that kind of clout disenfranchisement?
[right][snapback]627474[/snapback][/right]

I designed and had made a Confederate Flag Dress to show a piece of my heritage and to show what I stood for.
[right][snapback]627776[/snapback][/right]

At 11 pages there has to be some padding going on... right?
[right][snapback]627802[/snapback][/right]

  We're actually discussing substantive stuff here about how Southerners are a bunch of sore losers who still about the fact that they started a war they couldn't win and have horrible fashion sense.
[right][snapback]627821[/snapback][/right]

  We're actually discussing substantive stuff here about how Southerners are a bunch of sore losers who still about the fact that they started a war they couldn't win and have horrible fashion sense.
[right][snapback]627821[/snapback][/right]

I can't believe you of all people you are giving me the on post padding. 
[right][snapback]627833[/snapback][/right]

  We're actually discussing substantive stuff here about how Southerners are a bunch of sore losers who still about the fact that they started a war they couldn't win and have horrible fashion sense.
[right][snapback]627821[/snapback][/right]

You need to get your facts straight.  Who started the war?
[right][snapback]627823[/snapback][/right]

The South did, goofball.
[right][snapback]627843[/snapback][/right]

Like the way you left of the part of my quote where I asked who invaded who.  The South only tried to protect their land and loved ones from the Northern aggressors.  I'll ask you againg real s - l - o- w - l - y , who was the invading force, the North or the South?
[right][snapback]627871[/snapback][/right]

You need to get your facts straight.  Who started the war?  Did the South invade the North?
[right][snapback]627823[/snapback][/right]

[right][snapback]627803[/snapback][/right]

My thought exactly...

11+ pages on this......must pad
[right][snapback]627907[/snapback][/right]

You tell me.  Who fired the first shot?
[right][snapback]627897[/snapback][/right]

1.  The South, by firing on Fort Sumter
[right][snapback]627899[/snapback][/right]

F'n right.
And you know the strike is coming
[right][snapback]627920[/snapback][/right]

12
[right][snapback]627955[/snapback][/right]

Go ahead and take it Quimby - my Christmas gift to you.
[right][snapback]627954[/snapback][/right]

Two answers to two questions.

1.  The South, by firing on Fort Sumter
2.  The North crossed the line first, in response to an act of aggression (see 1 above).

I thought you were a fan of response to aggression (qv 9/11)?
[right][snapback]627899[/snapback][/right]

Well, Perch, I see that Ursa has answered for you.
[right][snapback]627933[/snapback][/right]

You need to get your facts straight.  Who started the war?  Did the South invade the North?
[right][snapback]627823[/snapback][/right]

Fort Sumter is in South Carolina, which had left the Union.  The Northern Aggressors would not vacate a Southern military installation.  Had they left, when requested shots would not have been fired. It can and should be argued that the North started it by not vacating Fort Sumter.  I suppose you would just love to have an Iranian military installation right outside Washington DC.  Same principal.
[right][snapback]627985[/snapback][/right]

Accept it. Learn to love it. Life will be much easier for you.
[right][snapback]627999[/snapback][/right]

Fort Sumter is in South Carolina, which had left the Union.  The Northern Aggressors would not vacate a Southern military installation.  Had they left, when requested shots would not have been fired. It can and should be argued that the North started it by not vacating Fort Sumter.  I suppose you would just love to have an Iranian military installation right outside Washington DC.  Same principal.
[right][snapback]627985[/snapback][/right]

for some reason, i'm drawing a blank today...what's that clause of the constitution, which all the states ratified of course, giving primary irrevocable jurisdiction to the US government?
[right][snapback]628013[/snapback][/right]

Actually I do accept it, and think that on a whole we are better off because of it.  My whole point for rambleing on an on in this thread was to point out that the South is not the only one with a past darkened by slavery, and that there were other issues besides slavery that led up to the Civil War.  The South gets a bad rap by those that are ignorant of history, and believe that Abe Lincoln was some type of savior.  It makes the Northerners feel much better about themselves when they say that they fought the Civil war over a moral issue, instead of saying they fought it out of greed, and that one of the good things that came out of it was end of slavery.
[right][snapback]628021[/snapback][/right]

for some reason, i'm drawing a blank today...what's that clause of the constitution, which all the states ratified of course, giving primary irrevocable jurisdiction to the US government?
[right][snapback]628013[/snapback][/right]

  Section 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...

. . . . .

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, ....

The South gets a bad rap by those that are ignorant of history, and believe that Abe Lincoln was some type of savior.  It makes the Northerners feel much better about themselves when they say that they fought the Civil war over a moral issue, instead of saying they fought it out of greed, and that one of the good things that came out of it was end of slavery.
[right][snapback]628021[/snapback][/right]

There are a couple of clauses you may be thinking of (probably the second):

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Or

Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[right][snapback]628027[/snapback][/right]

Shame on you Az    you left out the longer part about the unfair taxation to support Norhtern intrests, and how the North used the slave issue to unite to fight of the Souths attempts to rectify them.
[right][snapback]626861[/snapback][/right]

"Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent the execution of the laws deceived you. The object is disunion. Disunion by armed force is treason."  - Andrew Jackson (a southerner), 1832
[right][snapback]626880[/snapback][/right]

Is this thing still going or are y'all just padding now?
[right][snapback]628088[/snapback][/right]

And despite your beleif that the North views all Southerners as haflbreed morans you'd be surprised at how exaggerated that is.  The bumper sticker reading "No. We don't need you to tell us how you'd do it up North" shows that there is still a fixation with this divide that is not reciprocated. 

The North doesn't spend it's time in an unhealthy revisitation of a 135 year old war.

Not to turn this into a dem/repub argument, but the repubs famous call of the 2000 election was "Get over it". 

Why can't the South "get over it" when it would seem that Germany can, that democrats can over an event just 4 years old, and that we are asking the Iraqis to do the same thing?
[right][snapback]628136[/snapback][/right]

Actually I do accept it, and think that on a whole we are better off because of it.  My whole point for rambleing on an on in this thread was to point out that the South is not the only one with a past darkened by slavery, and that there were other issues besides slavery that led up to the Civil War.  The South gets a bad rap by those that are ignorant of history, and believe that Abe Lincoln was some type of savior.  It makes the Northerners feel much better about themselves when they say that they fought the Civil war over a moral issue, instead of saying they fought it out of greed, and that one of the good things that came out of it was end of slavery.
[right][snapback]628021[/snapback][/right]

yes.  the "supremacy clause".  duh.  secession is obviously an open-and-shut violation of that law.  a law which every state in the union subscribed to and adopted.
[right][snapback]628060[/snapback][/right]

THE REAL LINCOLN

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, "The Real Lincoln," Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.


Let's look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union ... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"


At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.


On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty." The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.


Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go." DiLorenzo cites other editorials expressing identical sentiments.


Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."


In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.


DiLorenzo does a yeoman's job in documenting Lincoln's ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That's why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny. 

The war was fought over a moral issue - upholding the Constitution of the Unites States which made all the states one nation; and Abe Lincoln was a savior - he saved the Union.  Lincoln and the North did not want to fight a war, but the South gave them no choice.  If these states could leave over this issue, any state coould simply say "screw you - I'm outta here" any time it didn't like something the feds did - it would have been the end of the USA. 

But you are right - the end of slavery was one of the good things that came out of the war.
[right][snapback]628186[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, Lincoln jailed people without bond, without due process, without charges, and when they were charged it was usually sedition, a clear violation of the first amendment. 

Moral issue - sure...
[right][snapback]628235[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, Lincoln jailed people without bond, without due process, without charges, and when they were charged it was usually sedition, a clear violation of the first amendment. 

Moral issue - sure...
[right][snapback]628235[/snapback][/right]