It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
It must be some kind of a case of stockholm syndrome, but on a large scale, because the people who complain the most about not having freedom will go to any length to defend the very entity responsible for placing them in bondage.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Your attempt to translate Lincoln's arguments against the legitimacy of secession is a laugh.
A misguided, deluded, and tyrannically power-hungry orator
If I am self governing and I don't want to participate in something then I don't participate.
The power of secession is an inalienable right
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Your attempt to translate Lincoln's arguments against the legitimacy of secession is a laugh.
A misguided, deluded, and tyrannically power-hungry orator
Lincoln was not tyrannical, the South seceded before the man could even assume office. Prior to Lincoln, the Southern backed Democrats held majority control of congress and both presidents were Southern backed Democrats.
Lincoln is supposedly power hungry and tyrannical in the eyes of confederate apologists because he won the war and put the South back in place. History is not "fair" now is it?
If I am self governing and I don't want to participate in something then I don't participate.
Oh really? So you don't pay taxes? You have a choose in whether you want to contribute to the military? You have choice to participate in paying for roads? Parks? Don't be naive. Those black slaves back in those days didn't have any rights what so ever, many were raped and abused at the hands of their slave holders (I'll say some black slave holders as to not "offend" Honor). Women had minimal writes those days. The fact that confederate apologists today yap on about liberty and tyrannical governments is a complete joke, it is hypocrisy at it's finest.
The power of secession is an inalienable right
And yet the South failed to secede back in the civil war? You sit here today in these United States, have you failed to notice?? How could it be an inalienable right if the South could not secede? It doesn't matter how you intepret the documents prior to the civil war, the victor writes history, the victor writes the rules, the victor in the civil war was the North. The North won the civil war, they established that secession was not a right. This is not too hard to understand. How many people care to debate the contract the patriots broke with the British empite in the the revolutionary war? None from my count.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Oh really? So you don't pay taxes? You have a choose in whether you want to contribute to the military? You have choice to participate in paying for roads? Parks? Don't be naive.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Those black slaves back in those days didn't have any rights what so ever, many were raped and abused at the hands of their slave holders (I'll say some black slave holders as to not "offend" Honor).
You sit here today in these United States, have you failed to notice?? How could it be an inalienable right if the South could not secede? It doesn't matter how you intepret the documents prior to the civil war, the victor writes history, the victor writes the rules, the victor in the civil war was the North.
Originally posted by Valhall
This entire argument is circular and nonsensical. They DID secede.
And why are you continuing to bring the slavery issue into a discussion
To use whether a citizen can decide to not pay taxes as an argument that a sovereign state cannot secede is ludicrous.
This country's creation began with an act of secession.
The states were completely successful in secession.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Explain to me what the point of secession is if independence does not follow suit? While the South declared secession, they never sucessfully gained sovereignty.
Who are you to tell me that I can't mention slavery in this thread? If you don't want to discuss the ethics of slavery in this discussion, don't bring it up, simple. My initial response regarding slavery was as to the motive of southern secession, it initially had nothing to do with the ethics of it, until other members here decided to bring it up.
Maybe you should read the thread and my responses before actually posting.
Again you're not reading properly, my references to "taxes" were in response to another member who complained about the loss of the ability to "self governing". We were never "self governing" individuals once we entered a contract with the rest of society. That specific debate was with another member, not with you.
With that act of secession followed actual independence for the United States, independence successfully achieved by force against British forces. By your logic, any acts of secession inevitably leads to automatic independence, but history proves otherwise. Secession is meaningless without actual independence following suit.
No they weren't, the South lost the war at the hands of Union forces. Get back to reading your history books.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
The reason that taxes are required is because we are property by contract to a democratic government, the USA
The war between the states changed everything, and it did so because Lincoln enacted maritime powers to take the South by military occupation.
The only real argument that you have is.... "hey we kicked their ass".
That's it.
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT
Explain to me what the point of secession is if independence does not follow suit? While the South declared secession, they never sucessfully gained sovereignty.
Who are you to tell me that I can't mention slavery in this thread?
We were never "self governing" individuals once we entered a contract with the rest of society.
With that act of secession followed actual independence for the United States, independence successfully achieved by force against British forces. By your logic, any acts of secession inevitably leads to automatic independence, but history proves otherwise. Secession is meaningless without actual independence following suit.
No they weren't, the South lost the war at the hands of Union forces. Get back to reading your history books.
Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.
YOU are the one that used slavery at a talking point when the discussion
We ARE self-governing.
Secession is automatic independence.
Yes, many of us are born into that contract, none of us chose to enter that contract, we have little choice in opting out of that contract.
None of us were ever "self governing" as you so insisted was lost with the civil war. The only time any of us are truly self governing is in an anarchist society, beyond that it's your own little definitions and intepretations of what self governance really is.
the North established the rules after the civil war regarding secession, this is something you and the others here have to understand and come to terms with.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
And what pray tell exactly is the contract that we entered into that relieved us of our ability to self-govern?
I am really interested to see you answer this question.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
And the South seceded before the war,
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
And the South seceded before the war,
The South never seceded, it only declared secession. It lost the war over it's ability or "right" to become a sovereign and independent nation.
Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Invading the northern lands of Mexico was not necessarily the "right" thing to do, forcing the Hawaiian king to sign a contract of annexation was not the "right" thing to do. History is not a pretty thing, history has no need to be fair to anybody.
Originally posted by Valhall
The colonies declared their Independence. They were independent at that point. The crown decided to fight to revoke that declaration.
Even the official communications from Washington acknowledged they were a separate entity and declared them enemies.