• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What do you think of the War of Northern Attrition?

Ouroboros said:
Nope, the Tenth still means what it says:

Not one of you one-sentence wonders have managed to show why this statement does not include the right of secession. :LOL::LOL::ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Show us where secession is mentioned in the Tenth.

You can't.

And South Carolina seceded 20 December 1860.

Lincoln wasn't even President until 4 March 1861.

Blaming Lincoln for the acts of the South is supremely stupid.
 
Fledermaus said:
Show us where secession is mentioned in the Tenth.

You can't.

And South Carolina seceded 20 December 1860.

Lincoln wasn't even President until 4 March 1861.

Blaming Lincoln for the acts of the South is supremely stupid.
Click to expand...
Ouro lives in a fact-free zone.
 
Ouroboros said:
Nope, the Tenth still means what it says: "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."



Not one of you one-sentence wonders have managed to show why this statement does not include the right of secession. :LOL::LOL::ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Of course it would figure that you look upon it in the literal sense. You think because the Constitution doesn't specifically and expressly delegates the right of secession to the United States that right then becomes reserved to the States. Okay then, let's look at that statement from a purely literal standpoint. Let's say the Founders were considering delegating the right of secession to the US Federal Government Constitutionally? What exactly would it be then that the Federal government may want to secede from? What would be it's purpose or reason for being? It doesn't make any sense, does it?
 
watsup said:
Yet another of your many repetitive falsehoods. Many have done so.
Click to expand...
The closest thing to a refutation on this thread has been the claim from Fledermaus that the Tenth's mention of "powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution" couldn't possibly include the power of secession because the Tenth didn't tack on some phrase like, "and though we said powers, we don't include the power of secession, which can only devolve to the States if the Tenth actually says that it can."
 
watsup said:
Ouro lives in a fact-free zone.
Click to expand...
Thanks for repeating the same absurdity as Fledermaus, since that means I've already refuted it in the previous post. Fun and games!
 
Atomic Kid said:
Of course it would figure that you look upon it in the literal sense. You think because the Constitution doesn't specifically and expressly delegates the right of secession to the United States that right then becomes reserved to the States. Okay then, let's look at that statement from a purely literal standpoint. Let's say the Founders were considering delegating the right of secession to the US Federal Government Constitutionally? What exactly would it be then that the Federal government may want to secede from? What would be it's purpose or reason for being? It doesn't make any sense, does it?
Click to expand...

False logic all the way through. If power over secession were a power delegated to the government, that would mean that the Constitution validated the Fed's total control over whether or not secession could occur at all. This was in a general sense Lincoln's position, since he argued that the compact of the states could not be dissolved at the States' behest, though nothing in the Tenth or any other part of the Constitution asserts that secession must be mutually agreed upon. If there were such a stipulation, then it would be true that the signers of the Constitution had eternally bound their descendants to be members of the Union whether they wished to be so or not. This is of course contradicts the spirit of America, particularly with respect to the principle that the descendants of debtors were not responsible for their parents' debts. Here's Jefferson on the subject of the dead's power over the living from 1789:

I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’:[2] that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it’s lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any[3] natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right,[4] oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be[5] the reverse of our principle.
Click to expand...


Thomas Jefferson to James Madison | The Papers of Thomas Jefferson

jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu
 
Ouroboros said:
False logic all the way through. If power over secession were a power delegated to the government, that would mean that the Constitution validated the Fed's total control over whether or not secession could occur at all. This was in a general sense Lincoln's position, since he argued that the compact of the states could not be dissolved at the States' behest, though nothing in the Tenth or any other part of the Constitution asserts that secession must be mutually agreed upon. If there were such a stipulation, then it would be true that the signers of the Constitution had eternally bound their descendants to be members of the Union whether they wished to be so or not. This is of course contradicts the spirit of America, particularly with respect to the principle that the descendants of debtors were not responsible for their parents' debts. Here's Jefferson on the subject of the dead's power over the living from 1789:




Thomas Jefferson to James Madison | The Papers of Thomas Jefferson

jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu
Click to expand...
,
God bless Lincoln for saving the Union from the inevitable Balkanization and future wars that would have resulted from that, Wars all the time, just like in Europe of that time. God bless Lincoln.
 
watsup said:
,
God bless Lincoln for saving the Union from the inevitable Balkanization and future wars that would have resulted from that, Wars all the time, just like in Europe of that time. God bless Lincoln.
Click to expand...
God bless Jefferson for showing us how Lincoln made a bad situation worse.
 
Ouroboros said:
God bless Jefferson for showing us how Lincoln made a bad situation worse.
Click to expand...

If your slaver idols didn’t want to get their asses kicked they shouldn’t have attacked the United States to try and protect their precious “peculiar institution”
 
Tigerace117 said:
If your slaver idols didn’t want to get their asses kicked they shouldn’t have attacked the United States to try and protect their precious “peculiar institution”
Click to expand...

Old vinegar in new bottles is still old vinegar.
 
Ouroboros said:
The closest thing to a refutation on this thread has been the claim from Fledermaus that the Tenth's mention of "powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution" couldn't possibly include the power of secession because the Tenth didn't tack on some phrase like, "and though we said powers, we don't include the power of secession, which can only devolve to the States if the Tenth actually says that it can."
Click to expand...

Still insisting on failing I see.

How did Lincoln violate the tenth if South Carolina seceded before Lincoln took office?
 
Fledermaus said:
Still insisting on failing I see.

How did Lincoln violate the tenth if South Carolina seceded before Lincoln took officeBy not hjo
Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:
Still insisting on failing I see.

How did Lincoln violate the tenth if South Carolina seceded before Lincoln took office?
Click to expand...
Unlike his predecessor Lincoln took every step to oppose lawful secession. That's violating the Tenth Amendment.
 
Ouroboros said:
In my scenario you're the new bottle filled with the same old vinegar. You might want to take remedial reading.
Click to expand...

We’ve already established that your scenarios are entirely based on desperation to excuse the South’s war to defend slavery.
 
Fledermaus said:
What a stupid statement as the South had seceded before Lincoln took office.
Click to expand...
Speaking of stupidity, repeating the same already disproved logic doesn't put your posts above those of a mynah bird.
 
Ouroboros said:
Unlike his predecessor Lincoln took every step to oppose lawful secession. That's violating the Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

Lincoln was under no obligation to allow the southern slavers to help themselves to US government resources, and nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that the President is obligated to sit back and let the country dissolve.
 
watsup said:
Did he or did he not leave the Union and lose. Terrible decision!
Click to expand...
Oh, for cripes sake. I quoted THOMAS JEFFERSON, not JEFFERSON DAVIS. Forget all the others, this is the fail of all time on this board.
 
watsup said:
Psychological projection BIGTIME!
Click to expand...
Did the psychologist who programmed you with this drivel also use a hypnotic charm to make you think it was good debate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom