Hamilton Wins, Jackson Loses

[Ibanez]

The good news is we can debate about the war all day but what really matters is the traitors lost and the country remained whole.

Yup, and a racist, genocidal Southerner is off the most used bill.






And we have a black President, and will be soon electing a female President.

And, hijab in The Citadel!

Let's ignore that Washington and Co. were all traitors and racists as well. But they won so we can selectively not set 21st Century morals on them, amirite?

[Ibanez]

The good news is we can debate about the war all day but what really matters is the traitors lost and the country remained whole.

Yup, and a racist, genocidal Southerner is off the most used bill.






And we have a black President, and will be soon electing a female President.

And, hijab in The Citadel!

Btw, I'll have to look it up but there was some president, maybe Wilson, that has some African heritage. I don't remember the name.


And of course, Buchanan was gay. Don't forget to include the gays, lord knows we don't want you guys protesting over it.

[Vidav]

Yup, and a racist, genocidal Southerner is off the most used bill.






And we have a black President, and will be soon electing a female President.

And, hijab in The Citadel!

Let's ignore that Washington and Co. were all traitors and racists as well. But they won so we can selectively not set 21st Century morals on them, amirite?

Difference is that those traitors won. The South lost and people like CitGrad are butt hurt about something they had nothing to do with.

[UNI88]

Yup, and a racist, genocidal Southerner is off the most used bill.






And we have a black President, and will be soon electing a female President.

And, hijab in The Citadel!

And we have a guy who needs a new bottle of Midol.

Or a Snicker.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Let's ignore that Washington and Co. were all traitors and racists as well. But they won so we can selectively not set 21st Century morals on them, amirite?

Difference is that those traitors won. The South lost and people like CitGrad are butt hurt about something they had nothing to do with.

A traitor is a traitor. Regardless of victory (or lack of.)

[kalm]

Difference is that those traitors won. The South lost and people like CitGrad are butt hurt about something they had nothing to do with.

A traitor is a traitor. Regardless of victory (or lack of.)

[Ibanez]

A traitor is a traitor. Regardless of victory (or lack of.)

What? Did I say something wrong? Is Washington still not a traitor? Why? Because he ultimately won?

[kalm]

What? Did I say something wrong? Is Washington still not a traitor? Why? Because he ultimately won?

Vidav admitted he was a trader in his post you replied too. There are different reasons for being a traitor. Some less noble than others.

[CID1990]

Let's ignore that Washington and Co. were all traitors and racists as well. But they won so we can selectively not set 21st Century morals on them, amirite?

Difference is that those traitors won. The South lost and people like CitGrad are butt hurt about something they had nothing to do with.

sounds a lot like this entire thread

my facebook is full of idiots like Jon pretending that Andrew Jackson (or anybody else who lived 200 years ago) should have known how evil they were

being outliers from general society and all

[Ibanez]

What? Did I say something wrong? Is Washington still not a traitor? Why? Because he ultimately won?

Vidav admitted he was a trader in his post you replied too. There are different reasons for being a traitor. Some less noble than others.

Like because you don't want to pay your taxes?












Trolling attempt....

[kalm]

Vidav admitted he was a trader in his post you replied too. There are different reasons for being a traitor. Some less noble than others.

Like because you don't want to pay your taxes?












Trolling attempt....

Exactly! Those fuckers were simply a bunch of tax dodging slave holding non-contributors.

[YoUDeeMan]

What? Did I say something wrong? Is Washington still not a traitor? Why? Because he ultimately won?

Vidav admitted he was a trader in his post you replied too. There are different reasons for being a traitor. Some less noble than others.

Trader Vidav's? Is that some western hippie grocery store, or does Vidav just trade in vodka and other Russian goods?

[Ibanez]

Vidav admitted he was a trader in his post you replied too. There are different reasons for being a traitor. Some less noble than others.

Trader Vidav's? Is that some western hippie grocery store, or does Vidav just trade in vodka and other Russian goods?

If by Russian goods, you mean women of legal age then yes....Trader Vidav.



Sounds granola.

[Ibanez]

Like because you don't want to pay your taxes?












Trolling attempt....

Exactly! Those fuckers were simply a bunch of tax dodging slave holding non-contributors.

They were the original 47%ers.

[kalm]

Exactly! Those fuckers were simply a bunch of tax dodging slave holding non-contributors.

They were the original 47%ers.

Well played.

[GannonFan]

What? Did I say something wrong? Is Washington still not a traitor? Why? Because he ultimately won?

Vidav admitted he was a trader in his post you replied too. There are different reasons for being a traitor. Some less noble than others.

Agreed, of course Washington and every other founding father were traitors, there's no doubt about that. Revolutions are always about people rebelling against the established authority. The key difference, and the noble difference between the American Revolution and the American Civil War was what were the revolutionaries, i.e. the traitors fighting for. In 1776, they were fighting for a voice in government and liberty. In 1861 they were fighting for the right to keep Black people as slaves. Therein lies the difference in terms of how the events are viewed after the fact.

[CAA Flagship]

Vidav admitted he was a trader in his post you replied too. There are different reasons for being a traitor. Some less noble than others.

Trader Vidav's? Is that some western hippie grocery store, or does Vidav just trade in vodka and other Russian goods?

I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vidav's
His hair was perfect

[GannonFan]

So the whole basis you have to support you position is a lot of bluster and the 10th amendment? How about the part in Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution? How about the Supremacy Clause in Article VI? Heck, at least something that was talked about was that the Preamble actually said "We the People", and not "We the States", and even the likes of Patrick Henry realized the distinction that made this a permanent union. What books are you talking about, let's have evidence.

Article 1, Section 10 prevents states from entering into treaties or confederations with foreign powers. The Southern states seceded from the United States and therefore were themselves a foreign power. This article in no way prohibits secession.

The Supremacy Clause establishes federal supremacy when state law conflict with federal laws. It does not prohibit secession.

Again, the United States Constitution, as it appeared in 1860, did not prohibit secession. The 10th Amendment clearly states that powers not reserved to the federal government are powers that may be exercised by the people and the states. Since the federal government did not reserve the power to compel states to remain in the Union against their will, the power of secession was a prerogative of the states.

Please, stop with the weak sauce that is the 10th amendment. No lawyer or scholar worth listening to would ever try to say that the 10th amendment would be the vehicle to basically allow secession. I've still to see the ample evidence you have of the secession discussions at the actual Constitutional Convention when they came up with all of this so you're still on the hook to back that assertion up. You're on fine footing if you want to claim that, as a revolution, secession could be justified, but saying that the Constitution allowed it or that states entered into it fully expecting to be able to secede and that it was therefore legal just lacks any actual evidence supporting that contention. That reasoning smacks of a Lost Cause author performing legal contortions just trying to justify something most people accept now as futile.

[Pwns]

, stop with the weak sauce that is the 10th amendment. No lawyer or scholar worth listening to would ever try to say that the 10th amendment would be the vehicle to basically allow secession. I've still to see the ample evidence you have of the secession discussions at the actual Constitutional Convention when they came up with all of this so you're still on the hook to back that assertion up. You're on fine footing if you want to claim that, as a revolution, secession could be justified, but saying that the Constitution allowed it or that states entered into it fully expecting to be able to secede and that it was therefore legal just lacks any actual evidence supporting that contention. That reasoning smacks of a Lost Cause author performing legal contortions just trying to justify something most people accept now as futile.

How about this quote from one of the principle architechts of the constitution as far as an argument for legality?

“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.'” -Thomas Jefferson

[GannonFan]

, stop with the weak sauce that is the 10th amendment. No lawyer or scholar worth listening to would ever try to say that the 10th amendment would be the vehicle to basically allow secession. I've still to see the ample evidence you have of the secession discussions at the actual Constitutional Convention when they came up with all of this so you're still on the hook to back that assertion up. You're on fine footing if you want to claim that, as a revolution, secession could be justified, but saying that the Constitution allowed it or that states entered into it fully expecting to be able to secede and that it was therefore legal just lacks any actual evidence supporting that contention. That reasoning smacks of a Lost Cause author performing legal contortions just trying to justify something most people accept now as futile.

How about this quote from one of the principle architechts of the constitution as far as an argument for legality?

“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.'” -Thomas Jefferson

Well, first of all, the quote you include came 29 years after the Constitutional Convention, so it hardly seems to count as "debate" that was ongoing at the Constitutional Convention. And of course, Jefferson was an ocean away in Paris for the entirety of the Constitutional Convention, and while he certainly had correspondence with Madison and Jay prior to the event, there was little communication between them during the event since it lasted only about 4 months and the proceedings were kept secret, even to Jefferson at the time. Hard to consider him as "a principle architect of the Constitution" since he wasn't even there and many of the things Madison (whom if you want to argue was influenced by Jefferson) thought so dear and had to be in the Constitution never even got into the final document. And to quote "Hamilton", "...and if you don't know, now you know".

[Pwns]

Well, first of all, the quote you include came 29 years after the Constitutional Convention, so it hardly seems to count as "debate" that was ongoing at the Constitutional Convention. And of course, Jefferson was an ocean away in Paris for the entirety of the Constitutional Convention, and while he certainly had correspondence with Madison and Jay prior to the event, there was little communication between them during the event since it lasted only about 4 months and the proceedings were kept secret, even to Jefferson at the time. Hard to consider him as "a principle architect of the Constitution" since he wasn't even there and many of the things Madison (whom if you want to argue was influenced by Jefferson) thought so dear and had to be in the Constitution never even got into the final document. And to quote "Hamilton", "...and if you don't know, now you know".

Come on, GF. He may not have been there for the party, but he was a big influence on the document and kept in touch with Madison during the process.

But regardless, there's nothing in the constitution explicitly forbidding secession and you can't tell me that they didn't anticipate it would be an issue and consider when writing the constitution.

[dbackjon]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is very clear that this was intended as a permanent union

[dbackjon]

Patrick Henry agrees:

Patrick Henry adamantly opposed adopting the Constitution because he interpreted its language to replace the sovereignty of the individual states, including that of his own Virginia. He gave his strong voice to the anti-federalist cause in opposition to the federalists led by Madison and Hamilton. Questioning the nature of the proposed new federal government, Henry asked:

The fate ... of America may depend on this. ... Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. ...

[dbackjon]

Specifically, language to give the right to secession was OMITTED.

Amar specifically cites the example of New York's ratification as suggestive that the Constitution did not countenance secession. Anti-federalists dominated the Poughkeepsie Convention that would ratify the Constitution. Concerned that the new compact might not sufficiently safeguard states' rights, the anti-federalists sought to insert into the New York ratification message language to the effect that "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."[28] The Madison federalists opposed this, with Hamilton, a delegate at the Convention, reading aloud in response a letter from James Madison stating: "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever" [emphasis added]. Hamilton and John Jay then told the Convention that in their view, reserving "a right to withdraw [was] inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."[28] The New York convention ultimately ratified the Constitution without including the "right to withdraw" language proposed by the anti-federalists.

[dbackjon]

In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 –Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence.[29]