Southern Secession

Nope, not at all.

 

Everything is permitted unless it's prohibited. That's how laws work. Laws are not a giant list of everything that is permitted. They are much shorter lists of things that are prohibited.

 

Yep, under the 9th.

 

Name one child Brown killed. Name one woman Brown killed. You can't. The Doyles killed were all adult males.

 

English Law wasn't ended. Period. We built on English Law and its rights charters and improved upon them - we didn't adopt or create an entirely different (Roman, etc.) or new Law.

We were no longer subject to the British government and its jurisdiction.

I agree.

I have to believe you misspoke, Will.

The Colonies and their inhabitants were most certainly subject to English law and British governance. However, the Colonies were granted a great deal of local autonomy under their respective charters, which enabled them to lay the foundations of American self-government.

 

Well, it looks like @Cybred disagrees with your conclusion that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution says, @LangleyMan

Do you disagree with him and therefore agree that there is no constitutional right to an abortion?

 

Ever find any evidence of those supposed child murders, @Xyce or are you just going to admit they were false accusations?

 

Nope.

 

Slavery was LEGAL in he United States for almost 100 years before the war.
Slavery was legal and in practice in the United States all during the war.
Slavery was legal and in practice in the United States after the war ended.

The modern concept of conservative did not exist then and conservatives today do not support the slavery then or now..

 

Yet we didn't start a revolution for slavery and didn't found a country over slavery. We didn't fly a flag DEDICATED to slavery. The Confederacy did. There are other reasons to celebrate the US. It is impossible to celebrate the Confederacy without celebrating slavery. It was the entire point of its existence.

In the border states. Where it was rare. And where steps were being taken to remove it.

Until abolished by amendment . . . just as the Confederacy had feared.

Yet social conservatives defended slavery at the time using socially conservative arguments. And it is overwhelmingly conservatives who defend and celebrate the Confederacy today.

 

So what? SCOTUS says unilateral secession is a nonstarter--Texas v. White.

The government manages the radio spectrum without the Constitution giving them specific leave.

 

I think it is. Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because SCOTUS didn't say laws banning abortion are unconstitutional.

 

Roe v. Wade was overruled by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. If you are going to agree with some Supreme Court decisions but ignore the validity of others, then it seems rather disingenuous for you to say, "Game, set, match" by just citing a Supreme Court case that you like as a support of a legal theory that you defend. It's cherry picking.

 

I just cited for you that John Brown butchered a father and his two sons, his children. John Brown did spare the 16-year-old son, but only after his mother desperately pleaded for his life, which means that Brown was going to kill the 16-year-old, too. Here are the words of the widow, who was made a widow by John Brown, sent to Brown in a letter after he was imprisoned for the insurrection (an actual insurrection, by the way) at Harpers Ferry:

"Altho vengence is not mine, I confess, that I do feel gratified to hear that you ware stopt in your fiendish career at Harper’s Ferry, with the loss of your two sons, you can now appreciate my distress, in Kansas, when you then and there entered my house at midnight and arrested my husband and two boys and took them out of the yard and in cold blood shot them dead in my hearing, you cant say you done it to free our slaves, we had none and never expected to own one, but has only made me a poor disconsolate widow with helpless children while I feel for your folly. I do hope & trust that you will meet your just reward. O how it pained my Heart to hear the dying groans of my Husband and children if this scrawl give you any consolation you are welcome to it"

By the way, do you think the riot on the Capitol was an insurrection? Do you think it was a coup? Do you agree with it? Why or why not? Do you think that John Brown's attack on Harpers Ferry was an insurrection? Do you think it was a coup? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?

 

As pointed out, our founders created a form of government that had similarities to other representative democracies. But, there were a good number of KEY DIFFERENCES:
- a constitution
- three branches of government with separate responsibilities
- a supreme court
- being a republic

England had none of these ideas.

Your last paragraph is just a denial of all reality. Our revolution centered on the FACT that the colonies had zero representation in the laws of England, and that those laws were a serious problem including taxes, trade law, etc.

And, our act of forming an American self-government was an act of revolution that could have been punishable as treason. Plus, it led to full out revolutionary war.

Giving credit to England for not searching out our founders and HANGING them is just plain nonsense.

 

This doesn't form a logical argument.

There were crimes committed by commonly held legal standards. But, that wasn't the reason for the civil war.

The facts of Jan 6, including the statements of the insurrectionists, was that they intended to overthrow the election. Pick your name - treason, insurrection, or whatever you want. It WAS a direct assault on our democracy.

 

Just write "republic." It's prolix to write "representative democracies." Why not just shorten it to "republics"? William Shakespeare famously wrote, "Brevity is the soul of wit." You don't need to use more words than necessary. You're not writing a high school or college paper with a minimum word count.

 

A vague conclusion with no supporting, clarifying premise or premises. What is "this" in reference to exactly? Why doesn't it form a logical argument?

These are two conjoining conclusions, which are empty of any premise or premises.

You didn't answer the other questions--for some reason. Did John Brown engage in an insurrection at Harpers Ferry? Do you agree that it was an insurrection? Do you support the raid? Why or why not?

 

Our Supreme Court has made a number of SERIOUS blunders.

As for the Civil War, remember that just before the war came the Dred Scott decision. And, that was not their only such decision, held by all but two of the justices.

 

You claimed Brown had killed children, and you accused me of supporting that. NOW you are running scared because you realize you were full of ****. You said he killed women and children . . . only to provide an example . . . WHERE HE EXPLICITLY ****ING SPARED WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

Again, NO children were killed during this event. The youngest person killed was about 20 years old. Honestly, after you the accusations you've made, including about me, that you now know were based on outright LIES, I'm not sure if I can be tempted to continue without an apology.

Though I appreciate your confession that you think that overthrowing democracy and overthrowing slavery are somehow morally equivalent. I rather like democracy and I don't like slavery. If you agree, then you understand how braindead your questions are.

 

This is a gross lack of understanding of the level of nonsense coming from right wing posters on this board. Fully identifying the factors that differentiate our government from other designs IS necessary here on this board.

There are plenty of republics, both today and throughout history, where decisions are (were) made by means other than any form of democracy.

The fact that we are a representative democracy is of SERIOUS importance, and is spelled out IN DETAIL in our constitution.

 

I presented a letter--a primary source, in fact--in which the John Brown-made widow writes out that John Brown killed her children. And your response, "NO children were killed during this event," which is not in keeping with the letter that you--appreciatively--quoted in its fullest context, which appears to suggest that you may have some trouble reading--or at least reading what was written in the primary source evidence of Brown's terroristic brutality.

You also write that the letter "EXPLICITLY ****ING SPARED WOMEN AND CHILDREN." Again, this is not in keeping with the letter.

Here's the letter again:

""Altho vengence is not mine, I confess, that I do feel gratified to hear that you ware stopt in your fiendish career at Harper’s Ferry, with the loss of your two sons, you can now appreciate my distress, in Kansas, when you then and there entered my house at midnight and arrested my husband and two boys and took them out of the yard and in cold blood shot them dead in my hearing, you cant say you done it to free our slaves, we had none and never expected to own one, but has only made me a poor disconsolate widow with helpless children while I feel for your folly. I do hope & trust that you will meet your just reward. O how it pained my Heart to hear the dying groans of my Husband and children if this scrawl give you any consolation you are welcome to it"

Where in the letter does it indicate that John Brown spared women and children? He spared one child. One! Singular! And he did so only after the mother of that child pleaded with Brown not to kill her 16-year-old child, which clearly suggests that he was going to kill the 16-year-old child but did not after the mother pleaded for his life. Sparing one male child is not sparing women and children. And yet you are arguing that I am lying in this back-and-forth? That's rich.

You also didn't answer the question, though your response suggest that you are okay with insurrection and domestic terrorism in certain circumstances, as long as you agree with the insurrection (Harpers Ferry) or the domestic terrorism (Pottawatomie Massacre). But I need you to make that clear, if you don't mind. So, I'll ask my questions again.

Do you think the riot on the Capitol was an insurrection? Do you think it was a coup? Do you agree with it? Why or why not? Do you think that John Brown's attack on Harpers Ferry was an insurrection? Do you think it was a coup? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?

 

The youngest person killed was 20 years old and male. No women were killed. Your claim that Brown had killed women and children is blatantly dishonest. And even your claim that he only spared one child is false. There were children at all three of the houses that he raided. He spared 100% of the children. He killed 0% of the children.

Try being honest. Just for a day. I promise it feels good.

 

There's a lot to unpack, but for the audience watching, I want to emphasize this. I've now asked @yardmeat multiple times if they think the raid on Harpers Ferry was an insurrection and / or a coup. I asked them if they agree with the raid in that context. They refuse to answer that question. But their responses or lack thereof appear to suggest that they are okay with insurrections and coups, as long as they agree with why those insurrections or coups occurred. @yardmeat also appears to be okay with Pottawatomie Massacre, which is a textbook case of domestic terrorism.

 

And for those honest people watching, Xyce falsely accused Brown of killing women and children and accused me of supporting that. Now called out, he's running scared and refuses to apologize or even admit he was full of ****. I'll gladly address those other questions once Xyce addresses his original falsehoods. If someone capable of being honest wants to ask me the same questions, I will gladly address them.