"Ty Seidule On Exposing Robert E. Lee, Lost Cause Myths..." Topic

Wonder what Seidule's book has to say about that.

I havent gotten to Seidule's book yet.

Professor Livingston certainly has a an entire litany of reasons, most of them speculative, about why the South did everything right and the Union did everything wrong.

Among dozens of other theories, he says that left alone by the North, not only would the South have ended slavery but wouldve come up with a kinder more inclusive place for black people than the Northern racists who really only used slavery as a foil to destroy a prosperous South that they were jealous of.

YouTube link

Another interesting question: Did the North have the right to force the Southern states back into the Union?

Did the North have the right to force the Southern states back into the Union?

The question might need to begin with did the South have any right to secede? Not whether the north had the right to subdue them by force.

This thread is concerned with: Exposing Robert E. Lee, Lost Cause Myths, White Supremacy, and Treason

So far, I havent seen any good arguments about secession for any reason other than slavery; except by those who claim they have no dog in the fight but who nevertheless get awfully personal about the subject.

White supremacy seems to get defended along the lines of "Everyone was a white supremacist back then." Although re-reading those articles of secession makes me realize just how extra dedicated the Southern elite was to white supremacy and used it to in turn justify maintaining slavery.

Treason hasn't been touched on much here and does rely somewhat on whether secession was legal. Although, treason isnt just a legal label, it is also a public relations perception. It may be that it is a matter of viewpoint. It is somewhat unforgivable that the Confederacy was trying to destroy the world's only true democratic government.

Livingston's lecture is simply an example that there is more than one way to look at Secession and the reasons for it. I agree, his interpretation is one sided. Much like others on this Forum!

Treason it certainly appeared, but the letter of the law and the intent of the law are not always the same and not always applied the same.

If I am on highway duty as a cop, I do not stop everybody going 68-72, all things being equal. I want to be ready and able to grab the guy going 85-95 who puts you all in danger. This would be the hot under the collar secessionists, the writers of secession articles, speech givers, military organizers who fired on Sumter, the wealthy slave owners. The average guy who joins a local regiment because he believes the Yankees are coming for him doesn't see like he is committing treason.

So what of Jan 6.? It seemed like some people destroyed some important public property and delayed the business of the Congress, made threats. It broke my heart to see the rebel battle flag in that building after hundreds of thousands died to keep it out. But what about the hot heads who made it happen? They are the guys doing 95.
So my connection, looking for relevance, may not be agreeable to some. But there is some connection going on here, I believe, between modern secessionists and those of 1860, some lessons. I am just not always certain of them.

Your have made a reasonable assessment. I might go farther. Maybe the Confederacy was a radical, reactionary insurgency, sold to much of the general public as northern invasion propaganda or culture salvation.maybe it was about hanging on to the wealth of the elites.

It is an interesting question. The irony, of course, is that the way of the Plantation Elite led to not only the subjugation of the South but also to their own subjugation and the loss of their own wealth and status. It wasn't a good move in the end. The winners of the ACW were the capitalist industrialists who were unleashed by the shackling of the South during and after the war.

Again, it is only treason if you believe succession was illegal. I and others believe it was not Illegal. It may have happened for reasons WE ALL DO NOT agree with today. But was illegal?

We agree slavery was wrong. But it was wrong to us. To many of them, it was not. So we don't believe their reasons to succeed were legitimate. But that is us, not them. That does not make succession illegal. If not illegal, they did not commit treason.

So we come back to Weather the North had the right to invade and force them back into the Union, if we believe succession was legal?

I am sure we all agree today, it worked out for the best, but does that make it anymore right then slavery?

FYI, We are a representative Republic, not a true Democracy, although one could say a representative democracy if you wanted to. Just a minor technicality. The founders did not want an Athenian type democracy.

Again, it is only treason if you believe succession was illegal. I and others believe it was not Illegal. It may have happened for reasons WE ALL DO NOT agree with today. But was illegal?

I'm sorry, this is incorrect. Treason is not just a legal standard, it's a perception standard as well. We have to consider both. This isn't a purely legal exercise; not if we asking us all to consider what people felt, thought, believed aspired to etc.

We agree slavery was wrong. But it was wrong to us. To many of them, it was not. So we don't believe their reasons to succeed were legitimate. But that is us, not them.

OK, to the extent I can follow this, this is your conclusion not mine. It may not even be completely the Confederacy's conclusion. I realize though, that it is a Lost Cause conclusion.

That does not make succession illegal. If not illegal, they did not commit treason.

Again, this is not a cut and dried topic, it involves Constitutional examination. The Lost Cause platitude which adopts a strict interpretation of the Constitution (whereby because Secession isnt specifically prohibited must therefore be legal) is a very dangerous path for all of us.

Additionally, even if it wasnt illegal, treason is as much a behavioral reputation.

"I'm sorry, this is incorrect. Treason is not just a legal standard, it's a perception standard as well. We have to consider both. This isn't a purely legal exercise; not if we asking us all to consider what people felt, thought, believed aspired to etc"

But in whose perception? From yours, yes. From many in the Union, yes. From some other Southerners who fought for the Union, yes. To those who fought for the Confederacy and believed they had the right to succeed, No. But if succession was not illegal, then the treason was all perception.

In the end treason is defined by the winners. Even though there were those in the North who demanded the leaders of the South be tried and punished for it, they were in a distinct minority. So even the majority in the North who were there and even fought against them, had their own doubts if it was treason and therefore did not follow that course. For the betterment of us all in end.

What is a lost cause conclusion? Now I am confused. I am saying we all here believe slavery is wrong, at least I think we do. But this is our time and beliefs, not theirs. They all did not believe slavery was wrong, although some did. Even many who fought the South believed slavery was wrong, but still fought for the Confederacy. But this Digresses from the point of if it was treason or not.

Livingston's lecture is simply an example that there is more than one way to look at Secession and the reasons for it. I agree, his interpretation is one sided. Much like others on this Forum!

It is also self serving. Sometimes I think we blend certain moods that are best left separate. I have no doubts that ending slavery couldve been handled better, that the South felt aggrieved, that both the North and the South couldve done a better job at negotiating. But none of this means that the primary reason the South seceded was anything other than slavery.

That's the rationale that Livingston uses. The North was racist too and didnt care about black people thus the South didnt secede over slavery!

He's even partially right about some complex things but still ignores too many other events.

For instance, it is true that the Corwin Amendment demonstrates the North was ready to allow the South to keep their slaves. In his opinion, this demonstrates that the secessions were not slavery based. After all, if the North was willing to let them keep their slaves and the South wanted to secede anyway, that has to be proof that secession was about something else, something a lot more wholesome than slavery. Right?

Well, not quite…

However, he leaves out that the South had talked themselves into a fanatical mania that the North was trending toward eliminating slavery and in any case had no damned business limiting it or questioning it to any degree at all. Thus, this Union move was either a ruse or too little too late and the South felt they no longer needed the North,and could simply secede and not ever have to explain their slavery to anyone ever again.

Now , on the part of the North, it may not have been a ruse, it might not have been too little too late but the South believed something like this. And we can see this, possibly mistaken, belief in their articles of secession that the majority of their reasons for secession were over some form of slavery.

But it doesnt mean what HE wants it to mean, all it does is underline how the North and South were no longer hearing what the other was saying. The North was trying to say, keep your slaves and the South was hearing, why would they think we need an Amendment to keep what we already believed we had a perfect constitutional right to keep?

We do certainly have the South to thank for not accepting that Corwin Amendment which wouldve been yet another stain on the Constitution and our National legacy. Additionally, the South's behavior helped end slavery more quickly. Thus, in some ways we have the South to thank for contributing to a Lincolnian revelation to end slavery.

Livingston doesnt agree with this though. He thinks slavery wouldve ended more gently if the South could have been left to arrange abolition. Further, he thinks that Union meddling in slavery caused Southern resentment and retaliation against former slaves. Maybe yes, maybe no. Still doesnt mean secession wasnt primarily over slavery.,

Livingston's arguments remind me of the anti-abortion fanatics who think theyre going to achieve a slam dunk win by starting out with the question, "Do you believe murder is wrong?"

Well, yes of course but we are presupposing we are all on board with the definition of murder which is a conclusion the fanatic decides in advance. It really does nothing but make the other party dig their heels in over it's manipulative tactic and produces a counterproductive result. Basically, the morality of it gets inundated by resentment even among many who might be sympathetic.

Looking for that phone support line,
I feel dirty -
Feeling like I should just smash those little soldiers..

If..
If….
-- there was a group board for support in gaming..
Some day "Na, Na, Na, Nanana Heh You"

"I believe."
oops, just found Fox Mulder's phone number….he understands!

Secession and the formation of a new nation, if it was in fact legal, was a poor choice for the South, as it would be for any state today, with most of the nation's wealth concentrated in the northeast and the west coast. The federal government ensures that states needing Federal support have their needs met.
The idea that succession is better for people in the departing states makes no sense to me today.

Again, I wonder what the average southern farmer was told about succession and why he decided he had to fight for his life.

He didn't have to be told anything. It's a belief Tort. If you believe that one part of the nation, or a group are threatening your way of life and oppose your beliefs, morals and are trying to force their beliefs on to you and your family with no say on your part and you believe their beliefs are anathema to those of the founding fathers, you can see why they would fight.

It did not have to be a fear of them destroying your economic way of life, as it was with the plantation owners. Most of those soldiers were dirt farmers, clerks, teachers, etc. They "believed" they were threatened. For some the North mobilization and movement into the South, was the last straw.

Reality at some point, becomes unimportant. Perceived reality becomes the reality.

Secession is only treason if you believe that States didn't have the right to leave the Union. So it is circular argument.

Like many of features of the 1788 Constitution I think there was plethora of beliefs and understandings at work. Formal secession was left unaddressed simply because there was no agreement to had at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. It was also an astute political move because had their been a plain provision against secession the new constitution would have never been passed many of the states conventions. Can you imagine what Patrick Henry would have done at Virginia convention if the 1788 Constitution had provided a prohibition against withdrawing from the Union?

It is certainly a reasonable position in 1860 to assert the right to secede since it was a position consistent with what the original signers of the Constitution believed. I might point out that had States not the authority to withdraw from the Union then on what basis could they leave the Articles of Confederation and became part of the new constitutional order found in the 1788 Constitution?

Right 35th I agree, but how in 1860 does a dirt farmer in The South come to believe that the Yankees are coming for him? This was clearly not the case until the rebels fired on Sumter and started the fighting.

After he was elected, Lincoln did not want war. He ordered a non violent response to secession. He did not think it was legal, and he refused to give up federal properties in the south. But he was specific that there was to be no war or force used against the South. The soldiers manning the Federal installations were Americans, they were already there.
Who got the everyday people of the south to believe they were in danger of being invaded and subjugated by Yankee hordes? This is part of MBs point – not everybody there bought into this. But clearly many did. Why? Somebody put this in their heads.

The Framers did discuss having provisions for unilaterally leaving the Union and they were left out which can tell us that this was disallowed.

Bilateral removal from the Union is provided for by Constitutional Amendment.

After the war, the Union did not hold the ordinary confederate soldiers accountable for rebellion and they were allowed to return home. It was only the confederate mucky mucks who were to be prosecuted.

Secession AND Rebellion are treason and it doesn't have to be a matter of legal conviction to stick. Quite a few in the North believed the South to be traitors; state's rights notwithstanding.

That is, if this is meant to be a two way street?:

Reality at some point, becomes unimportant. Perceived reality becomes the reality.

There were lots of provisions and ideas that were talked about at the constitutional convention in 1788. Most of them didn't get very far. I am not aware of secession being part of the deliberations. Perhaps you could point me to an article? I don't think you can make the kind of leap of inference that you do.

If leaving the Union required a constitutional amendment how did the States leave the Articles of Confederation to enter into the 1788 Constitution.

The question of rebellion or lawful secession was only settled after the War when one side won and got to decide. Your argument is both circular and anachronistic in nature.

Tort,

"Right 35th I agree, but how in 1860 does a dirt farmer in The South come to believe that the Yankees are coming for him? This was clearly not the case until the rebels fired on Sumter and started the fighting."

It was not necessary that he believe they were physically coming for him, just that they were attempting to take away what he believed was the society he lived and grew up in and replace it with one forced upon him by laws and beliefs of a majority of other states.

Of course some believed the threat was real, based on John Brown's raid, which many in the North lauded and refused to condemn. Also reading about Northern Agitators who were attempting to instigate more uprisings.

They heard it through the media, politicians and their own social circles. I said earlier, I believe this had been brewing since the founding of Plymouth and Jamestown.

You can ask this too: Why did a minority of those who fought on the Union side, believe every Southerner was Simon LeGree? Of course "Uncle Tom's Cabin" had much to do with inflaming many in the North. What did Lincoln say to Harriet Beecher Stowe: "So this is the little lady who made this big war". Also read some of the papers out of Massachusetts before the war and you have the same firebrand articles going on up there, as those in the South. It is the same as today, media, politicians and your immediate social groups, those are the influence on most of what we believe.

Maybe this will serve as an example and maybe not. "Do you find this article to be funny to a point but only because it reflects the underlying truth, just funny no judgment either way, unfunny and offensive, you are outraged and the people who wrote this should be banned." How you view it I believe is going to be reflective of your influences and social circle. I believe it was the same then, IMO.

Subject: Moloch Warns Of Looming Child Sacrifice Supply Chain Issues | The Babylon Bee


link

MB says: There were lots of provisions and ideas that were talked about at the constitutional convention in 1788. Most of them didn't get very far. I am not aware of secession being part of the deliberations. Perhaps you could point me to an article? I don't think you can make the kind of leap of inference that you do.

Consider this:

…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."[26] 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".[26] The New York convention ultimately ratified the Constitution without including the "right to withdraw" language proposed by the anti-federalists.

link

MB also says: If leaving the Union required a constitutional amendment how did the States leave the Articles of Confederation to enter into the 1788 Constitution.

They left to make a "more perfect Union" via state ratification. FOr ratification to take effect, only 9 of the 13 states were required and it was ultimately unanimous. Constitutional changes only apply after the Constitution is ratified and brought into effect.

MB asserts: The question of rebellion or lawful secession was only settled after the War when one side won and got to decide. Your argument is both circular and anachronistic in nature.

SCOTUS cant make every decision in advance of an issue. In fact, it never makes any decision in advance, that's not the nature of the courts. In order to interpret the Constitution, SCOTUS has to wait for a lawsuit to get to it.

The Question is why didnt the South take it to the courts to decide? No less a figure than James Buchanan, Southern sympathizer and white supremacist par excellence, believed the South should've exhausted all legal means before seceding. One would further imagine if the South resolved to secede that they might as well have tried SCOTUS for a decision on secession's legality first, if just for laughs.

So, really let's ask why the South didnt get a decision while they were still (in their minds) part of the Union?

How do you figure that after the war a SCOTUS decision is one sided?

SCOTUS opinions relate back to the origin of the Constitution thus my argument might be circular but it is no possible way anachronistic.

"It is somewhat unforgivable that the Confederacy was trying to destroy the world's only true democratic government."

The Confederacy seceding from the Union would still have left the other states free to continue with their republic, just as the UK leaving the European Union has not destroyed it.

I do see your point 35th and your example is an interesting one. Whatever some people in the north thought about the south back then, there was not a huge groundswell of feeling to arm and go to war against the south.

Was their really such a threat to non slave holding whites? The north was concerned by the possibility of slavery spreading to the west, and the south was also worried about this, but wasn't there an alternative to war and rebellion? The Congress passed legislation in those days, the legal system mostly worked. There had been various compromises and deals already.

The Confederacy seceding from the Union would still have left the other states free to continue with their republic, just as the UK leaving the European Union has not destroyed it.

Although it might interest you that the South sort of collectively felt the Union should just let them be, there are a plethora of reasons why letting the South secede wouldn't harm the existence of the rest of the Union is untrue.

The Union and Lincoln never believed the South legally seceded. It's the South who thought they did. It was a dangerous concept that the Union was "optional".

There are so many reasons why this is not like the Brexit model such as age of the Nation involved, the fact that the South had most of the wealth. It's interesting but also way beyond this thread's topic.

"There are so many reasons why this is not like the Brexit model such as age of the Nation involved, the fact that the South had most of the wealth."

Why should the 'age of the nation' be an issue? If you are referring to the relative youth of the USA, then the EU is actually 'younger' than the US was in 1861.

If the South had most of the wealth and the North wanted to continue to share it, perhaps it would have been better to be nicer to the South? Beating the **** out of them is hardly going to win hearts and minds for the future.

I have no desire to defend slavery, and because the Confederacy largely seceded to protect slavery, its cause was indelibly tainted by that motivation. So Lincoln, cunning politician that he was, could 'rebrand' the military suppression of secession as a crusade to liberate slaves to gain more international support, after having initially stated that his sole object was to preserve the Union.

As to whether the Constitution allowed secession, any complex legal document can be interpreted in different ways by different lawyers, but it just seems rather odd that one could join an organisation and then be forbidden to leave it if one changed one's mind. The only organisation with such a policy that I can think of is the Mafia.

"There are so many reasons why this is not like the Brexit model such as age of the Nation involved, the fact that the South had most of the wealth."

Why should the 'age of the nation' be an issue? If you are referring to the relative youth of the USA, then the EU is actually 'younger' than the US was in 1861.

I was referring to the age of the UK not the EU. I dont consider the EU a nation. The EU lives in mortal fear of other nations following the UK model of withdrawing and for that reason, it looks like they intentionally made the UK departure more painful as a warning.

Not only is the age of the nation an issue but also the historical context. The USA was not 100 years old when this crises took place and it was virtually the only democracy on the planet. Very different from today.

If the South had most of the wealth and the North wanted to continue to share it, perhaps it would have been better to be nicer to the South? Beating the **** out of them is hardly going to win hearts and minds for the future.

Ironically, it could be that the kid glove approach the North used early on in the war was what gave the South ideas and put the North in the desperate position to develop a grind-them-down mentality later on.

Having said that, the "reconciliation" could've been a lot harsher. The North mightve issued wholesale prison sentences, firing squads and hangings. But that isnt what happened. The CSA soldiers got to go home and the leaders weren't hanged. Ironically again, this relative leniency on the part of the Union, instead of generating a sense of gratefulness, seems, among a certain demographic of posterity, to have nurtured a defensive rationalization, like the Lost Cause, to spring into being.

As to whether the Constitution allowed secession, any complex legal document can be interpreted in different ways by different lawyers, but it just seems rather odd that one could join an organisation and then be forbidden to leave it if one changed one's mind. The only organisation with such a policy that I can think of is the Mafia.

Sure different lawyers could advance different arguments but they would all have one thing in common; use of the courts. The South chose not to seek out a legal means and instead they made unilateral justifications for secession. Thus, it isn't whether you can never leave at all but rather, how you can leave.

The mafia puts "three" in the back of your head, right? Maybe the Union should've done that to the CSA?

Tort,

Try some first hand accounts of the reasons they gave for fighting. I only have one left now. Sold the rest, but try:

For Cause & Comrades Why Men Fought in the Civil War by James M. McPherson. Only one I have left, but good.

I still have a couple of origins books left too

The Confederate Nation 1861 1865 by Emory M. Thomas 1979

The Impending Crisis 1848 1861 by David M. Potter 1976

I think they are meant to be a set.

If interested will sell the 2 above together. The McPherson by itself, or all 3. Clearing out most of my stuff.

Au pas de Charge, you are misunderstanding the New York ratifying convention. When the Constitutional Convention adjourned at completion there was a common agreement amongst all the signers that the new Constitution had to be accepted as written without amendments. Otherwise, amendments would require convening another Convention to ratify them. The original authors of the 1788 Constitution were deeply concerned about a 2nd convention undermining the strong national government that had been agreed to. Had the provision to include secession been accepted in NY it is very likely that the Confederation Congress would have rejected NY's ratification and undermined the ratification process. In fact, the anti-Federalists in NY were quite devious in their attempts to undermine passage of the new Constitution. Of course, Hamilton was one the strongest advocates of the Federal government and in fact desired to see the States dissolved and replaced with a unitary government for the whole United States. Hamilton was an outlier in his position and certainly not an example of the common view amongst those who signed the new constitution.

@MB

Im not sure that your comment above is accurate but it is a distraction from what I was addressing.

Do you remember your post above?:

MB says:There were lots of provisions and ideas that were talked about at the constitutional convention in 1788. Most of them didn't get very far. I am not aware of secession being part of the deliberations. Perhaps you could point me to an article? I don't think you can make the kind of leap of inference that you do.

New York discussed it and it didnt make it into the final vote.

We can therefor see that:

The anti-federalists didnt think the Constitution provided for secession.

Secession was proposed and defeated.

I have now made you aware of secession deliberations and kindly pointed you to the article. Perhaps you can graciously admit that I have made no "leap of inference"?

In closing, I would like to add the concern of secessionist super hero Patrick Henry about the absence of secession provisions in the constitution and how that concern was answered:

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. …[24]

The federalists acknowledged that national sovereignty would be transferred by the new Constitution to the whole of the American people—indeed, regard the expression, "We the people …". They argued, however, that Henry exaggerated the extent to which a consolidated government was being created and that the states would serve a vital role within the new republic even though their national sovereignty was ending. Tellingly, on the matter of whether states retained a right to unilaterally secede from the United States, the federalists made it clear that no such right would exist under the Constitution.[25]

Thanks, 35th, but I am pressed for space since moving into a small place after retiring. Kindle is my new book case, and usually affordable will look for these. Looks like you are well read on this topic!

Sell you all 3 for $20 USD plus postage. Cause and Comrades is like new and the other 2 very good condition. Confederate Nation is first edition. Doubt Kindle deal is that good. 😉 will send pictures if interested.

The anti-federalists didnt think the Constitution provided for secession.

You are incorrect about this. What the anti-Federalists were doing in NY was taking as issue most agreed with (a state's right to secede from any constitutional order) and using it as pretext for amending the 1788 Constitution. The real goal being to disrupt the acceptance of the new Constitution by providing amendments to it.

Can you provide the source for the following,

Tellingly, on the matter of whether states retained a right to unilaterally secede from the United States, the federalists made it clear that no such right would exist under the Constitution.[25]

You are incorrect about this. What the anti-Federalists were doing in NY was taking as issue most agreed with (a state's right to secede from any constitutional order) and using it as pretext for amending the 1788 Constitution. The real goal being to disrupt the acceptance of the new Constitution by providing amendments to it.

Am I? Surely your statement means a large body of people were concerned about an absence of clear secession provisions? Sounds like it makes it even more debated. Bear in mind, I am answering your statement that it wasn't discussed at all.

I note that unilateral secession didnt make it into the amendments either.

Can you provide the source for the following

For you, anything:

America's Constitution: A Biography, Akhil Reed Amar

link

No thanks 35th, I have been giving them away as I try to fit into condo life, but thanks for the offer!

No problem. Thought I would offer.

Since you site Akil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale and a self described "Liberal Democrat". It seems it would be important to understand his interruption of the Constitution and where it comes from. Is he an originalist? Believes the Constitution is a living document? Something completely different?

Marcus or others are welcome to do their own reading to determine if they want to accept his Interpretations. I make no judgment either way, because my view on succession and it's legality is pretty much set. But felt obligated since so many articles I have sited in the past, have been challenged because of their political leanings. I include only one on Akil's views.

Subject: ‘America's Unwritten Constitution,' by Akhil Reed Amar – The New York Times


link

Since you site Akil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale and a self described "Liberal Democrat". It seems it would be important to understand his interruption of the Constitution and where it comes from. Is he an originalist? Believes the Constitution is a living document? Something completely different?

I dont see his politics to be important in order to answer Marcus Brutus' question.

I doubt if he is an Originalist. An Originalist is an ultra conservative, reactionary view of the Constitution where the very purpose of its own existence is to turn back the clock and freeze it 1789. The other equivalent would be fundamentalism with the bible or anti evolution/science.

Marcus or others are welcome to do their own reading to determine if they want to accept his Interpretations. I make no judgment either way, because my view on succession and it's legality is pretty much set.

If it is set why are you involved in a discussion about it?

But felt obligated since so many articles I have sited in the past, have been challenged because of their political leanings. I include only one on Akil's views.

Speaking for myself, I didnt like your NY Post article about Mr. James because it said he was a killer and he wasnt and, additionally, you introduced it as proof of black killers, and it isnt. Further, you refused to acknowledge the error.

That's not a political attack.

But, since we are here, I also think the NY Post is the epitome of low information news consumption.

The other site, The Gateway Pundit, the one that used one tweet by some "liberal" person about starting riots over the coming overturning of Roe v Wade is a source that constantly makes things up probably with malicious intent. It has been compared to Alex Jones and Stormfront.

Frankly, they dont even seem to think their readers are bright enough to see the irony of Having a "Pro Trump News" column which states it is the antidote to media bias. I didnt realize that bias was the antidote to bias. Is that what you believe?

Professor Amar is a respected and responsible Constitutional scholar. You may not like his conclusions but he doesnt make things up.

You dont have to like someone's politics but when you get to the point where you think something is a fact just because you like it, you lose the ability to step away and examine your own zeal.

😉 my sources are suspect and bias, but yours are above reproach. Not just my sources were suspect, it seems that Marcus Brutus were treated the same way. 🤔 You don't see the dichotomy there?

Everyone's writing is suspect because of their beliefs and politics. We are all influenced by our beliefs and political bent. You lie to yourself and others if you deny that.

So if an Originalist is an "ultra conservative", are those who believe in a living Constitution "ultra leftists"? Or are there just ultra conservatives?

Mr. James was an attempted killer. "they called him a killer". That was your objection? I will reread that and see if they did call him a killer. He IS a hemorrhoid on society. (Notice how that story and Wisconsin disappear quickly from the mainstream media? Does not fulfill an agenda). I introduced it and other articles of black racism and black supremists, as an offshoot to this whole white supremists crap that has started dominating so many dialogues here and elsewhere. My point with that is there are probably as many black supremists as white supremists, both small in numbers. But the liberal media dwells on only one side and blows it totally out of proportion, all to help one party garner votes in every election. How was that phrased?

I believe we have all reached the point of disagreement. None will convince the other side to change their minds. I believe succession was legal, as do others. You and others don't. You and I and others believe slavery was the driving force to succession. Others don't. I and others believe there were other motives for succession, some don't.

I reread the article and No where in that article did it say James was a killer. It said it was lucky no one was killed. It also said Darrell Brooks killed people in that same article. Ok so will you "acknowledge your error"?

😉 my sources are suspect and bias, but yours are above reproach.

I dont think that Prof Amar is my source. I used Wikipedia. I dont know if all your sources are biased. All I know is the NY Post article is in error and the Gateway Pundit seems to revel in conservative bias.

Their sponsors include Ammoland.com and MyPillow.com and WeLoveTrump.com. Maybe just a wee bit biased.

I have to admit that although the many articles about election fraud were an initial hint, really it was the "Let's Go Brandon" tees that made me start to suspect there might be some bias.

link

Although this one is actually amusing:

link

Not just my sources were suspect, it seems that Marcus Brutus were treated the same way. 🤔

Impossible, Marcus hasnt given any sources. Unless were speaking of Prof Livingston. I would like to point out that I did not refer to him as a dishonest Lost Myth Quack who cant teach at a real university and formed a tax dodge "Institute" where he can broadcast his Confederate prestidigitations without any intellectual or logical accountability.

You don't see the dichotomy there?

No

So if an Originalist is an "ultra conservative", are those who believe in a living Constitution "ultra leftists"? Or are there just ultra conservatives?

I think the ultra leftists believe that the Constitution contains a lot of things that it doesnt contain. It doesnt really come up here much though. Usually I see ultra conservatives assuming Originalism is the only way to interpret the document.

Mr. James was an attempted killer. "they called him a killer". That was your objection? I will reread that and see if they did call him a killer.

I reread the article and No where in that article did it say James was a killer. It said it was lucky no one was killed. It also said Darrell Brooks killed people in that same article. Ok so will you "acknowledge your error"?

The article claims he is a killer in the title.

I know you read the title because you stated:

Subject: Democrats who claim white supremacy is top problem ignore black racist killers

Then you linked to the article:

link

And yes, I think there is a difference between an attempted and an actual killer. Especially when the article is being used by you to prove there are black racist killers.

I am not in error, you are.

None will convince the other side to change their minds. I believe succession was legal, as do others. You and others don't. You and I and others believe slavery was the driving force to succession. Others don't. I and others believe there were other motives for succession, some don't.

I don't know about changing minds but Ive enjoyed seeing how other people think about the issue. I wish some of the arguments were made better. Maybe this thread serves more a chance to tighten respective opinions.

Although, I need to point out (And I shouldn't have to) that the South seceding because of slavery is the dominant opinion by a landslide and really, it's incumbent on Lost Cause proponents to get their arguments into a more persuasive format and not get annoyed when others don't immediately adopt that view.

For my part, I was introduced to and watched several Livingston videos, heck I might even get one of those Gateway Pundit tees.

I'm disappointed there aren't more books supporting a pro confederate POV without slavery as a prime motivator. It seems like there aren't that many historians willing to invest heavily in books that claim the South didn't secede primarily over slavery for some reason or another. I think someone said that the Marxists were monitoring ACW history or something.

I am not sure the principal actors North or South were at all sure themselves if Secession was legal or not. What is curious is that the South after claiming it was a given that secession was 100% legal managed to spend an enormous amount of time in their secession documents both rationalizing and justifying that very move.

Seems an odd thing to do when something is both obvious and cut-and-dried.

Yes my sites on the whole are conservative sites. The Pundit is a conservative site. But I have admitted to being a conservative. Having said that I have found more accuracy on conservatives sites in the last 10 years than non conservative. The pundit prints things I agree with and some I don't. I could give a litany of things the other side has printed or spoken of as news that has been proven to be false or out and out lies.

"I know you read the title because you stated:

Subject: Democrats who claim white supremacy is top problem ignore black racist killers"

You keep ignoring the fact that the article is about more than one black man. Darrell "was" and IS a killer. You said it specifically said James was a killer, it did not say he was, anywhere inside the article. Although he made every attempt to kill, he was incompetent. Lucky for all.

But I never expected you to admit your error. 😉

If secession was not allowed, there would never have been the necessity of the 14th amendment, after the war. I assume the south spent the time justifying it, in the hopes the North would except it and not attempt to bring them back in by force.

I think the accuracy of conservative news has been clouded by the business formula it uses to mix in opinion with news to give its viewers what they want and stay on top of the ratings. Much of it is perfectly accurate and covers things we might not otherwise learn.
Some of it is an infotainment echo chamber that keeps the profits coming.
The Murdochs own a huge amount of the worlds media outlets. They have a very successful track record in the business.

I seem to recall a Post reporter resigning last year after refusing to slant her news article as required by her editors. The Post is a tabloid in the grand tradition, as likely to headline Johnny Depp as Biden. It is a great example of the wide variety of options in a healthy free press.

Morning Tort. Yes I agree. But the same is true of the other side. They know who reads and buys their products, so they will Cater to their Constituency. The NYT is as bad about that as is the NYP. False headline page 1, retraction page 42. 😉

One thing recently I noticed in the "right" of Fox News websites, is that the Ukrainians are not doing as well as we have all been led to believe. I hope they are wrong about that, but we will see. If that view moves onto Fox, then we will know that it may be actually true. Sadly.

Anyway, you are a compromiser. I think you will like this. I liked Maher before Trump was elected, then for 4 years he went into Trump derangement syndrome. But now he is back to being a voice of reason. I don't always agree with him, but he is attacking both sides. Enjoy 😊

Subject: Bill Maher pushes back at pro-choice alarmists: 'We're not going back to 1973' if Roe v Wade is overturned


link

Yes my sites on the whole are conservative sites. The Pundit is a conservative site. But I have admitted to being a conservative. Having said that I have found more accuracy on conservatives sites in the last 10 years than non conservative. The pundit prints things I agree with and some I don't. I could give a litany of things the other side has printed or spoken of as news that has been proven to be false or out and out lies.

They or may not be conservative but the one I didnt like is dishonest, malicious and extremist. I am starting to see a pattern but to remind you, you asked why your sources were considered biased and the answer is that they either fabricate stories or themselves proclaim that they are conservatively biased. Please focus on answers to what you yourself bring up.

Being conservative is good but being a dishonest, lying sack of bleep is not something I have respect for. I still want one of those tshirts though.

You keep ignoring the fact that the article is about more than one black man. Darrell "was" and IS a killer. You said it specifically said James was a killer, it did not say he was, anywhere inside the article. Although he made every attempt to kill, he was incompetent. Lucky for all.

But I never expected you to admit your error.

Oh? I thought I was letting you off easily. OK, you want to make it worse for yourself? I mean to the extent that you seem to be perpetually disturbed by being called out for using a flawed article to prove a ridiculous point.

Frank James didnt kill anyone

Noah Green didnt kill anyone

Brooks killed many but whether or not he was racist, it is hard to believe that a man fleeing at top speed from police and mowing people down in a parade he didnt know was going on was specifically targeting people for racist reasons.

Apparently the NY Post writer was so pressed for examples of "Black Racist Killers" he had to use two black men who didnt kill anyone and one who seems to have killed people indiscriminately.

ironically, the only clearcut racist murderer mentioned in the article is the white man about which the writer states:

Yes, James Alex Fields Jr. weaponized his car and murdered protester Heather Heyer during Charlottesville, Va.'s race riots in August 2017 — nearly five years ago.

In fact, Fields hoped to kill a lot more but there was a car obscured by the crowd in his way and thus he had to back up.

Apparently, the Post writer is annoyed by this 5 year old story. I suppose she is no longer murdered after 5 years?

But it gets worse. In some sort of sensationalist move to prove the imagined massive black supremacy sweeping the USA, the Post writer quotes Andy Ngo stating that Brooks posted this:

"Run them over. Keep traffic flowing & don't slow down for any of these idiots."

A casual search reveals that this was not said by Brooks but by a Minn Police officer who had to take leave because of it.

link

Andy Ngo has been busted many times over for dishonesty, maliciously claiming "liberals" are targeting him or others without proof. He is a political performance artist.

It is sad that you used that article to prove your already flimsy premise about black supremacy. it is sadder still that that Post writer had neither examples nor well vetted information.

The article is flawed in its title, in its message and on its facts.

GO ahead and keep defending it, it's only making me realize that your ability to formulate realistically grounded arguments is problematic.

If secession was not allowed, there would never have been the necessity of the 14th amendment, after the war.

Hunh?

I assume the south spent the time justifying it, in the hopes the North would except it and not attempt to bring them back in by force.

That could be a part of it. It does seem like they don't think the North understood that this legal right to unilateral secession existed.

You all asked for other articles, I provided them. You Locked on that one. "Again", I stated that I do not believe black supremists are rampant, just like white supremists are not rampant. white supremists are a Bogeyman dredged up by the left. But authors like the one this thread is about, try to use history as a methodology to dredge it up using some personal Epiphany or self Revelation to do so. All of which is bogus. I would be happy to not bring them up, if the left wokesters stop dragging up the white supremists bogeymen.

Brooks is a racist. That is a fact. It was on his website before his site was wiped. How convenient. Just as James is a racist. Believe it not, it does not make it any less the truth. Both admitted black supremists beliefs.

You pointed out the political bent of my sources earlier in this thread, I felt it only fair to point out the political bent of your sources. Turnaround is fair play.

Your respect is not something I seek nor in any way crave. But nice to know you might think your opinion of me matters an iota. That does take quite an ego. 🙂

You all asked for other articles, I provided them.

I came into the thread after you posted that NY Post article.

Why you posted to that Gateway Pundit website on your own, I didnt ask for a link that slobber.

You Locked on that one.

LOL, no, you locked onto that one. Over and over and over again.

"Again", I stated that I do not believe black supremists are rampant, just like white supremists are not rampant. white supremists are a Bogeyman dredged up by the left. But authors like the one this thread is about, try to use history as a methodology to dredge it up using some personal Epiphany or self Revelation to do so. All of which is bogus. I would be happy to not bring them up, if the left wokesters stop dragging up the white supremists bogeymen.

Wait, you're admitting that you used that NY Post article because of it's inaccuracy?

I don't base my views about white supremacy on the media's reporting. I rely on our Intel agencies.

I haven't read the book but I did get it.

Brooks is a racist. That is a fact. It was on his website before his site was wiped. How convenient. Just as James is a racist. Believe it not, it does not make it any less the truth. Both admitted black supremists beliefs.

It doesnt change the fact that the NY Post writer was using insinuation, sloppy journalism and dishonesty to prove the article's main point.

You pointed out the political bent of my sources earlier in this thread, I felt it only fair to point out the political bent of your sources. Turnaround is fair play

Not the political bent, the absolute crap quality and malicious unreliability. The Gateway Pundit manufactures facts. Meanwhile, you think a respected Constitutional Law Professor is a problem just because you think he's a liberal? He isnt manufacturing facts that I see. If you can prove he's manufacturing facts, I'd like to see the evidence, just for laughs.

How about explaining your concept of the 14th Amendment vis a vis making Secession illegal?

Your respect is not something I seek nor in any way crave. But nice to know you might think your opinion of me matters an iota. That does take quite an ego. 🙂

You have a proportionality problem in that you dont seem to be able to comprehend degrees when it is necessary. Ironic since you've accused me of hyperbole. However, your arguments flutter all over the place and blend issues which are separate. I thought I'd help you out but if you want to get nasty…

In any case, your opinion is your opinion but if youre going to make an argument, come up with some arguments that make sense to people who don't already hold your opinion. Especially in case when your opinion is the outsider opinion.

Again, if you can make an argument for the Constitutional legality of unilateral secession, please do so.

The Maher points were good ones, 35th. I hate to say it but 1973 was a long time ago! And things have changed.

My suggestion is to do some research on the Gateway Pundit. It is considered by many to be a serious fake news instigator, worth looking into the many concerns.

Au pas, I don't think going nasty is where we're are headed, you raise a lot of good points and so does 35th. They represent beliefs we can learn more about. It's not about winning the argument here, at least I don't think so. We are not gaming the topic, but we do reveal a lot about various views people hold and why when we go back and forth.

Yes Tort I understand there are issues at times with "pundit". They have an agenda. But there are issues with all sources as you know and they all have agendas.

As usual you are the voice of reason. I do enjoy discussions with you, because they remain discussions. We don't always agree, but your points are valid.

Pas
Your statements in ("")
Mine in [""] or <<>>

Again and again, you misquote, take things out of context or just fabricate out of thin air. I don't know if it is intentional, you just don't read what others write or you read what you want to see.

("I came into the thread after you posted that NY Post article.
Why you posted to that Gateway Pundit website on your own, I didnt ask for a link that slobber.")

If you came in after that article link, then you would have seen the ones that were linked in following entries in this thread. That article was page 1, those that followed, page 2. You would have noticed also, they were there in response to other posters. But I am sure those other links would not be acceptable to you as well.

("You Locked on that one.
LOL, no, you locked onto that one. Over and over and over again.")

No, you and others locked in that one and kept referring back to it as wrong, lies and unacceptable sources. Go back to page one and start at the beginning. Read slowly and carefully.

["Again", I stated that I do not believe black supremists are rampant, just like white supremists are not rampant. white supremists are a Bogeyman dredged up by the left. But authors like the one this thread is about, try to use history as a methodology to dredge it up using some personal Epiphany or self Revelation to do so. All of which is bogus. I would be happy to not bring them up, if the left wokesters stop dragging up the white supremists bogeymen.]

("Wait, you're admitting that you used that NY Post article because of it's inaccuracy?
I don't base my views about white supremacy on the media's reporting. I rely on our Intel agencies.")

Your first paragraph is senseless. A conclusion drawn only in your own head. I never ever said the article is inaccurate.
Next you say You base your views on white supremacy on our intel agencies?The same agencies that said Russian Collusion was real, the Hunter Biden laptop was NOT real and was Russian disinformation? Those intel agencies? 😂

("I haven't read the book but I did get it.")
Enjoy the reading. I wouldn't give that man a penny I found in a Cesspool.

["Brooks is a racist. That is a fact. It was on his website before his site was wiped. How convenient. Just as James is a racist. Believe it not, it does not make it any less the truth. Both admitted black supremists beliefs."]

("It doesnt change the fact that the NY Post writer was using insinuation, sloppy journalism and dishonesty to prove the article's main point.")

According only to you and your views.

You also made insinuations as to what was said in it. I contradicted what you wrote, and you come up with different reasons it was wrong. Keep moving that target. 😉

Basic facts are true. They all tried to kill people because of race. 1 succeeded, 2 failed to kill, but not for lack of trying.

["You pointed out the political bent of my sources earlier in this thread, I felt it only fair to point out the political bent of your sources. Turnaround is fair play"]

("Not the political bent, the absolute crap quality and malicious unreliability. The Gateway Pundit manufactures facts. Meanwhile, you think a respected Constitutional Law Professor is a problem just because you think he's a liberal? He isnt manufacturing facts that I see. If you can prove he's manufacturing facts, I'd like to see the evidence, just for laughs.
How about explaining your concept of the 14th Amendment vis a vis making Secession illegal?")

I pointed out your source as being a liberal democrat. Which he has admitted to on multiple occasions. I don't think it, HE SAID IT.
Again you take what I said out of context and accuse me of saying things I did not.
My original statement on your source.
<<Marcus or others are welcome to do their own reading to determine if they want to accept his Interpretations. I make no judgment either way, because my view on succession and it's legality is pretty much set. But felt obligated since so many articles I have sited in the past, have been challenged because of their political leanings. I include only one on Akil's views.
Subject>>

NOTICE i said I made no judgment either way

I did in a later paragraph say that everyone's writings are suspect because of their beliefs and politics. I stand by that.

["Your respect is not something I seek nor in any way crave. But nice to know you might think your opinion of me matters an iota. That does take quite an ego. 🙂"]

("You have a proportionality problem in that you dont seem to be able to comprehend degrees when it is necessary. Ironic since you've accused me of hyperbole. However, your arguments flutter all over the place and blend issues which are separate. I thought I'd help you out but if you want to get nasty…
In any case, your opinion is your opinion but if youre going to make an argument, come up with some arguments that make sense to people who don't already hold your opinion. Especially in case when your opinion is the outsider opinion.")

I never accused you of Hyperbole. Again if you would just read what was written and not immediately jump out of the chair and shout things that are only in your own mind.

Again my original statement.
<<Sort of like the President's new "ultra MAGA's", that he used again today in his 11:30 speech. The other day he said MAGA's "are the most extreme political organization, in recent history". Wow, a little Hyperbole there?>>

My statement of hyperbole was referring to the President's "Ultra Maga and most extreme political organization in recent history ". But again you jump up, take it as an insult to you and then got personal on multiple Subsequent entries.

As to the 14th Amendment

Go to Google and type this line:
"What amendment made secession illegal"

("Again, if you can make an argument for the Constitutional legality of unilateral secession, please do so.")

What would be the point of Marcus, myself or anyone else doing that? You would discount the sources, belittle them or the writer. You do exactly what you accuse all of us of doing.

I can hear you saying now: "He task me. He tasks me and I shall have him! I'll chase him around the moons of Nibia and around the Antares Maelstrom and Round predictions flames before I give him up!" 😂🤣

Again and again, you misquote, take things out of context or just fabricate out of thin air. I don't know if it is intentional, you just don't read what others write or you read what you want to see.

I misquote? I fabricate? OK, that's enough of that.

I never accused you of Hyperbole. Again if you would just read what was written and not immediately jump out of the chair and shout things that are only in your own mind.

Alright, we're coming to that:

So if an Originalist is an "ultra conservative", are those who believe in a living Constitution "ultra leftists"? Or are there just ultra conservatives? Sort of like the President's new "ultra MAGA's", that he used again today in his 11:30 speech. The other day he said MAGA's "are the most extreme political organization, in recent history". Wow, a little Hyperbole there?

This is you accusing me of hyperbole. It's your quote.

Here is you misquoting your own quote:

Again my original statement.
<<Sort of like the President's new "ultra MAGA's", that he used again today in his 11:30 speech. The other day he said MAGA's "are the most extreme political organization, in recent history". Wow, a little Hyperbole there?>>

Notice how you left out the first sentence? This is dishonest on your part.

My statement of hyperbole was referring to the President's "Ultra Maga and most extreme political organization in recent history ". But again you jump up, take it as an insult to you and then got personal on multiple Subsequent entries.

No, it was referring to me, until you edited it. As if the original first sentence wasn't still there.

If you came in after that article link, then you would have seen the ones that were linked in following entries in this thread. That article was page 1, those that followed, page 2. You would have noticed also, they were there in response to other posters. But I am sure those other links would not be acceptable to you as well.

I commented after the one and only link you initially made; The NY Post article. It was on the first page and so was I. Then you posted some other articles and i commented on some of those. And you're telling me to reread carefully? That's rich.

Since that post you have repeatedly dredged that NY Post article up without the ability to understand that it is inaccurate. Why you keep bringing it up and then accuse others of doing so, I have no idea but I am happy that I dont suffer from the same condition. I can only imagine that it bothers you that the article is inaccurate and worse. I wonder now if you understand the meaning of that word.

As to the 14th Amendment

Go to Google and type this line:
"What amendment made secession illegal"

Awww, I was really hoping you'd try and explain this to us.

What would be the point of Marcus, myself or anyone else doing that? You would discount the sources, belittle them or the writer. You do exactly what you accuse all of us of doing.

I dont know what Marcus has to do with this? Frankly, he is the only person who has submitted a half way decent argument that the South didnt secede primarily over slavery.

You have submitted nothing about this topic but your own opinions which might explain why you're taking too many things personally.

Remember this?

Did I say anyone was picking on me? God! I am not a liberal! 😂 I can take it. Just trying to find patterns to opposing views. Those have been, avowed Socialist, Academics, either current or past and employees past or present of the Government. Not to say they all feel that way, well except for the Socialist, but that has been the pattern. I'm still trying to figure out why one asked if I was a former or current pilot. 😂

Is this also a misquote? Is it out of context?

What happened to this version of you? Now you need a "safe zone" to lay down the all important pro confederacy argument you and a few others seem to think is obvious? Perhaps it is so obvious that it's impossible to set it down for mortal eyes to read?

And then there's this.

I think this personal opinion reveals a lot about you.

["Again", I stated that I do not believe black supremists are rampant, just like white supremists are not rampant. white supremists are a Bogeyman dredged up by the left. But authors like the one this thread is about, try to use history as a methodology to dredge it up using some personal Epiphany or self Revelation to do so. All of which is bogus. I would be happy to not bring them up, if the left wokesters stop dragging up the white supremists bogeymen.]

I am not sure I can sort through this jumble.Everyone bases everything on personal opinion except you or including you? I asked you before, do you think that you need to fight bias with bias? If everyone is biased, why are you surprised by bias?

This idea that white supremacy is an invention of the Left and the media is interesting. Further your belief in the FBI as a part of the deep state is also quite telling. It explains why you might think the gateway pundit is a source like any other and cannot understand why it's about as extreme as they come and as dishonest as they get.

I could continue about all the tangents youve twisted out of all recognition but to get back to the thread's main point. You havent read the book but you dont like the premise?

Enjoy the reading. I wouldn't give that man a penny I found in a Cesspool.

Maybe you could check it out of the library? You know, where you can borrow books?

But please note, you believe people should read your links, books and sources? This is a grandiose pov.