politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
1860
I think you might need to learn less civil war mythology and more actual history.
They weren't holding up to their principals then either, the whole thing was genuinely about states rights they just said their rights overruled other states rights because ownership of property didn't change via interstate travel.
It's far more stupid then most textbooks imply.
To retain ownership across state lines where the property is considered a limited person in the other state. What part of this makes you think I do not know the property in question were people, that isn't however why the feds got involved. State sovereignity was. Even after emancipation it was still legal to own people and still technically is to this day as slavery was never outlawed it was simply limited. To add to that children were still held as property until I want to say 1930 to the point that the first successful children's welfare group was the goddamn ASPCA arguing children are property like livestock that it's morally and economically unreasonable to abuse.
Your myopic and arguably ignorant meme usage and is implication is exactly what I mean by mythology.
Naw, the meme holds: "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution".
south caronlina seceded because of state's rights to slavery. Almost all articles of secession had the same language. Have some history.
No one said the meme was wrong, I said it was myopic.
But it isn't. It is right on point. Even the secession articles say it out loud. The fight was over slavery.
You just admitted it was about states rights..... Hence myopic. We had the same issue with drugs pre federalization as others have pointed out and notably slavery was never outlawed in the United States.
No, states rights to slavery. Why try to whitewash it? That's myopic, and dogwhistling in support of slavery.
Uh huh, states rights. The federal government did not intercede because of slavery, they likely wouldn't have acted at all past flimsy legislation if not for fort Sumter.
Don't believe me, listen to Lincoln, listen to Jefferson Davis.
It's not white washing it, when people say it isn't about states rights they are the ones removing context not the other way round.
You just repeat the same shit over and over til people give up, go back to your echo chamber and think you won something. Like the other guy said, words.
It's not an echo chamber if there's differing opinion.
Can't help but notice you gave up without providing evidence against my argument. Want to try that again or simply cry about a disagreement you willingly took part in?
Wow, the articles of secession stating slavery as the reason are not evidence. You have an echo chamber in your own head. Saying the fed disn't get involved because of slavery is like saying a murderer wasn't sought for murder, but because their victim didn't respect them. The causal chain to slavery is clear.
That's one states articles of succession and I'm fairly sure the president of the Confederacy is probably a more definitive source as to the Confederacy and btw Lincoln agreed.
Here's a fun question you've yet to address, why is slavery still legal in the United States if the war was to abolish slavery? Why were people still treated as property well into the 1900s?
Yes because that's the property right they were trying to protect in interstate travel. I'm sorry two things can be true but learn to deal with it I guess.
You're square in sovereign citizen "logic" territory. States can't secede, because that usurps federal authority. Seceding because of slavery, explicity admitted by almost all seceding states, means causing a war over slavery. A kindergartner could get it. All the gobbledygook you write to the contrary is plainly, factually, irrelevant, like a sovereign citizen's dream, ideas so compelling you just can't let go.
No I'm not, you've apparently not read what I've wrote or you're intensely confused.
I know that, you know that. It however was not tested until the civil war. I think it was Davis himself that said they found out first hand there is no right secede.
Yes a kindergartner could but you've apparently missed the point entirely so you're where in that scale? Preschool? Somewhere in the neighborhood of lacking object permanence?
What you call gobbledygook (racist term btw) are actual facts, you may not like it but they are indisputable facts.
The rest is just weak attempts at personal attacks because you can't find evidence against my position.
But that wouldn’t work for say heroin.
If your state says heroin is legal and the fed says it’s illegal, you can’t really leave your state and still legally be in possession of it.
I guess you could claim you own a person in a red state but once they leave, you no longer own them?
Wasn’t that the red states’ whole complaint? That their slaves shouldn’t be considered free men once they leave?
So in conclusion, the whole states rights argument doesn’t work because what they actually wanted was to have their state’s laws apply across the country.
And this doesn’t even talk about the moral issues which imo and most people’s opinion should override the above logic anyway.
That was an actual issue in America, nice of you to point that out for me and it's also why drug prohibition was federalized.
Correct, that was their property right claim. It's nonsensical but quite a lot of wars are over nonsensical shit.
No one said it worked, they fought and lost a war about it but that doesn't actually make it not their argument nor does it imply we shouldn't teach that property rights across state lines were the cause of the civil war, not in particular slavery as slavery was never outlawed and people were still considered property until well into the 1900s.
Nuance is sometimes difficult to deal with but that doesn't mean we should pare away inconvenient truths.
Morality is subjective and therefore difficult to argue which is why they fought it as a property rights issue instead.
Everyone knows that owning other people is a topic with such significant moral subjectivity, so talking about racially justified ownership of other humans really emphasizes the need to have a nuanced perspective on property ownership.
Think about how you sound.
No one is saying slavery wasn't involved, it clearly was.
No one is saying racism is a good thing.
What I am saying is that the federal government but it's own explanation did not get involved because of racism or slavery but rather state sovereignity and succession.
Slavery may have been their reason for seceding, it isn't however the framework of their disagreement with the federal government not the reason the federal government got involved. So to say it wasn't about states rights is straight up, flat out wrong.
I can't help not notice you didn't provide any evidence for your claim that "no one cared about states rights" or that it states rights were solely a post war conjuring.
You're wrong, call me a racist I don't care since I know you're wrong and simply attacking me on a personal level says you're emotionally involved to the point you're willing to ignore actual facts in favor of feelings.
Insightful rebuttal.
Thanks man
Ya huh.
Ah, I see you had a history class in a "lost cause revisionist" state.
It's an actual fact bud. It may not be one you like but it's a fact none the less.
Saying the civil war was about states rights is like saying the Holocaust was completely legal.
Both positions are factually correct, but it completely misses the inhuman and immoral pretexts that lead to those actions. The American civil war was about slavers trying to prolong their lifestyle of abusing other human beings regardless of what the laws of the country were. They saw that slavery was going away, and they responded by starting a war of secession.
It was. Read a book, no one is saying they weren't also racists or that they the state right they wanted preserved was property rights over people in interstate travel.
Duh, I went over that specifically and at length.
I literally quoted ~~Jefferson Davis~~ Alexander Stephens (VP of the Confederacy) a month into the Confederacy. You should go read a fucking history book. Racism and slavery was the foundation of the Confederacy, as stated by the people that started it. States rights is a bullshit excuse. The confederate states wanted to force non-slave states to return escaped slaves, despite them have the rights (specifically a state right) not to return human beings to slavers. Fuck off with this fake ass daughter of the Confederacy propaganda.
Edit : Fixed cornerstone speech attribution.
And I quoted him before in the legislature and after the war both specifically referring to states rights.
No shit?
That does not change it from being the framework for succession and their main complaint.
Ah you mean they challenged state sovereignity which is...... A state right!
You just admitted it was fact, when I was taught in school they would specifically tell you it was not about states rights when in fact it was. The federal government did not intercede because of slavery they interceded because of state sovereignity.
You fuckoff, as I recall you chose to interject yourself. Did you not?
Exactly. The slave states didn't care about states rights at all. All they cared about was keeping slaves. If the believed in what they were saying about states rights, they wouldn't have tried to force non-slave states to turn over freed slaves. The entire "confederates wanted states rights" argument is bullshit. They used the states right excuse to uphold the practice of slavery, and completely ignored these rights when they were used against slavery.
The Confederacy was about keeping slaves, and it was not about upholding the sovereignty of states. That was myth invented after the war was lost to whitewash the people who fought for the "right" to own and abuse human beings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
You can keep arguing after this I guess, but from this point forward, you would be knowingly promoting and defending a racist slaver-apologizing fraudulent piece of revisionist history.
I would love to see your evidence about that one. I'm quite sure free states cared very very much about state sovereignity hence their objections to shave owning states attempting to exert their authority in free states what with the war about it and all.
No shit? I wonder if we went over this already? Oh yes, we did in fact already talk about this and simply disagreeing with the framework they chose to make their argument does not make it any less of a fact.
I already provided pre war evidence that directly refutes your feelings on the matter.
This isn't lost cause theory, it's stating a series of facts you simply don't agree with.
I'm not promoting anything you buffoon, you're simply trying to call me a racist because you can't win the argument because the facts simply aren't on your side.
Since you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, there were 6 sources cited in the quote alone.
I didn't see it, I still don't see it, so go ahead and quote it back to me your support of Lost Cause Confederacy talking points.
Read the Lost Cause page, or even better, I'll put the relevant section in here for you since you clearly won't bother to educate yourself.
Unimportance of slavery
The movement that took The Lost Cause for its name had multiple origins, but its unifying contention was that slavery was not the primary cause of the Civil War[8][18] and would have naturally perished.[1] This narrative denies or minimizes the explanatory statements and constitutions published by the seceding states—for example, the wartime writings and speeches of CSA vice president Alexander Stephens and especially his Cornerstone Speech. Lost Cause historians instead favor the more moderate postwar views of Confederate leaders.[19]
Confederate president Jefferson Davis wrote about the place of the South's enslaved African Americans in his The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (1881)
[The negro soldiers'] servile instincts rendered them contented with their lot, and their patient toil blessed the land of their abode with unmeasured riches. Their strong local and personal attachment secured faithful service ... Never was there happier dependence of labor and capital on each other. The tempter came, like the serpent of Eden, and decoyed them with the magic word of "freedom" ... He put arms in their hands, and trained their humble but emotional natures to deeds of violence and bloodshed, and sent them out to devastate their benefactors.[20][21]
I'm not saying you're a racist slavery-apologist historical revisionist btw, but I am saying that you keep repeating and defending racist slavery-apologist historical revisionist propaganda materials, despite being provided ample evidence and resources to know that what you are saying is racist slavery-apologist historical revisionist propaganda.
Then you should be able to quote one directly that says "no one cared about states rights".
Jefferson Davis to Congress feb2 1860, almost exactly 1 year before seceding. You'll notice it's all about states rights because that's the legal framework they chose to use since owning people was legal at the federal level.
https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives/documents/jefferson-davis-resolutions-relations-states
Point to where I said or implied slavery was not the primary cause of the civil war. I won't hold my breath because that isn't something I've said nor would say. What I have said is that you're wrong to say started rights weren't involved or weren't the primary reason the federal government got involved. Hell, Lincoln specifically campaigned on not getting involved in slavery.
Yes Jefferson Davis was a slave owner and a racist, that isn't news. It's also something I've not argued against but you simply won't stop reading into my words things that simply do not exist in them.
You've quite literally said I'm stuck in lost cause theory which would make me an apologist and likely racist. Save the bullshit.
youre fucking dumb lmao
Read a history book those are all facts. Sure repubs were the "good guys" at the moment but that too is warped, Lincoln was against immediate emancipation but for slow rolling emancipation.
Look it up, the mythology behind the civil war in this country is fuckin wild.
youre fucking dumb and any conversation about the civil war, states rights, and property that does not mention slaves and that people are not property is disingenuous and fucking stupid. youre a fucking moron lol like fr? it was about states not recognizing property? you fucking clown lmao it was about (southern) states not recognizing people
No it wasn't. Emancipation is the outcome not the cause, even after Sumter was attacked Lincoln refused to act on slavery. The feds got involved to preserve state sovereignity and reenforce Lincoln's position that states did not have the right to secede. Slavery was certainly involved it wasn't however the cause of federal intervention.
You're pushing American mythology and ignoring the factual basis for federal involvement. Did you never wonder why Lincoln went with essentially an executive order (that by the way lost him 30+ Republican seats in Congress) rather than passing an amendment rather then passing an amendment first? It's because he didn't have the support needed to pass it because the North was also racist and also wanted to keep slaves they just wanted a different mechanism for gaining and keeping slaves ie. Lawful imprisonment.
Yeah, I’m pretty sick of the “It was a different time” bullshit too. It was not about property because people are not property, and humans decided that slavery is wrong LONG before the Civil War. Look in the fucking Bible, the most disseminated piece of literature of all time, and the book that many dumbasses say the US was founded on.
I don't believe people are property but we aren't talking about what I believe we're talking about how the civil war was framed and specifically the mythology it's evolved into. Sure sane people don't believe slavery is a righteous endeavor but clearly that's not changed anything today nor in the past given that slavery hasn't ended globally and in the US slavery specifically and legislatively isn't illegal in certain instances like lawful imprisonment, again mythology.
Not talking about other places. I’m suggesting that the arguments about “states rights” and “property” are disingenuous because they imply that we didn’t agree that slavery is fucked to begin with. If we are a country founded on Christian values as many would suggest, then it is not possible to have an argument about “property” when you’re referring to people. This was true in 1860, as well.
It was literally framed at the time as states rights and specifically interstate property rights, this is what I mean by mythology. You want to ignore actual history because it makes you feel weird, that's how mythology starts and progresses.
We literally didn't agree that's why there was a fucking war about it genius.
The country wasn't founded on Christian ideals, that's more mythology you can literally read the founders talking about the nation not being Christian or Christ based at all. Moreover slavery is not just legal in Christianity but fucking prescribed, it's more mythology.
It quite literally was not true in 1860 hence the goddamn war and continuing racism in America.
That's clearly the property that was being referred to, I'm sorry I didn't specifically spell that out for you.
It was about states rights, they just framed it as interstate property rights because slaves were property. Again I apologize for not pandering to the dumbest among us but you're making a good point that I shouldn't discount just how dumb people can be.