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
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.