|
Posts:
9,872
Registered:
11/18/04
|
|
(1 of 42)
Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 23, 2009 6:30 PM
|
The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:
Imagine that- their complaint was not federalism, it was "oppression of Southern slave-holding states"!
--
Liberty without obedience is confusion, obedience without liberty is slavery
There's never a right time to be in the wrong place"
jasser
|
|
|
Posts:
3,543
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(2 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 23, 2009 9:03 PM
|
> The people of Virginia in their ratification of the
> Constitution of the United States of America, adopted
> by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of
> June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven
> hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the
> powers granted under said Constitution were derived
> from the people of the United States and might be
> resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to
> their injury and oppression, and the Federal
> Government having perverted said powers not only to
> the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the
> oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:
> Imagine that- their complaint was not federalism, it
> was "oppression of Southern slave-holding states"!
Son, what are you SMOKING?
Their complaint wasn't "federalism," but the violation of federalism by the northern states. If you ever get a clue, I suggest you treasure it greatly, since such a rare thing is of even greater value.
Likewise, you're clearly misconstruing the phraseology greatly, when you say "the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed."
According to the context you're interjecting here, it means nothing, since you're saying that "the people of the United States, from whom the powers granted under the Constitution are derived, may resume them."
Er, this means nothing, unless you're claiming that the entire US population can take a massive vote, and overrule the federal government. Obviously the Constitution doesn't say that, and it's not true.
We've already covered this fallacious amateurish tendency to aggregate the population of all states into a single mass, and there's no need to go over it again: anyone too illiterate to understand that a chicken simply CANNOT lay the same egg it hatched from, is simply too hopeless to ever bother with.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,872
Registered:
11/18/04
|
|
(3 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 23, 2009 9:32 PM
|
I am not your son, I have grandchildren, I have never smoked crack. I do not drink, I do not smoke.
You have insisted that slavery ad nothing to do with the Civil War but every statement of secession issued by the states that formed the Confederacy fail to support your opinions.
That is problematic for you. Not for me.
Stooping to personal attacks just proves you have nothing.
--
Liberty without obedience is confusion, obedience without liberty is slavery
There's never a right time to be in the wrong place"
jasser
|
|
|
Posts:
3,543
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(4 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 23, 2009 10:05 PM
|
>>You have insisted that slavery ad nothing to do with the Civil War
And it didn't. A "nation," owns all of the lands that it governs. However federal republic is NOT a nation; on the contrary, each state in a federal republic, is a sovereign nation entirely unto itself.
Therefore, the war could NOT have been over slavery-- just like it couldn't have been a civil war, which occurs wholly within ONE SINGLE nation. Slavery is just a lame excuse to deceive the ignorant away from the REAL issue of the national sovereignty of each individual state.
It's telling of the Lincoln regime's propoganda-machine, that people like you are so brainwashed that you can't think straight enough to grasp this one simple fact.
Likewise, I've already explained that even if the Southern states had FREED all slaves, it wouldn't change a THING.
The North would STILL have jockeyed for political hegemony over the South in order to tax them, and the South would have still seceded in protest.
I'm afraid you're just too much of a one-track mind obsessed on "slavery" to think objectively and understand the true situation.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,872
Registered:
11/18/04
|
|
(5 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 24, 2009 10:09 AM
|
If slavery wasn't a issue, why is it specifically mentioned in the document written by the founders of the confederacy?
Here are some facts that may dumbfound you as they may be above your ability of comprehension;
1. The US government doesn't own all the land in the USA.
2. The state doesn't own all the property inside it's borders.
3. Military conscription is not slavery. (I know you think it is)
4. If slavery had not existed there would never have been a Civil War.
--
Liberty without obedience is confusion, obedience without liberty is slavery
There's never a right time to be in the wrong place"
jasser
|
|
|
Posts:
965
From:
Virginia/Maryland
Registered:
12/10/07
|
|
(6 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 25, 2009 3:29 AM
|
Dred Scott v. Sandford... applied not just to Virginia but every state...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
"Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), commonly referred to as The Dred Scott Decision, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants[2]—whether or not they were slaves—were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States. It also held that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Lastly, the Court ruled that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process."
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(7 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 25, 2009 5:36 AM
|
rdfx,
The Civil War overturned Dred Scott.
No Supreme Court ruling in the world can help you if you decide to submit to trial-by-combat, which is what the South decided to do.
The verdict is in. Its called history.
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,294
Registered:
1/19/07
|
|
(8 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 25, 2009 5:49 AM
|
The Civil War overturned Dred Scott.
As did the 13th Amendement.
But lets not interupt a decent bout of zealotry with simple facts.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(9 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 25, 2009 7:52 AM
|
sfcdan,
No, of course not.
Let's get back to Mao and how he stood on tariffs, secession, and, at the very least, sovereignty. 
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,403
From:
the south
Registered:
5/28/07
|
|
(10 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 25, 2009 8:50 AM
|
jasser
Take a look at the lyrics for th Virginia, Maryland, and Florida state songs.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,543
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(11 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 25, 2009 9:56 AM
|
> If slavery wasn't a issue, why is it specifically
> mentioned in the document written by the founders of
> the confederacy?
Because slaves represented THREE BILLION DOLLARS in vested assets; and the Fifth Amendment precluded the taking of property without just compensation. and Infringment of that right represented a constructive taking.
It's irrelevant that it was simply a Marxist-Proletarian excuse; but then, you probably think Stalin actually CARED about freeing peasants from feudal capitalists?
> Here are some facts that may dumbfound you as they
> may be above your ability of comprehension;
2. The state doesn't own all the property inside it's
> borders.
That just proves you don't know what "sovereign" means; however you're probably confusing TITLE with sovereignty.
Just to show you the difference, realize that the 13th Amendment nullified title to all slaves, while the 14th nullified any just compensation; this was done under claim of sovereignty. That's right: the claim of sovereignty allowed the state to just flip off the RECOGNIZED RIGHTFUL OWNERS.
And the sovereign can do that with ANYTHING: YOU, your house your land, your wife and kids-- ANYTHING.
But I guess it's beyond hope that you could undersand that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "LIMITED SOVEREIGNTY."
|
|
|
Posts:
3,543
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(12 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 25, 2009 10:01 AM
|
> Dred Scott v. Sandford... applied not just to
> Virginia but every state...
You have to understand: Lincoln had his own version of truth, which changed with the wind.
He only believed in laws so he could claim them to be on his side, ALWAYS, regardless of facts.
For example, while Dred Scot was pending, Lincoln campaigned for president in 1856, by challenging the South to abide by the Supreme Court's decision, accusing them of being "disunionist" if they didn't, and saying that the Supreme Court was the final tribunal regarding the issue.
Then, when Dred Scot came down squarely AGAINST him, Lincoln suddenly had a conveniently DIFFERENT idea about the Supreme Court's authority-- and he didn't call himself "disunionist" for doing so; on the contrary, the 1856 Fremont speech simply NEVER HAPPENED.
And when he became president, the Supreme Court had NO power of judicial review.
Like any ruthless cheap shyster, Lincoln had no interest in law or consistency, just VICTORY at any cost.
Sadly, the fools sniff after him to this day.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,872
Registered:
11/18/04
|
|
(13 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 25, 2009 11:14 AM
|
Doubleday
That is interesting.....and very telling
--
Liberty without obedience is confusion, obedience without liberty is slavery
There's never a right time to be in the wrong place"
jasser
|
|
|
Posts:
965
From:
Virginia/Maryland
Registered:
12/10/07
|
|
(14 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 25, 2009 12:03 PM
|
> jasser
>
> Take a look at the lyrics for th Virginia, Maryland,
> and Florida state songs.
Marylands state song refers to Lincoln himself as a tyrant a despot and a vandal.
And Maryland was a Union state.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,872
Registered:
11/18/04
|
|
(15 of 42)
Re: Virginia's Ordinance of Seccession
Oct 25, 2009 12:49 PM
|
Yes, and written by southern scum
--
Liberty without obedience is confusion, obedience without liberty is slavery
There's never a right time to be in the wrong place"
jasser
|
|
|
|
|
