The State in the Dock

[fastpat]

On the state as prosecutor of the state:

Article by Lew Rockwell:

I'm not claiming that Saddam wasn't so bad after all. I'm pointing out that if he is only guilty of fighting off the competition, he was acting as all statesmen act with various degrees of intensity. The main impetus behind government-provided protection services is precisely to protect the government. There is nothing necessarily scandalous about this. It is what governments do.http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/states-on-trial.html

[Cdnone1]

Who's this Lew Rockwell guy?!
I don't think that Fastpat has ever mentioned him before
Steve

[tobster1911]

This must be one of those "substantive issues" we all "steadfastly refuse to debate", right Pat?

[Burnin' oil]

I absolutely agree. The difference between calling a political rival a liar and cutting off his head is one of degree only.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Cdnone1
Who's this Lew Rockwell guy?!
I don't think that Fastpat has ever mentioned him before
Steve

Just a nutcase who is hero to some in the lunatic fringe. A bit more capitalistic version of the uinbomber...
No, wait, that is Al Gore.

[yellowline]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]On the state as prosecutor of the state:

Article by Lew Rockwell:

I think ol' Lew would **** himself if a candidate forced us to vote for him at gunpoint. It would be against Article x, sections x,y,z of the Constitution, against 200 years of tradition, invalid because the South is its own entity, etc.

[MRM]

No it's not, and if that's what he really believes then he doesn't understand anything about what America stands for and where America came from.

George Washington lead the colonies through the Revolutionary War at considerable personal expense and peril. Once the war was done he was a national hero and expected to move from comander in chief of the army to lead the new government. He could have become the new King George by acclimation.

Instead Washington resigned his commission to the Continental Congress in a public cerimony and went home to Mount Vernon. He did so deliberately to set the precedent that the new new American government was an organic organism, of the people, by the people and for the people. It was not a government meant to perpetuate itself. The power of the American government come FROM the American people, the American government doesn't grant power or rights to the people. It was only years later that he allowed himself to be drafted back to be elected the first President of the United States, another position he walked away from deliberately and for a point.

When the English King George was asked what he though George Washington was going to do after the war, he said that he thought Washington would go home to his farm. Then he added, "If he does, he will be the greatest man in the world". He may have been. I know our lives are better for him having set the standard.

As a result, the United States, has had peaceful changes in government for centuries, and even put down the rebelion that was the Civil War. And the legacy America has given all other liberal democracies that have followed is the same: the government serves the people, it changes peacefully and does not live to perpetuate itself.

Now I will be the first to admit that America has not always lived up to this standard, but it aspires to. When we live in a perfect world it will meet this standard without fail.

By the way, there is a substantive diference between calling an opponent a liar and chopping off his head. One is completely different than the other. And not all governments exist only to perpetuate themselves.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by MRM
As a result, the United States, has had peaceful changes in government for centuries, and even put down the rebelion that was the Civil War. And the legacy America has given all other liberal democracies that have followed is the same: the government serves the people, it changes peacefully and does not live to perpetuate itself.

The southern states lawfully seceded from the Union, there was no rebellion. In order for there to have been a rebellion; the Constitution would have to have had a prohibition to state secesion. Not only is there not such a prohibition, the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution reserves that power to the states, or to the people.

And not all governments exist only to perpetuate themselves.

You would be so kind as to point out one that does not.

[MRM]

At last count there was one, and here we are.

[rcecale]

Pat,

I suggest you do a little reading on the Supreme Court case of Texas vs. White.

Briefly...

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held (in a 5–3 decision) that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

Once again, you seem to be making up your own laws as you go along. Sorry, pal, it just doesn't work that way.

Randy

[yellowline]

Originally posted by fastpat
In order for there to have been a rebellion; the Constitution would have to have had a prohibition to state secesion. Not only is there not such a prohibition, the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution reserves that power to the states, or to the people.

Why do you think the Confederacy would have been peaceful if left alone? Judging by the Brooks beating, I honestly don't think the South would've been peaceful. Considering that, what if the South drew the North into war? We'd then have the lawful overtaking of the sovereign Confederate nation. How is that better than what happened?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by rcecale
Pat,

I suggest you do a little reading on the Supreme Court case of Texas vs. White.

Briefly...

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held (in a 5�3 decision) that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

Once again, you seem to be making up your own laws as you go along. Sorry, pal, it just doesn't work that way.

Randy

The problem with that case, and the several others written by Lincoln appointees with similar findings, is that there's not only no foundation for it in the Constitution at all, there is in fact the Tenth Amendment which was written to support state powers, and since secession isn't prohibited to the states, it was, and still is, a power held by the states. Corrupt court decisions abound, you ought to learn to discern them.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by yellowline
Why do you think the Confederacy would have been peaceful if left alone? Judging by the Brooks beating, I honestly don't think the South would've been peaceful. Considering that, what if the South drew the North into war? We'd then have the lawful overtaking of the sovereign Confederate nation. How is that better than what happened?

Ah, yes, the the Brooks caning of Sumner. Well, it turns out that Brooks should have killed him, since Sumner was one of the most corrupt and murderous of the Radical Republicans in the government after the War Against Southern Independence was fought and lost.

I don't think you can construe, at least not logically, that that single event characterised the South as looking for war with he North. In fact, the opposite is true. The supporters of Lincoln wanted war and took every opportunity to foment it.

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by fastpat
The southern states lawfully seceded from the Union, there was no rebellion.

The mantra of the LOSers.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Eric 951
The mantra of the LOSers.

Not exactly, though that accurate and lawful position is a part of that organizations principles.

When in the Course of Human Events : Arguing the Case for Southern Secession and The Real Lincoln : A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History form a pretty substantial and well documented bulwark for my position.

And yours? D'nada, just the guns of the government responsible for the deaths of nearly one million Americans then, and many more in later wars.

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by fastpat
[
And yours? D'nada, just the guns of the government responsible for the deaths of nearly one million Americans then, and many more in later wars. [/B]

traitors. They deserved it.

[madmmac]

Can we start a collection for fastpat and buy him a soapbax and an island somewhere so he can personally secede from the United States?

He can then be "the master of his domain" as often as he needs to, to make himself feel better.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by madmmac
Can we start a collection for fastpat and buy him a soapbax and an island somewhere so he can personally secede from the United States?

He can then be "the master of his domain" as often as he needs to, to make himself feel better.

I'm not going anywhere, so don't waste your time further with that thought.

http://www.secession.net/

[yellowline]

Originally posted by fastpat

I don't think you can construe, at least not logically, that that single event characterised the South as looking for war with he North. In fact, the opposite is true. The supporters of Lincoln wanted war and took every opportunity to foment it.

Absolutely not. It was more of a symptom of the South than a reason. And if you can construe Southern aggression as Union fault, I think your conclusions are lacking.

In particular, Sumner lambasted Brooks' kinsman, Senator Andrew Butler, who was not even in attendance when the speech was read, describing slavery as a harlot, comparing Butler with Don Quixote for embracing it, and mocking Butler for a physical handicap.

At first intending to challenge Sumner to a duel, Brooks consulted with fellow South Carolina Rep. Laurence M. Keitt on dueling etiquette. Keitt instructed him that dueling was for gentlemen of equal social standing, and suggested that Sumner occupied a lower social status comparable to a drunkard due to the coarse language he had used during his speech. Thereupon Brooks decided that it was appropriate to sneak up on Sumner and beat him with his thick cane.

From your source, Pat. How is that Sumner's fault? It's in very poor taste and I wouldn't have made those remarks, but he had First Amendment rights. Brooks infringed upon them. If he was so radical and such a lunatic, would anybody construe his remarks as libel?

The South showed some serious maturity issues during this time. If you can't argue, then injure someone. If you can't win an election, secede. If you can't gain necessary Congressional seats to ensure slavery, throw a fit until a compromise is made.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by yellowline
Absolutely not. It was more of a symptom of the South than a reason. And if you can construe Southern aggression as Union fault, I think your conclusions are lacking.






From your source, Pat. How is that Sumner's fault? It's in very poor taste and I wouldn't have made those remarks, but he had First Amendment rights. Brooks infringed upon them. If he was so radical and such a lunatic, would anybody construe his remarks as libel?

I don't think we in the 21st century can grasp what those in the 19th acted on personally. The Burr-Hamilton duel for example.

Sumner was a very bad actor in many ways, and was well known for it. His actions later when he wasn't restrained much attest to that. I suspect that the speech was one of those "straw that broke the camel's back" moments, but I don't really know.