The debate "Has the 'states rights' claim always been a false excuse to be used only when convenient" was started by
October 20, 2018, 12:50 pm.
6 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 16 arguments to the agreers part.
wth64828, Nemiroff and 4 visitors agree.
NitinTher, crispsandchips and 5 visitors disagree.
I stopped responding to the gold debate because it was clear you simply dont want to understand the very simple process I was trying to explain.
in a similar fashion to how you arent even acknowledging the blatant nonsense you were making up here despite me using direct quotes to show you. you just pretend it never happened and moved on. I'm not a fan of banging my head on a wall.
as I said, once you get defensive, communication breaks down. you arent debating in good faith. I will try one more time, but this is getting incredibly disheartening.
Lol no our other debates about gold end because you stop responding. I don't care if you want to end it.
sorry, not their (libertarian) hypocritical leaders, but the rest of the right wing leaders. and I know you dispute the right wing definition, but I'm talking today in american politics where your leaders vote with the rest of the big government republicans on most or the part line measures.
I do hope you actually read this before going on a misguided rant about your specific representative. it was a typo. as I made clear already, this thread is about republicans.
"As for ypur ranting about Trump and Sessions is irrelevant, I don't believe what they do."
1. I never mentioned trump
2. 4 sentences is not a rant
3. since when did I refer to you, or even liberitarians in general? the only mention of libertarians was to say that they dont usually flip flop blindly to the tune of their hypocritical leaders....
wtf are you smoking, not every post I make is about you. it was clearly about the Republican party leadership... not that I even mentioned them specifically.
I would think liberitarians would be against these states rights in general because states are still government... dude...
"the idea that all states rights claims have rasist undertones because slavery was one of the reasons for secesson"
I never said all states rights claims are racist, I said they are hypocritical, referencing the mandating of slavery in new states regardless of what that state actually wants. I never even used the term racism or anything similar in this entire thread. (besides maybe the direct quote from the specific secession article you yourself referenced)
I'm afraid when you get defensive all attempts to communicate with you begin to fail and you start making things up. that goes for the rest of your responses here and in the other thread we are currently debating.
I can give a full rebuttal later but it will mostly all be correcting idk where you got half of this from, I hope you will take the time to reread my posts when you are calmer
And again. Decentralization is liberalism. And liberalism is not right wing!
I think the very fact that many southern soldiers were against slavery, Lincoln did not care about abolition of slavery, and that leaders of the south believed in the eventual ending of slavery is evidence that it is not the only reason for the civil war.
No I wouldn't, the idea that all states rights claims have rasist undertones because slavery was one of the reasons for secesson, is extremely low IQ.
As for ypur ranting about Trump and Sessions is irrelevant, I don't believe what they do.
so yes @lachlan, what was it you were saying about which side is the false revisionist?
the left wing revisionists sought to uncover the crimes our CIA did in central america... you know, the truth. I'm not sure if being honest about our own crimes in unpatriotic, I think it's very patriotic.
however right wing revisionists seek to lie to themselves in order to paint their own history in false rosy colors. would you care to rephrase your snarky comments about my claims and self righteousness? I believe you grossly jumped the gun there :)
just like the current war on states rights to set their own environmental standards, legalize a plant, or choose it's own policing policy... by the very same INDIVIDUAL who used to champion a states rights to govern itself (when it was convenient for him)
and he (jeff sessions) is not the only blatant hypocrite on this subject. in fact the whole constituency just blindly agrees every time its leadership flip flops (the libertarian minority excluded, but they dance along begrudgingly anyway)
and the hypocrisy is clear when they demanded new states be slaves states regardless or the new states wishes. it's this hypocrisy that is my key point, not the savagery of the treasonous states.
the states rights argument, then, as it is now, is a sham of convenience
"They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."
these 2 quotes are part of the list of grievances, all from the state that you yourself brought up, all revolving around the "crime" of allowing their *property* to consider themselves human.
the ONLY dispute was slavery, aka states rights to own slaves
"they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States"
also, you still failed to give any alternative reasons
theres no reason to justify, but every action has reasons, and the only difference is that s.carolina didnt state the reasons in the first paragraph. check out the 7th to last paragraph. cant copy paste that much text but it's all about anti slavery woes.
like I said, it was states rights *to own slaves*, and pre civil war they demanded half the new states be slaves regardless of their state's choice. so the claim is still objectively hypocrisy.
So you're saying every article of secession said "we are doing this for slavery"? Ok let's look.
"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue."
So... nope, they didn't all say "we are doing this for slavery". It acknowledged that the other seceeding states were slaveholding, but they never said the reason was slavery alone.
...but I'm sure the actual text of the document is just right wing (liberal) revised history. The true knowledge comes from Nemiroff from the internet!
Like I said, yes slavery was one of the reasons for the civil war, but it was not the only reason as you described.
They have all the reason in the world just by stating that they are using their right to secession. There is no need to justify secession. It is however the federal government that needs to justify a military invasion.
The "right's" revison of history? Why do you believe what I said is a revision of history? Is what I said not true?
Also stop using the "right wing" to describe decentralozation and liberalism. Classical liberalism is not right wing, neither is small govermment or secession. Ok? Do you understand that? If you didn't figure it out radical right wing govermments were not trying to let communities seceed and lower taxes!
I see a long list of individuals who said things against slavery, but *zero* alternative reasons.
the right's sad attempts to revise history is destroyed when pretty much every states articles of secession (or whatever they called the official document) openly stated "we are doing this for slavery" within the first paragraph.
There was no other conflict than slavery in the civil war? Yeah that's dead wrong.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee opposed slavery calling it a "moral evil". One of the most influential thinkers of the south, James Henley made plans for the eventual emancipation of slaves. Lincoln states many times that his main purpose for invading the south was keeping the union together, even if it meant keeping slavery. Also many of the diaries and writings of southern soldiers show that they opposed slavery on moral grounds and believed they were fighting for decentralization.
So given a review of what both sides were thinking during the war, slavery wasnt "the only reason" as you said, because literally it wasn't.
Robert E Lee even wrote a letter to the libertarian thinker Lord Action, " I yet believe that maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only are essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but to the safeguard to the continuance of free government." ... And nothing about slavery.
So it dosen't mean slavery was not an issue with maby southerners but your narrative that the civil war was completely a moral difference between the north and south is completely wrong.
And to take this uninformed narrative of hidtory and use it to manipulate terms so that states right= racism is equally as stupid.
another example is a historic classic example: the civil war was fought for states rights.... yeah, their right to own slaves. there was no other conflict.
and interestingly enough, before the civil war rather than letting new states decide, the slave states demanded that at least half of the new states be slave states.
logically, an all statement is extremely fragile, but I think this hypocrisy has been a consistent american fallacy.
Maybe for that example sure but I feel there are plenty of other times where something may come up that doesn't apply to all the states equally and therefore the states should have rights then.
I would respect a nuance argument, but that is not the case.
the defense of marriage act was a federal mandate for the policy they wanted. once it was deemed unconstitutional, the federal mandate turned into claims of states rights.
the goal was the get the policy they wanted no matter what. nuance had nothing to do with it, and states rights was just an excuse to get to their end goal. the actual claim of states rights is an irrelevant excuse and a false value.
I mean then the argument there is that it just depends on what's being implemented? Like it could be an excuse but an interesting thing I'm learning in my marine policy class, yes I understand it's not directly related, but in this class we learned that solutions aren't always one size fits all. Perhaps states notice this and want different solutions due to different citizens, culture, populations size, etc.
and I'm not talking about consistent disagreement within the party, but the same individual hypocrits flip flopping on their own supposed values
yes it is a strong statement, and I'm going all the way back to the civil war with this one.
it seems like the 'states rights' false claim only happens when they dont like something the fed is doing and never am actual principle they care about independently.
noone called for states rights on marriage decisions during the "defense of marriage act" era. it's only when the fed moved to legalize non traditional marriage that the states rights argument started being pushed.
although now that a state is pushing policies they dont like (marijuana, net neutrality, environmental standards) that they no longer want states rights but federal mandates.
I mean seeing as it's a blanket statement with the word 'always' in it I would probably start with the belief that there is one exception to the rule where it doesn't happen.