/liberty/ - Liberty

>>75965

>c*nfederate

opinion discarded

>harem

Hmmm… that sounds nice, I need someone to be my official wife and mistress of the household, someone to be the mother of my children, someone to be my maid who I will bully (and she will enjoy it!), someone to be my older sister who will bully me and treat me as an emotional punching bag, and lastly, someone to be my mommy who will whisper gentle things into my ear as I rest my weary head on her laps.

One day brothers… one day…

>>75978

Man, Garrison really changed over the years.

>>75979

>The CSA had left the union

They did not have the right

>>75988

Sure, you can interpret the constitution as permitting secession, if you interpret it outside of its own context. The Federalists created this constitution specifically to prevent the Union from collapsing, which is why there is no condition layed out for a state to lawfully secede, unlike things like amendments. This is beside the fact that the reason the south seceded was because the plantation owners would not settle for anything less than their own supremacy, so when their chosen candidate failed to win a presidential election, these oligarchs chose to steal a large part of the country instead, and made up a nation to justify it.

In fact, the constitution justifies the north's war to save the Union, since Article 1 Section 8 grants to congress the power to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions".

>>76000

>They did not have the right

<""""right""""

Neither did the Founding Fathers, but they did it anyways. Secession is essential to attaining freedom. You seem to love hiding behind old quotes in favor of arguments, so I'll give you one of my own: "The government must operate with the consent of the governed." The federal government had lost the consent of the Confederate states, so they chose to stop allowing the Feds to govern them.

>>76002

>Neither did the Founding Fathers

Yes they did

>Secession is essential to attaining freedom

The rule of law is essential to protecting freedom

>"The government must operate with the consent of the governed."

That does not mean what you seem to think it means. The founding fathers were not Voluntaryists. The governors derive their just powers from the consent of the governed necessarily. The governed can't just unmake their government just because it did something they didn't personally agree with. Again, the southern cause was because the plantation owners would tolerate nothing short of oligarchy. The cause of their rebellion was their rejection of the consent of the governed. The north and the south were the same nation, the same 'governed'.

>>76000

Why didn't they have the right? Point to the part of the Constitution that says states can't secede.

>This is beside the fact that the reason the south seceded was because the plantation owners would not settle for anything less than their own supremacy

It was a choice between secession or having their economy destroyed by the North, who was far more concerned with bleeding the South dry through protectionist tariffs than freeing slaves or preserving the Union.

>>76007

>>76000

you are treating the states as a single country being governed by a single force, this is incorrect (at least until after the civil war when the yanks took over)

in a similar vein, the EU is not a country yet and people will rightfully deride your intelligence if you speak of europe as if it has a single governing body for now

>>76013

>Point to the part of the Constitution that says states can't secede.

Why did you ignore my argument? The Constitution presupposes a perpetual Union. Why don't you point me to the part of the Constitution that says states can secede.

>having their economy destroyed by the North

Seems to me like they did just fine.

>far more concerned with bleeding the South dry through protectionist tariffs

<it was a yankee conspiracy, goi

I bet you believe communists burnt the reichstag

>>76016

>this is incorrect

Wrong, the Declaration of Independence spoke of all 13 states as one people, and Article 6 of the Constitution clearly outlines federal supremacy.

>>76019

>Perpetual was the Articles of Confederation

And the Philadelphia Convention was called why? Because the Articles werre a miserable failure. The express purpose of the Constitution was to do what the Articles were supposed to do, but without fucking it up.

>The Constitution just says more perfect

The word perfect meant complete at the time.

>which can easily be interpreted the opposite way

I know, which is why I pointed out that fact and mentioned that it is anti-contextual

>>quoting a secessionist document to show that secession is illegal

>http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

>Here's a link so you can read along with me:

><Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

><That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

><For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world

><For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

><Free and Independent States

Secession is not a valid alternative unless the seceding party is actually a really distinct nation from the governing party.

>Federal supremacy in areas where they have jurisdiction

So, the entire Union?

>The Tenth Amendment clearly states that the states retain any powers not specifically delegated to DC

And? It was still a single government ruling over the whole thing.

>>76019

>>76020

Oh, and about the quotation from the Declaration, I have to respond to this

>That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

What are these ends? To secure certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. The US government did not become destructive of those ends, so the people did not at that time have the right to alter or abolish it.

>For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world

If you think this has parallel with the southern situation, you expose your historical ignorance. This is not a reference to protectionistic policy. It is talking about a blockade of the colonies ordered by the king, which forcibly prevented any trade whatsoever with the rest of the world.

>For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

The colonists lacked any representation in parliament in any way at all (even the Indian colonists were de facto represented by connections back in England that could intercede on their behalf). It was taxation without representation. The surrounding context of the patriot-tory debate on taxation and representation abundantly shows that the founding fathers unanimously believed consent via elected representative was sufficient consent. The south had no shortage of such representatives in congress.

>Free and Independent States

In perfect Union.

>>76022

>and the south isn't? It had a completely different political economy and still has different food, different dialects, different traditions, and different music. Do none of these matter at all?

Like, what turning niggers from Africa into soyboys and then fucking their feminized black asses? Are you sure you aren't a kike?

>The South was paying for the overwhelming majority of the federal government, but got comparatively little say in the budget or how that money was spent because the North had a much bigger population and was going to vote up tariffs.

The South was forcing said poor niggers to cultivate soybeans to feed to cucky northerners, if you don't see the implications of that, you should kys.

>Sure thing buddy.

Ain't your buddy, soyshill.

>>76028

Reported. Enjoy your ban, nigger.

>>76025

>>76027

>>76030

fuck off retarded shitposter

>>76022

>[Citation Needed]

The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms says "Our union is perfect". It also describes the several provincial legislatures as perfect. Plus, the preamble to the Constitution sets forward forming a more perfect Union as one of its purposes. All three of these are meaningless bluster, unless the word perfect is being used to mean complete (something it still does in certain contexts today) , in which case the first one means that they were completely united in their opposition to Great Britain, the second that their colonial assemblies were already sufficient for their own governance, the third, that whereas the Confederation's Union was incomplete and easily and repeatedly violated, this Union would actually be complete.

>and the south isn't?

Nope. They certainly didn't seem to think so in 1776, since they signed a document which desribed both themselves and the north together as one people.

>It had a completely different political economy and still has different food, different dialects, different traditions, and different music

You think these minor and slight differences are sufficient to be a different nation? By this standard, every country in Europe would be a smorgasbord of nations.

>>the federal government can do whatever it wants lol

Didn't say that

>The South was paying for the overwhelming majority of the federal government, but got comparatively little say in the budget or how that money was spent because the North had a much bigger population and was going to vote up tariffs.

Representation consists of having a say, not having your will done.

>Start a thread that was putting thoughts into words before my morning commute (after body accidentally woke up at 3AM) so I wouldn't forget it after

>Thread derailed in one post because of a CSA flag

Ok.

>>76070

i almost linked this thread on another board to make a point about how low-functioning autists should probably be sterilized for the good of posterity, but simply didn't feel like it was worth the effort.

>>75965

>I had an epiphany on why reverse harems are shit

Is it

a) because women take a long time to produce babies so it would be forever before every man has a child

b) because sexual promiscuity increases rate of std transfer and interrupts pair bonding

Because really those two reasons about cover everything.

>>75965

>I had an epiphany on why reverse harems are shit that doesn't rely on the age old key and lock example

That example is /r/redpill-tier. It made me smirk the first three times, because my sense of humor is shit, but it was never a good argument.

Your explanation, and that of Hoppe, are much better.

>>76082

Well my sense of humour is limited to soy jokes and soyposting, fuck me right?

>>76064

>All three of these are meaningless bluster

And the idea that they actually are meaningless bluster obviously can't be right because?

>they signed a document which desribed both themselves and the north together as one people

If that was the case, the Declaration wouldn't have described the United States in the plural.

>minor and slight differences

A completely different economy is a minor difference?

>Didn't say that

Yes you did.

>>Federal supremacy in areas where they have jurisdiction

>So, the entire Union?

Would a harem of traps be considered a reverse harem? They are still men but they are effeminate.

>>76106

I'd say you'd have to be pretty masculine to get a harem of believable traps, so if they're believable traps I'd say it's a harem. If it's 3DPD shit, it's probably a reverse harem because the traps are shit.

>>76106

A dick is a dick, "feminine" or not.

>>76085

>And the idea that they actually are meaningless bluster obviously can't be right because?

Because they actually mean something?

>If that was the case, the Declaration wouldn't have described the United States in the plural.

Are you contesting that the Declaration describes the north and south as one people? Because it does. That's a fact.

>>76019

Let's read along again:

<When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

>A completely different economy is a minor difference?

Culturally speaking, very

>Yes you did.

No I didn't. The federal government has jurisdiction over the entire Union, that doesn't mean it has absolute power. It cannot justly violate the constitution or the natural law.

>>76072

Good thing you didn't since this thread is an example of high-functioning autism.

>>76117

>Because they actually mean something

Because you said so?

>Are you contesting that the Declaration describes the north and south as one people

I'm stating the fact that at the time, it was well understood that states existed prior to and independent of the federal government.

>Culturally speaking, very

What about all the other stuff? The founding generation would have felt much more at home in Confederate grey alongside plantation owners, than in blue next to industrialists.

>The federal government has jurisdiction over the entire Union

They have jurisdiction over certain parts of the union. Interstate commerce, declaring war, and making treaties for example.

>>76140

>Because you said so?

Are you gonna make an actual argument about this at some point or just keep saying "nuh uh"?

>I'm stating the fact that at the time, it was well understood that states existed prior to and independent of the federal government.

There wa>>76140

sn't really any federal government until the Articles of Confederation, and then not much of one until the Constitution. But this really doesn't have anything to do with my point of them being the same nation.

>What about all the other stuff?

Still minor or very slight.

>The founding generation would have felt much more at home in Confederate grey alongside plantation owners, than in blue next to industrialists

I don't think the founding fathers would have been very comfortable destroying everything they built

>They have jurisdiction over certain parts of the union. Interstate commerce, declaring war, and making treaties for example.

That is the nature of the jurisdiction, not the extent.

>>76142

>Are you gonna make an actual argument about this at some point or just keep saying "nuh uh"

Your whole argument is that it can't be meaningless bluster because it meant something.

>But this really doesn't have anything to do with my point of them being the same nation

Yes it does. A prior history of sovereignty is a big point in favor of secession. So much so that pan american nationalists at the time focused on trying to cover it up to strengthen their argument.

>Still minor or very slight

Those minor differences build up.

>I don't think the founding fathers would have been very comfortable destroying everything they built

Given the choice between that or seeing it perverted and turned against everything they stood for, they'd come to a decision pretty quickly. The Confederate Constitution was mostly a copy of the US one anyway, with some nifty additions like presidential term limits and a line item veto.

>That is the nature of the jurisdiction, not the extent

They only have power over things they've been given power over, and stopping secession is not one of those things.

>>76143

>Your whole argument is that it can't be meaningless bluster because it meant something.

And your whole argument is "nuh uh"

>Yes it does

Political difference does not imply national difference. Germany was a single nation even when it was divided amongst a hundred separate political bodies. Also, are we forgetting these people described themselves as one people?

>Those minor differences build up.

You have a handful of minor differences. Different food, different music… Clearly you don't have anything solid.

>Given the choice between that or seeing it perverted and turned against everything they stood for

<the enslavement of niggers and violation of the Constitution was everything they stood for

Anon, I…

>The Confederate Constitution was mostly a copy of the US one anyway

Yeah I know, it makes the "muh states rights" argument evaporate because if anything it includes stronger federal power.

>They only have power over things they've been given power over, and stopping secession is not one of those things.

You are wrong in two ways. First, Article 6 states the Constitution is sovereign and the federal government is supreme, not the states. Secession requires that states are superior to both. Second, Article 1 Section 8 gives to Congress the responsibility and power to suppress insurrection.

Free and Independent States

this phrasing means the states were unique and separate entities independent on one another

the war of northern aggression was an invasion

>>76149

secession is not an insurrection

>>76149

>And your whole argument is "nuh uh"

I don't need anything better until you can provide some sort of evidence that they meant complete instead of perfect.

>Germany was a single nation even when it was divided amongst a hundred separate political bodies

Germany is the size of Texas. The United States is significantly bigger.

>You have a handful of minor differences

You're glossing over the big one. Or am I expected to believe that there wasn't any difference between an old blood Virginian planter and some nouveau riche industrialist?

><the enslavement of niggers and violation of the Constitution was everything they stood for

I meant the federal encroachment into areas they were never meant to have a say and the erosion of basic liberties specifically outlined in the bill of rights.

>Yeah I know, it makes the "muh states rights" argument evaporate because if anything it includes stronger federal power

>the federal government is supreme

When it comes to things they were meant to control. There isn't a single fucking sentence written about secession, meaning it's a right reserved by the states.

>Congress the responsibility and power to suppress insurrection

It wasn't an insurrection. They took back the sovereignty they ceded to the federal government, something they were told was allowed when they ratified the Constitution.

>>76166

>I don't need anything better until you can provide some sort of evidence that they meant complete instead of perfect.

I did. Care to interact?

>Germany is the size of Texas. The United States is significantly bigger.

So what?

>Or am I expected to believe that there wasn't any difference between an old blood Virginian planter and some nouveau riche industrialist?

Not as countrymen.

>I meant the federal encroachment into areas they were never meant to have a say and the erosion of basic liberties specifically outlined in the bill of rights.

What encroachment and what erosion?

>When it comes to things they were meant to control. There isn't a single fucking sentence written about secession, meaning it's a right reserved by the states.

You're ignoring the historical context, the preamble, and Article 6. You haven't dealt with any of these because you can't

>They took back the sovereignty they ceded to the federal government

They don't have the authority to do so unless they're still sovereign. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not the will of the states.

>something they were told was allowed when they ratified the Constitution.

No, they weren't.

>>76185

>So what?

So there's more land to grow soy on! Don't you get in that thick skull of yours?

>Not as countrymen.

Yes, not countrymen, but as soyboys.

>What encroachment and what erosion?

The encroachment of toxic masculinity into female spaces and the erosion of traditional feminist values.

>You're ignoring the historical context, the preamble, and Article 6. You haven't dealt with any of these because you can't

bla bla bla, what does that boring stuff have to do with soy?

>They don't have the authority to do so unless they're still sovereign. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not the will of the states.

Soy places men above all authority. Except female authority.

>>76185

>I did

All you've done is refuse to entertain the idea that the founding fathers could include meaningless bluster in their documents.

>So what

It's that small and there's still a noticeable divide between northern Germany and Bavaria. Scale up the country and you scale up the divisions.

>What encroachment and what erosion

Drug laws, gun laws, education, warrantless wiretaps and surveillance, take your pick.

>You're ignoring the historical context

They had just fought a war of secession.

>the preamble

The Articles were perpetual, the Constitution wasn't supposed to be.

>muh article 6

Only grants superiority in areas they were meant to have control over.

>They don't have the authority to do so

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution_by_Rhode_Island

<Rhode Island's ratification included a lengthy list of caveats, including that "the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary"

>No, they weren't

See above.

>>76203

>All you've done is refuse to entertain the idea that the founding fathers could include meaningless bluster in their documents.

At this point you're just conceding the point tbh.

>It's that small and there's still a noticeable divide between northern Germany and Bavaria.

And yet they're still the same people. Scaling it up wouldn't change that.

>Drug laws, gun laws, education, warrantless wiretaps and surveillance

<he thinks this is the result of Union victory

>They had just fought a war of secession.

No, what had just happened was the country nearly collapsed and balkanized because of the insufficiency of the federal authority granted by the Articles of Confederation. If you read the Federalist arguments in favor of the Constitution, you will find that one of their favorite arguments is that the alternative to ratification was disunion.

>The Articles were perpetual, the Constitution wasn't supposed to be.

Ignoring the refutation of this claim above, it directly contradicts the words "in order to form a more perfect union".

>Only grants superiority in areas they were meant to have control over.

This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution_by_Rhode_Island

<Opposition was chiefly due to the paper money issued in Rhode Island pounds since 1786 by the governing Country Party, intended to pay off the state's burdensome Revolutionary War debt.

<On May 18, 1790, the United States Senate passed a bill that would ban all trade with Rhode Island if enacted, effectively isolating the diminutive state from the outside world. Rhode Island capitulated eleven days later and ratified the constitution, before the proposed embargo could be acted on by the United States House of Representatives.[1][6]

<The ratification also contained a list of proposed amendments to the constitution that Rhode Island wished to see taken up, such as abolition of the slave trade.[1][6][7][8]

>See above

That is Rhode Island's ratification, not a promise from the Philadelphia Convention or Congress.

>>76225

>It's much smaller, yet densely packed with people. In the US, people were far more spread out and there were extra differences that resulted from not interacting with those other guys over there as much.

The north and south have never been isolated from each other

>If the divisions were that severe, maybe we would have been better off going our separate ways. You wouldn't keep living with a room mate who you fucking hated, would you?

Are you retarded? The crisis had nothing to do with cultural division, it had to do with a lack of federal power. It wouldn't matter what country it was, if there were no central power at all, it would fall apart. The division wasn't even between north and south, it was between every state and every other state.

>Your "refutation" is that the founding fathers would never include meaningless bluster in their writings

I was referring to what I had just said directly above that. Because for your claim to be true, it would require the Constitution to be less unionist than the Articles. So all you did by claiming the Constitution had no intention of a perpetual Union is betray your own ignorance of early US history.

>If the supremacy clause means DC can ignore any other parts they don't like

There is no secession clause, so they weren't ignoring any part of the Constitution. Also, are you so dense that you can't see my point by quoting this?

>The proposed amendments were suggestions, the caveats were demands. They said "we're only joining if we can back out later" and were let into the new union, but when states actually tried to leave, the feds launched an all out war to make them stay.

I don't know why you're pressing this so hard, considering 1. they were opposed to ratification because of their debt, not fear of federal power 2. this isn't the Constitution, and so is actually irrelevant to the Constitution itself, 3. this is Rhode Island, which never attempted to secede, and 4. Rhode Island ratified because they were coercively forced to by the federal government.

>>76230

>huge stretches of basically unpopulated wilderness the likes of which haven't been seen in Europe for thousands of years aren't isolating at all

>The crisis had nothing to do with cultural division, it had to do with a lack of federal power

I don't care why it was happening, just that it was.

>Because for your claim to be true, it would require the Constitution to be less unionist than the Articles

It could be more unionist in some areas and less so in others.

>There is no secession clause, so they weren't ignoring any part of the Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

>explain in detail why Rhode Island's caveats matter

>you ignore everything I just said while fucking quoting the important bit

>the conditions under which ratification happened only matter when I say they do

>some states have more rights than others

>the embargo which never took effect matters more than the demands they made while ratifying