Nikki Haley

[Guitar's Cry]

That is not at all true as the Bible clearly supports and condones slavery, even establishing laws to regulate it.

Okay, sure. I concede that. My point was to provide an example of how the word "traitor" can be a relative and inconsequential word that is ultimately distracting.

 

[Shaul]

I’m just going to post this here to stir things up...

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Christianity is based around the concept of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who sent Christ to redeem humanity. ALL humanity who accept the Gospel, right? The teachings of Christ suggest compassion and love for all men. By owning slaves and treating them in a repulsive manner, they are betraying those teachings.

So you support the enslavement and mistreatment of people?

Again, your thoughts on the morality of slavery is not the point. Your thoughts on what the Bible says about slavery is not the point. The idea that the Southernor was a traitor to America is the point. And we were not. It was the North that was traitor.

And, as Shadow Wolf has said, the Bible supports slavery. So you cannot label the Southernor a traitor to Christianity either.

Slavery is illegal in the U.S. It is not there for anyone to support.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

There was also a proposed 13 that would have stripped citizenship of anyone who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign power. But none of those even matter because they weren't ratified. Just as the intentions to abolish slavery from day one don't matter because the North caved on the issue. And the fourth article creates a conflict, as the privileges and immunities clause and fugitive slave clause are not compatible, and indeed the South didn't respect our honor other states when they abducted black people from the North (they weren't always run away slaves).

You ignore the point. The point being the offer of perpetual slavery to the South by the 13th amendment was there and endorsed by Lincoln. But the South refused it. It would have protected slavery forever in the U.S.

It doesn't matter that the 4th article created a conflict. It protected slavery and the rights of slave owners. That doesn't mean it cannot be changed, but you must go through the political process. Slavery was already protected.

The Dred Scott case settled the Constitutional right and protection of slavery in the U.S. Or, it should have. But the North was not willing to abide by that. Who is traitor now?

I don't know of any policy of the South to kidnap free blacks in the North.

Again, slavery was protected. To have slavery or keep slavery was already done. The South didn't secede to have or keep slavery. They seceded because they were not treated as equals by the North under the Constitution. It wasn't the South who was traitor to the Constitution or America. It was the North. And just because we were defeated in war, doesn't change it.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Slavery is illegal in the U.S. It is not there for anyone to support.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Thanks to the traitorous North, eh? My point was that by not upholding the laws that supported slavery, the North was able to stop a cruel and inhumane institution--being "traitorous" or not to that specific iteration of the Constitution is irrelevant to the fact that this traitorous action did some good. It is certainly not traitorous to the American ideals of independence and the rights of all men.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Thanks to the traitorous North, eh? My point was that by not upholding the laws that supported slavery, the North was able to stop a cruel and inhumane institution--being "traitorous" or not to that specific iteration of the Constitution is irrelevant to the fact that this traitorous action did some good. It is certainly not traitorous to the American ideals of independence and the rights of all men.

As long as you recognize that it was not the South who was traitor. It was the North.

The North didn't go to war to stop slavery.

American rights are found in the Constitution. Not in someone's idealistic head.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Guitar's Cry]

As long as you recognize that it was not the South who was traitor. It was the North.

The North didn't go to war to stop slavery.

American rights are found in the Constitution. Not in someone's idealistic head.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Oh, the South was traitorous to the Union. By seceding they showed their unwillingness to follow track that the country was taking. I just find the word "traitor" to be unhelpful because of how malleable and relative it is.

No, the North went to war to preserve the Union the (traitorous?) South sought to break up. Ending slavery was a positive outcome. Which has some irony if, as you suggested, the South was secure in its use of it.

America was founded off of philosophical ideas from enlightenment philosophers. The Constitution is the law, but there are deeper concepts surrounding it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words, they were unwilling to obey the Constitution. Who are the traitors now?

Good-Ole-Rebel

I do not think that you understand the Constitution. It is not written in stone. And the Supreme Court is not God. Bad court decisions can be overturned in at least two ways. One way is to try to retry cases. That often happens when the court has changed, or are you going to argue that it is un-American to oppose Roe v. Wade? Though I do not agree with the antichoice crowd, I will not call them anti-American. Second it can be changed by an Amendment to the Constitution. An Amendment in effect rewrites the Constitution. The writers saw that this would be necessary and included that as part of the Constitution. You base your entire argument on the Dred Scott decision. That is universally seen as the worst Supreme Court finding in the history of our country. Don't you see how that harms your argument?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You ignore the point. The point being the offer of perpetual slavery to the South by the 13th amendment was there and endorsed by Lincoln. But the South refused it. It would have protected slavery forever in the U.S.

It doesn't matter that the 4th article created a conflict. It protected slavery and the rights of slave owners. That doesn't mean it cannot be changed, but you must go through the political process. Slavery was already protected.

The Dred Scott case settled the Constitutional right and protection of slavery in the U.S. Or, it should have. But the North was not willing to abide by that. Who is traitor now?

I don't know of any policy of the South to kidnap free blacks in the North.

Again, slavery was protected. To have slavery or keep slavery was already done. The South didn't secede to have or keep slavery. They seceded because they were not treated as equals by the North under the Constitution. It wasn't the South who was traitor to the Constitution or America. It was the North. And just because we were defeated in war, doesn't change it.

Good-Ole-Rebel

First off since it was never ratified the use of the term "13th amendment" without a qualifier is wrong. The number of an Amendment is given after acceptance. Our most recent Amendment, the twenty-seventh was among the first eleven proposed. It was ratified by six states initially. Not enough to pass it. When it was finally ratified almost two hundred years later, then it was given its number. What you are discussing is the Corwin Amendment:

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia


And it did not do quite what you think that it did. It did not protect slavery forever. It kept Congress from making it illegal. It could have still been banned on state levels. Second it did something that Amendments may not have been able to do. It tried to state that it could not be altered, but that appears to violate the body of the Constitution that describes the Amendment procedure. And since it never passed it is a bit of a red herring anyway. It was an attempt to prevent the illegal action of the south. That did not work.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, your thoughts on the morality of slavery is not the point. Your thoughts on what the Bible says about slavery is not the point. The idea that the Southernor was a traitor to America is the point. And we were not. It was the North that was traitor.

And, as Shadow Wolf has said, the Bible supports slavery. So you cannot label the Southernor a traitor to Christianity either.

Slavery is illegal in the U.S. It is not there for anyone to support.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I can explain it to everyone's satisfaction....
If they south had won, they'd be victorious rebels, ie, heroes.
But they lost, so they're failed rebels, ie, traitors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can explain it to everyone's satisfaction....
If they south had won, they'd be victorious rebels, ie, heroes.
But they lost, so they're failed rebels, ie, traitors.

They might still be considered traitors in what was left of the U.S, though in the south I can see how they would have been seen that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

They might still be considered traitors in what was left of the U.S, though in the south I can see how they would have been seen that way.

The passage of time creates acceptance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The passage of time creates acceptance.

That can happen. I wonder what Mexico thinks of Texas.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Oh, the South was traitorous to the Union. By seceding they showed their unwillingness to follow track that the country was taking. I just find the word "traitor" to be unhelpful because of how malleable and relative it is.

No, the North went to war to preserve the Union the (traitorous?) South sought to break up. Ending slavery was a positive outcome. Which has some irony if, as you suggested, the South was secure in its use of it.

America was founded off of philosophical ideas from enlightenment philosophers. The Constitution is the law, but there are deeper concepts surrounding it.

If you want to call secession as treason, then you must blame the North for the 'treason'. It was the North that caused it by not supporting the South's Constitutional rights. By not treating the South equally under the Constitution. Secession is not treason.

Nothing wrong with the word 'traitor' as long as you use it correctly. The South didn't break up the Northern states. The union still existed. The Southern states simply removed themselves from it. And, behind the 'glorious' excuse to preserve the Union, was money. Ah yes, the motivated greedy yankee.

'Deeper Concepts' ? You mean like this? "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one 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 descent respect of the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." If the north was interested in 'deeper concepts, why didn't she let the South go? Hint...the answer has already been given. Not deeper concepts....deeper pocket.

America was founded first on Reformation Bible believing Christianity. By the time of 1776 you will find both, Reformation and Enlightenment thinking in the formation of America.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I do not think that you understand the Constitution. It is not written in stone. And the Supreme Court is not God. Bad court decisions can be overturned in at least two ways. One way is to try to retry cases. That often happens when the court has changed, or are you going to argue that it is un-American to oppose Roe v. Wade? Though I do not agree with the antichoice crowd, I will not call them anti-American. Second it can be changed by an Amendment to the Constitution. An Amendment in effect rewrites the Constitution. The writers saw that this would be necessary and included that as part of the Constitution. You base your entire argument on the Dred Scott decision. That is universally seen as the worst Supreme Court finding in the history of our country. Don't you see how that harms your argument?

You're not paying attention, as usual. My entire argument is not based on the Dred Scott decision, though it is a major factor. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks of the Dred Scott decision. It was the law of the land. Which proves, as I have been saying, the South was not traitor to America or the Constitution. Go back and reread.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

First off since it was never ratified the use of the term "13th amendment" without a qualifier is wrong. The number of an Amendment is given after acceptance. Our most recent Amendment, the twenty-seventh was among the first eleven proposed. It was ratified by six states initially. Not enough to pass it. When it was finally ratified almost two hundred years later, then it was given its number. What you are discussing is the Corwin Amendment:

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia


And it did not do quite what you think that it did. It did not protect slavery forever. It kept Congress from making it illegal. It could have still been banned on state levels. Second it did something that Amendments may not have been able to do. It tried to state that it could not be altered, but that appears to violate the body of the Constitution that describes the Amendment procedure. And since it never passed it is a bit of a red herring anyway. It was an attempt to prevent the illegal action of the south. That did not work.

As I have said, it would have been the 13th amendment. Yes it is the Corwin Amendment. Passed by Congress, endorsed by Lincoln, rejected by the South. It didn't work because the South rejected it.

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said state."

This would make slavery always permanent in any state that wanted it. It clearly states that no amendment shall be made that would abolish it. It was just another protection the South had for slavery.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're not paying attention, as usual. My entire argument is not based on the Dred Scott decision, though it is a major factor. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks of the Dred Scott decision. It was the law of the land. Which proves, as I have been saying, the South was not traitor to America or the Constitution. Go back and reread.

Good-Ole-Rebel

No, opposing a bad "law of the land" does not make one a traitor. Especially if that law of the land opposes the ideals of the country. You failed again and are only supporting immoral traitors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I have said, it would have been the 13th amendment. Yes it is the Corwin Amendment. Passed by Congress, endorsed by Lincoln, rejected by the South. It didn't work because the South rejected it.

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said state."

This would make slavery always permanent in any state that wanted it. It clearly states that no amendment shall be made that would abolish it. It was just another protection the South had for slavery.

Good-Ole-Rebel

No, it would probably have failed anyway.And saying "it would have been the thirteenth amendment" is simply assuming too much. It was a weak sop for the South, but they could see that they were in the wrong anyway. That left them only a traitorous action.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

No, opposing a bad "law of the land" does not make one a traitor. Especially if that law of the land opposes the ideals of the country. You failed again and are only supporting immoral traitors.

What ideals?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

What ideals?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Though not a legal document in the same sense as the Constitution many of our ideals are laid out there. Especially:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.