Who specifically would they be ""Rebelling"" against???
The States, began as Individual Colonies, not as a Group, but Strictly as Individuals, and were recognized as such, as Individual Colonies that Upgraded themselves each alone to the Status of Individual Sovereign Nations....
The Founders made a huge Mistake when they named the United States, instead of the Current misnomer, they really should have named the Federal Conglomeration something bold, like the United Nations of America, and then it would be much clearer, and people would not believe that States are inferior to the U.S. Federation....
IF the States have Rights, and IF they are Sovereign, then the Question becomes Who the Hell were they ""Rebeling"" Against???
Sovereigns cannot rebel against themselves, so Who was this hidden ""SOVEREIGN"" that they were in ""Rebellion"" against???
"Secession" = sophistry. Rebellion, waa rebellion. In fact, in many states, organized and state sanctioned acts of insurrection and rebellion occurred even before any purported "legal" secession ordinances existed.
Contrary to Calhounian nonsense, there is no constitutional right for a state to "secede" or more accurately put the theory, to unilaterally withdraw from the USA because they were sore losers over who won the presidency... despite their best efforts to rig the election, to boot. Lost Cause apologists did quite the impressive gaslighting job after their rebellion was crushed. Just sad so many people still believe such lies.
The States, began as Individual Colonies, not as a Group, but Strictly as Individuals, and were recognized as such, as Individual Colonies that Upgraded themselves each alone to the Status of Individual Sovereign Nations....
Actually, the Crown gave them all independence, albeit likely unintentionally, via the Prohibitory Act. Yes, after this action, the colonies all became separate states. However, they in turn bound themselves into a new confederated nation via the Declaration of Independence (articles of incorporation), and immediately produced the Articles of Confederation (operating bylaws) to govern this new nation. Of course, the Union itself predates the country, the USA, by 2 years, having been established by the Articles of Association in 1774.
The Founders made a huge Mistake when they named the United States, instead of the Current misnomer, they really should have named the Federal Conglomeration something bold, like the United Nations of America, and then it would be much clearer, and people would not believe that States are inferior to the U.S. Federation....
United States of America. An experiment in republican government. The confusion isn't the fault of the Founders. The words they used actually described what they envisioned. The problem is future audiences lacking reading comprehension skills and being historically illiterate, lacking context necessary for understanding original intent.
IF the States have Rights, and IF they are Sovereign, then the Question becomes Who the Hell were they ""Rebeling"" Against???
The USA, under the Constitution, operates under a system of federalism rooted in the principle of dual sovereignty. This was quite the revolutionary system when it was devised. In some matters, the states hold sovereignty while in others the federal (national) government holds sovereignty. The states do retain certain rights, some explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and countless others not detailed but covered by the 10th Amendment (such as a state's right to let counties within its jurisdiction secede from the state and form a new state, as what happened with VA/WV). But the Constitution also prohibits the states from certain actions, and furthermore vests certain powers in the federal government that give it sovereignty. And ultimately, the supremacy clause of the Constitution is binding.
You can debate whether aspects of the Constitution are bad or not, but it doesn't negate the reality that it says what it says, and the formation of this nation was approved by the Founders, by the states, by the people. The Constitution is the law. If people don't like it, work through the system to improve it.
In 1860, fireeating shitheads pissed off that the other guy won the presidential election, a guy from a party that they fearmongered would end slavery and make black people Americans, threw a temper tantrum and devolved into insurrection and rebellion. Apostles of Disunion had been planning it all for decades. The lost election just gave them the excuse they needed to rile up the masses and dupe hundreds of thousands of useful idiots to join them. These states and people rebelled against the right rule of law, against the Constitution, against the USA.
Sovereigns cannot rebel against themselves, so Who was this hidden ""SOVEREIGN"" that they were in ""Rebellion"" against???
Again, federalism and dual sovereignty. The federal government, the states, the people. All were bound by the Constitution which all parties had agreed to support, a system which ensured checks and balances and opportunity for political recourse, such as elections. The people are the sovereign. They agreed to the Constitution. And in 1860, some of the people decided that they didn't want to live by the Constitution anymore so they rebelled against their duly elected local officials, their state governments and the federal government, against the Constitution and laws governing this country.
The sophistry employed to defend the indefensible, the most unjust of causes, of what actually happened in 1860, is appalling. Though, I suppose Calhoun, along with the Lost Cause Apostles, are all celebrating from their graves. The Disunion conspiracy has never really been fully defeated and sadly continues today.
And again I ask, exactly WHO is this Hidden ""Sovereign"" that the States were Rebelling against??
The States, BEFORE making the UNION, were Individual Sovereign Nations, each with a National Constitution of its own, and they chose to Make a BABY, and AGENT, for their own Betterment, the Creation cannot be BIGGER nor more Powerful that its Creator, and they CREATED the Union, they OWN IT, and it is supposed to be subordinate to the States, if NOT, then the states are OWNED by the Federal Government, and have no reason to have Constitutions, Borders, names, their own Laws, Police Forces, or even Governments....
IF it is True, that we have a ""CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC"", then what we have is a CONTRACT, where all States are Equals, it is a Mutual Union, a Club of States, kind of like a Country Club, Join Voluntarily, Leave Voluntarily, Freedom, but if you come back AFTER leaving, you're stuck....
If Everyone is Equal, then it MUST exist as a Voluntary Union, you are saying that the Union is NOT VOLUNTARY, and that makes it into a FORCED UNION, which is tantamount to Slavery, in terms of States under an all powerful Sovereign, where they are not allowed to Voluntarily Leave, is called a Feudal System, which makes the People into SERFS and Slaves Servants, who by any Measure, are NOT FREE, and in truth, have No Rights, just privileges....
Or is it that you think the States were Conquered by the United States in the American Revolution??
I'm trying to find WHERE you think the States are OWNED by the Federation, just explain that one little part....
And again I ask, exactly WHO is this Hidden ""Sovereign"" that the States were Rebelling against??
Asked and already answered in prior reply.
Or is it that you think the States were Conquered by the United States in the American Revolution??
Already answered in prior reply. The states entered into a compact, the Declaration of Independence and subsequent Articles of Confederation (eventually replaced by an improved Constitution) binding each other into one Union, a new nation.
I'm trying to find WHERE you think the States are OWNED by the Federation, just explain that one little part....
Misrepresenting what people said, let alone fabricating words never said, ain't cool my man. Never contended that the states are "owned" by anyone. I said the states are bound by the Constitution, and all federal laws duly authorized under it, which do not violate it. These were the terms of the club agreed to by the members, those representing the states party, as chosen by the people, when the Declaration of Independence was approved, the Articles of Confederation ratified, and then the Constitution ratified.
If you want to leave the Country Club (better analogy than the fictitious line from the character of George Pickett in the movie Gettysburg, calling it a "gentlemen's club"), nobody is stopping you. But if you're rescinding your membership, then you don't get to come use the golf course or use the pool, let alone tear up the grass or piss in the pool, and you certainly don't get to take all of the beer from the bar on your way out. That's the club's property, a club which you no longer want to be a part of. Nobody in 1860 was forcing anyone to stay in the USA. The Lincoln hating, racist, plantation owning, slave holding, power controlling shitheads could have left and tried to preserve their slave system utopia elsewhere (they previously had their sights on Cuba and elsewhere in South America). But they didn't. Instead of waiting until the next Board Election, they went out and did doughnuts on the greens, took dumps in the pool, drank all the beer, and refused to leave the clubhouse, acting as if it was their right to be a shithead.
Same applies today. Nobody is forced to stay here. If you hate this country so much, get on a plane or ship and leave. Our course conditions might be a little rough right now, it sucks that the pool is closed and the bartender isn't very good, but the Board can always be replaced and the problems fixed. If the Board is currently being occupied by fraudsters, well then we seek judicial remedy.
But what we don't do, is be like the rebel shits of 1860, who ironically and hypocritically were descendants of those who condemned the "Yankees" only 50 years prior for threatening to leave the Union in response to Mr. Madison sucking the nation in a bullshit war with the British, which was arguably a constitutional violation (not Congress's declaration of war, but the unlawful shenanigans that created the situation).
I love that you brought up the Supremacy Clause and Law of the Land Clause, because IF we are to have a ""Dual Sovereignty"", then the Federation CANNOT OWN neither a ""State"", nor any part thereof....
The Federation is LOANED or ALLOWED, but mainly TOLERATED to have small pieces of Land for Forts, Magazines and other needful things, the LAND is still OWNED by the State therein....
And when it comes to the Federal Constitution, Treaties and such, as being the supreme Law of the Land, those things can be annulled within each State by legislative decree, and there isn't one single thing the U.S. Govt can DO about it....
As for whether the Crown Gave up the colonies willingly or otherwise, it is painfully obvious it was done begrudgingly in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, where he gave them up individually, by name, and not all as just one grouping, he recognized them to be each a Sovereign Nation like France, Spain, etc, and EQUAL to those Nations....
NEXT Articles of Association, at best are a Letter of Intent, and just like any letter of Intent, in Business Law, it cannot be held up in Court, nor can it be forced into any form of Contract, it is only INTENT and not solidified Agreement....
So after that, comes the Various Constitutions vis., Massachusetts Constitution, written in 1787, Virginia Constitution 1776, etc, ALL of the NEW NATIONS had their own Constitutions BEFORE the U.S. was ratified into a thing/Corporation....
The states do retain certain rights, some explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and countless others not detailed but covered by the 10th Amendment (such as a state's right to let counties within its jurisdiction secede from the state and form a new state, as what happened with VA/WV).
So WHY should it be this way for the Counties, but not for the States??
Don't contradict yourself now....
Fact is, it is no different, if a State wants OUT, they have the Unenumerated Right to leave with ALL of their Possessions, and the States possessions are few, such as ALL of the LANDS within its Borders, All of the State Citizens
(Art IV, Section 2), and it's Govt Intact....
The people are the sovereign.
No, the State is the Sovereign, The People Vs John Doe, ever heard of it??
Each Individually have Rights, called Individual Rights and Each Right is Singular unto itself, but we all have the exact same Rights, from US these Rights are loaned to our States for Governance, and then the States ALLOW or TOLERATE the Federation to have LIMITED and Enumerated PRIVILEGES, which WE can push our State Govts into amending, by Law...
But the Constitution also prohibits the states from certain actions, and furthermore vests certain powers in the federal government that give it sovereignty.
The Federations ""Sovereignty"", is mainly Exterior to the States, on the Interior, it has none, it MAY have Superior Claim such as a Crime that crosses State Lines, or Commerce that crosses State Lines, etc., BUT it holds No innate Sovereignty unto itself, that is specifically GRANTED to it....
They agreed to the Constitution. And in 1860, some of the people decided that they didn't want to live by the Constitution anymore so they rebelled against their duly elected local officials, their state governments and the federal government, against the Constitution and laws governing this country.
Yes, a Voluntary Agreement, to a Voluntary Contract, which means they can LEAVE that Contract any time they wish, that is basic contractual Law....
But there was NO Rebellion by VIRGINIA against anything, they simply wanted OUT of the Contract, and to move back under the Articles of Confederation...
The ""Rebellion"" as you say, Against Local Duly elected Officials, their State Govt, is correct, some 20,000 Masons did exactly that, and in doing that, yes, they rebelled against the still in power, U.S. Constitution, and went off on a tangent to create WV....
And as you say, if they didn't Like it, why didn't THEY just move to a different State, like maybe Africa??
That's the club's property, a club which you no longer want to be a part of. Nobody in 1860 was forcing anyone to stay in the USA.
Right, the STATES are the Members of the Club, and as they MADE the Club, they get to LEAVE the club, and leave it WITH ALL OF THEIR OWN PROPERTY, that being the LANDS ALL of the Lands within their Borders, even the parts they ALLOWED/Tolerated, the Federation to use, the State Citizens, and anything else that is theirs....
But to leave the Union, only moves them BACK into the Articles of Confederation, it does NOT remove them from that Contract, which made them Unruleable....
P.S., it had nothing to do with Lincoln getting [S]Elected, it was ALL about States Rights, and no matter how you look at it, States Rights are Paramount to Federal Rights, it's the same argument as Where your feelings try to stomp on my Rights....
Ok, so is it possible, for YOU to keep Emotions out of the Conversation please....
You aren't the First CollAge Professor I have argued with on this subject, and I have no restrictions on arguing specifics, but the whole:: ""The Lincoln hating, racist, plantation owning, slave holding, power controlling shitheads could have left and tried to preserve their slave system utopia elsewhere"", thing is rather counterproductive and simply just takes up lots of space, and I've read that stuff for Years, I get it, you hate, you enjoy hating, you really don't like the idea that someone, anyone would argue STATES RIGHTS FOR the Southern States, because they owned Slaves, all while ignoring that there were almost as many SLAVES in the Fucking Northern States, and also while ignoring that the Abolition of Slavery was a STATES RIGHTS ISSUE, not a fucking Federal Issue....
Cattle, or Chattel, it doesn't matter....
Both are living beings that are OWNED by other living beings....
Your HATRED of the south is unjustified, because the STATE you were Born in, also had SLAVES, hate yourself for not doing anything about that, but stop hating other Americans for being SLOW to action on pushing for the End of Slavery in their own States. You don't see me going to New York and screaming at everyone for not walking around with a gun on their hip, and yet where I grew up, it was a common occurrence to see five or six guns anywhere at one time....
I know Slavery is bad, BUT, Slavery has been part of Humanity for LONGER than Written History, and it is STILL happening all around the fucking Planet, so, if you must HATE, hate the ones who SUPPORT Slavery TODAY, and just look at American History as a chance to learn and grow....
And as YOU so pointedly stated ""Onlychildren resort to temper tantrums""...
I'll try to answer parts of your comments above in my next post....
States Seceding is NOT Rebellion....
Who specifically would they be ""Rebelling"" against???
The States, began as Individual Colonies, not as a Group, but Strictly as Individuals, and were recognized as such, as Individual Colonies that Upgraded themselves each alone to the Status of Individual Sovereign Nations....
The Founders made a huge Mistake when they named the United States, instead of the Current misnomer, they really should have named the Federal Conglomeration something bold, like the United Nations of America, and then it would be much clearer, and people would not believe that States are inferior to the U.S. Federation....
IF the States have Rights, and IF they are Sovereign, then the Question becomes Who the Hell were they ""Rebeling"" Against???
Sovereigns cannot rebel against themselves, so Who was this hidden ""SOVEREIGN"" that they were in ""Rebellion"" against???
"Secession" = sophistry. Rebellion, waa rebellion. In fact, in many states, organized and state sanctioned acts of insurrection and rebellion occurred even before any purported "legal" secession ordinances existed.
Contrary to Calhounian nonsense, there is no constitutional right for a state to "secede" or more accurately put the theory, to unilaterally withdraw from the USA because they were sore losers over who won the presidency... despite their best efforts to rig the election, to boot. Lost Cause apologists did quite the impressive gaslighting job after their rebellion was crushed. Just sad so many people still believe such lies.
Actually, the Crown gave them all independence, albeit likely unintentionally, via the Prohibitory Act. Yes, after this action, the colonies all became separate states. However, they in turn bound themselves into a new confederated nation via the Declaration of Independence (articles of incorporation), and immediately produced the Articles of Confederation (operating bylaws) to govern this new nation. Of course, the Union itself predates the country, the USA, by 2 years, having been established by the Articles of Association in 1774.
United States of America. An experiment in republican government. The confusion isn't the fault of the Founders. The words they used actually described what they envisioned. The problem is future audiences lacking reading comprehension skills and being historically illiterate, lacking context necessary for understanding original intent.
The USA, under the Constitution, operates under a system of federalism rooted in the principle of dual sovereignty. This was quite the revolutionary system when it was devised. In some matters, the states hold sovereignty while in others the federal (national) government holds sovereignty. The states do retain certain rights, some explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and countless others not detailed but covered by the 10th Amendment (such as a state's right to let counties within its jurisdiction secede from the state and form a new state, as what happened with VA/WV). But the Constitution also prohibits the states from certain actions, and furthermore vests certain powers in the federal government that give it sovereignty. And ultimately, the supremacy clause of the Constitution is binding.
You can debate whether aspects of the Constitution are bad or not, but it doesn't negate the reality that it says what it says, and the formation of this nation was approved by the Founders, by the states, by the people. The Constitution is the law. If people don't like it, work through the system to improve it.
In 1860, fireeating shitheads pissed off that the other guy won the presidential election, a guy from a party that they fearmongered would end slavery and make black people Americans, threw a temper tantrum and devolved into insurrection and rebellion. Apostles of Disunion had been planning it all for decades. The lost election just gave them the excuse they needed to rile up the masses and dupe hundreds of thousands of useful idiots to join them. These states and people rebelled against the right rule of law, against the Constitution, against the USA.
Again, federalism and dual sovereignty. The federal government, the states, the people. All were bound by the Constitution which all parties had agreed to support, a system which ensured checks and balances and opportunity for political recourse, such as elections. The people are the sovereign. They agreed to the Constitution. And in 1860, some of the people decided that they didn't want to live by the Constitution anymore so they rebelled against their duly elected local officials, their state governments and the federal government, against the Constitution and laws governing this country.
The sophistry employed to defend the indefensible, the most unjust of causes, of what actually happened in 1860, is appalling. Though, I suppose Calhoun, along with the Lost Cause Apostles, are all celebrating from their graves. The Disunion conspiracy has never really been fully defeated and sadly continues today.
"""Secession" = sophistry. Rebellion, waa rebellion.""
And again I ask, exactly WHO is this Hidden ""Sovereign"" that the States were Rebelling against??
The States, BEFORE making the UNION, were Individual Sovereign Nations, each with a National Constitution of its own, and they chose to Make a BABY, and AGENT, for their own Betterment, the Creation cannot be BIGGER nor more Powerful that its Creator, and they CREATED the Union, they OWN IT, and it is supposed to be subordinate to the States, if NOT, then the states are OWNED by the Federal Government, and have no reason to have Constitutions, Borders, names, their own Laws, Police Forces, or even Governments....
IF it is True, that we have a ""CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC"", then what we have is a CONTRACT, where all States are Equals, it is a Mutual Union, a Club of States, kind of like a Country Club, Join Voluntarily, Leave Voluntarily, Freedom, but if you come back AFTER leaving, you're stuck....
If Everyone is Equal, then it MUST exist as a Voluntary Union, you are saying that the Union is NOT VOLUNTARY, and that makes it into a FORCED UNION, which is tantamount to Slavery, in terms of States under an all powerful Sovereign, where they are not allowed to Voluntarily Leave, is called a Feudal System, which makes the People into SERFS and Slaves Servants, who by any Measure, are NOT FREE, and in truth, have No Rights, just privileges....
Or is it that you think the States were Conquered by the United States in the American Revolution??
I'm trying to find WHERE you think the States are OWNED by the Federation, just explain that one little part....
Asked and already answered in prior reply.
Already answered in prior reply. The states entered into a compact, the Declaration of Independence and subsequent Articles of Confederation (eventually replaced by an improved Constitution) binding each other into one Union, a new nation.
Misrepresenting what people said, let alone fabricating words never said, ain't cool my man. Never contended that the states are "owned" by anyone. I said the states are bound by the Constitution, and all federal laws duly authorized under it, which do not violate it. These were the terms of the club agreed to by the members, those representing the states party, as chosen by the people, when the Declaration of Independence was approved, the Articles of Confederation ratified, and then the Constitution ratified.
If you want to leave the Country Club (better analogy than the fictitious line from the character of George Pickett in the movie Gettysburg, calling it a "gentlemen's club"), nobody is stopping you. But if you're rescinding your membership, then you don't get to come use the golf course or use the pool, let alone tear up the grass or piss in the pool, and you certainly don't get to take all of the beer from the bar on your way out. That's the club's property, a club which you no longer want to be a part of. Nobody in 1860 was forcing anyone to stay in the USA. The Lincoln hating, racist, plantation owning, slave holding, power controlling shitheads could have left and tried to preserve their slave system utopia elsewhere (they previously had their sights on Cuba and elsewhere in South America). But they didn't. Instead of waiting until the next Board Election, they went out and did doughnuts on the greens, took dumps in the pool, drank all the beer, and refused to leave the clubhouse, acting as if it was their right to be a shithead.
Same applies today. Nobody is forced to stay here. If you hate this country so much, get on a plane or ship and leave. Our course conditions might be a little rough right now, it sucks that the pool is closed and the bartender isn't very good, but the Board can always be replaced and the problems fixed. If the Board is currently being occupied by fraudsters, well then we seek judicial remedy.
But what we don't do, is be like the rebel shits of 1860, who ironically and hypocritically were descendants of those who condemned the "Yankees" only 50 years prior for threatening to leave the Union in response to Mr. Madison sucking the nation in a bullshit war with the British, which was arguably a constitutional violation (not Congress's declaration of war, but the unlawful shenanigans that created the situation).
Only children resort to temper tantrums.
I love that you brought up the Supremacy Clause and Law of the Land Clause, because IF we are to have a ""Dual Sovereignty"", then the Federation CANNOT OWN neither a ""State"", nor any part thereof....
The Federation is LOANED or ALLOWED, but mainly TOLERATED to have small pieces of Land for Forts, Magazines and other needful things, the LAND is still OWNED by the State therein....
And when it comes to the Federal Constitution, Treaties and such, as being the supreme Law of the Land, those things can be annulled within each State by legislative decree, and there isn't one single thing the U.S. Govt can DO about it....
As for whether the Crown Gave up the colonies willingly or otherwise, it is painfully obvious it was done begrudgingly in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, where he gave them up individually, by name, and not all as just one grouping, he recognized them to be each a Sovereign Nation like France, Spain, etc, and EQUAL to those Nations....
NEXT Articles of Association, at best are a Letter of Intent, and just like any letter of Intent, in Business Law, it cannot be held up in Court, nor can it be forced into any form of Contract, it is only INTENT and not solidified Agreement....
So after that, comes the Various Constitutions vis., Massachusetts Constitution, written in 1787, Virginia Constitution 1776, etc, ALL of the NEW NATIONS had their own Constitutions BEFORE the U.S. was ratified into a thing/Corporation....
So WHY should it be this way for the Counties, but not for the States?? Don't contradict yourself now....
Fact is, it is no different, if a State wants OUT, they have the Unenumerated Right to leave with ALL of their Possessions, and the States possessions are few, such as ALL of the LANDS within its Borders, All of the State Citizens (Art IV, Section 2), and it's Govt Intact....
No, the State is the Sovereign, The People Vs John Doe, ever heard of it??
Each Individually have Rights, called Individual Rights and Each Right is Singular unto itself, but we all have the exact same Rights, from US these Rights are loaned to our States for Governance, and then the States ALLOW or TOLERATE the Federation to have LIMITED and Enumerated PRIVILEGES, which WE can push our State Govts into amending, by Law...
The Federations ""Sovereignty"", is mainly Exterior to the States, on the Interior, it has none, it MAY have Superior Claim such as a Crime that crosses State Lines, or Commerce that crosses State Lines, etc., BUT it holds No innate Sovereignty unto itself, that is specifically GRANTED to it....
Yes, a Voluntary Agreement, to a Voluntary Contract, which means they can LEAVE that Contract any time they wish, that is basic contractual Law....
But there was NO Rebellion by VIRGINIA against anything, they simply wanted OUT of the Contract, and to move back under the Articles of Confederation...
The ""Rebellion"" as you say, Against Local Duly elected Officials, their State Govt, is correct, some 20,000 Masons did exactly that, and in doing that, yes, they rebelled against the still in power, U.S. Constitution, and went off on a tangent to create WV....
And as you say, if they didn't Like it, why didn't THEY just move to a different State, like maybe Africa??
Right, the STATES are the Members of the Club, and as they MADE the Club, they get to LEAVE the club, and leave it WITH ALL OF THEIR OWN PROPERTY, that being the LANDS ALL of the Lands within their Borders, even the parts they ALLOWED/Tolerated, the Federation to use, the State Citizens, and anything else that is theirs....
But to leave the Union, only moves them BACK into the Articles of Confederation, it does NOT remove them from that Contract, which made them Unruleable....
P.S., it had nothing to do with Lincoln getting [S]Elected, it was ALL about States Rights, and no matter how you look at it, States Rights are Paramount to Federal Rights, it's the same argument as Where your feelings try to stomp on my Rights....
Ok, so is it possible, for YOU to keep Emotions out of the Conversation please....
You aren't the First CollAge Professor I have argued with on this subject, and I have no restrictions on arguing specifics, but the whole:: ""The Lincoln hating, racist, plantation owning, slave holding, power controlling shitheads could have left and tried to preserve their slave system utopia elsewhere"", thing is rather counterproductive and simply just takes up lots of space, and I've read that stuff for Years, I get it, you hate, you enjoy hating, you really don't like the idea that someone, anyone would argue STATES RIGHTS FOR the Southern States, because they owned Slaves, all while ignoring that there were almost as many SLAVES in the Fucking Northern States, and also while ignoring that the Abolition of Slavery was a STATES RIGHTS ISSUE, not a fucking Federal Issue....
Cattle, or Chattel, it doesn't matter....
Both are living beings that are OWNED by other living beings....
Your HATRED of the south is unjustified, because the STATE you were Born in, also had SLAVES, hate yourself for not doing anything about that, but stop hating other Americans for being SLOW to action on pushing for the End of Slavery in their own States. You don't see me going to New York and screaming at everyone for not walking around with a gun on their hip, and yet where I grew up, it was a common occurrence to see five or six guns anywhere at one time....
I know Slavery is bad, BUT, Slavery has been part of Humanity for LONGER than Written History, and it is STILL happening all around the fucking Planet, so, if you must HATE, hate the ones who SUPPORT Slavery TODAY, and just look at American History as a chance to learn and grow....
And as YOU so pointedly stated ""Onlychildren resort to temper tantrums""...
I'll try to answer parts of your comments above in my next post....