Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion
FAQ Calendar Arcade Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-30-2004, 05:30 AM   #21
Seraph
Quintesson
 

Join Date: September 12, 2001
Location: Ewing, NJ
Age: 43
Posts: 1,079
Quote:
And that law you quoted just means that the states, by themselves, cannot, for example, sign a treaty with Canada or other countries.
Well becides the famous "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation." (the CSA was a confederation, so by definition those states must have entered a confederation), there is also the more specific "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".


Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:

THE QUESTION OF SECESSION

Article 1, Section 10...reads,"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation."
Article 1, Section 3..." No state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with any other state."
[/QUOTE]It's Section 10, not section 3. It's correct the first time, and wrong the 2nd. Article 1, Section 3 discusses the makeup and function of the US Senate.
Seraph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2004, 10:59 AM   #22
khazadman
User suspended until [Feb13]
 

Join Date: December 6, 2001
Location: the south side of ol virginny
Age: 63
Posts: 1,172
Back to the original post. Neither party can afford to write off the South because the southern states posess the largest population of the country (as opposed to the north-east, mid-west, etc.).
khazadman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2004, 11:18 AM   #23
John D Harris
Ninja Storm Shadow
 

Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 3,577
Quote:
Originally posted by Djinn Raffo:
quote:
Originally posted by John D Harris:
Yorick, I hate to brust the bubble (not really but it does sound nice )but slavery was not a reason for the South leaving the Union or the US Civil War. The south left the Union because they didn't like being told what they could and couldn't do by the Federal Gov't in Washington D.C. Slavery was an excuse, not a reason. The Union didn't even outlaw Slavery until several years into the war. The North claimed it was slavery was the reason for the war, but SINCE the South STARTED the war the South gets to be the one that says why they started it. 140 years have gone by time to forget the history the victors wrote.
Yep, didn't like being told what to do.. plus they could keep some slaves! Bonus! [/QUOTE]Several of the leaders of the south wanted to free the slaves before firing on Ft Sumpter. If anyone was to look at the words and deeds of the southern leaders they would find almost to the MAN they made the statements they would go in the direction their states went. Robert E. Lee was offered the comand of the entire Union Army of the Potomac but rejected it in favor of a second hand command in Charleston, before being reasigned to the Army of Northern Virginia after Johnston (IIRC) was wounded, because Virginia choose to secede. The same is true for Jackson, Longstreet, You name the leader and they left the Union Army infavor of serving their State. The Federalist party, who wanted a strong central Gov't didn't do well in the south. The south's Loyalty went in this order: God, Family, State, then the Union, Except for in Alabama it was: God, Alabama Crimson Tide , Family, State, then the Union. There were several regiments from Louisiana that were made up of Black citizens, free black citizens.
Slavery was the excuse, not the reason, there is a differance between a reason and an excuse. One is why you do something, the other is what you use to justify why you did it.
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working.
Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864
66:KIA 5008
67:KIA 9378
68:KIA 14594
69:KIA 9414
70:KIA 4221
71:KIA 1380
72:KIA 300

Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585
2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting

Davros 1
Much abliged Massachusetts
John D Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2004, 01:49 AM   #24
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by John D Harris:
quote:
Originally posted by Djinn Raffo:
quote:
Originally posted by John D Harris:
Yorick, I hate to brust the bubble (not really but it does sound nice )but slavery was not a reason for the South leaving the Union or the US Civil War. The south left the Union because they didn't like being told what they could and couldn't do by the Federal Gov't in Washington D.C. Slavery was an excuse, not a reason. The Union didn't even outlaw Slavery until several years into the war. The North claimed it was slavery was the reason for the war, but SINCE the South STARTED the war the South gets to be the one that says why they started it. 140 years have gone by time to forget the history the victors wrote.
Yep, didn't like being told what to do.. plus they could keep some slaves! Bonus! [/QUOTE]Several of the leaders of the south wanted to free the slaves before firing on Ft Sumpter. If anyone was to look at the words and deeds of the southern leaders they would find almost to the MAN they made the statements they would go in the direction their states went. Robert E. Lee was offered the comand of the entire Union Army of the Potomac but rejected it in favor of a second hand command in Charleston, before being reasigned to the Army of Northern Virginia after Johnston (IIRC) was wounded, because Virginia choose to secede. The same is true for Jackson, Longstreet, You name the leader and they left the Union Army infavor of serving their State. The Federalist party, who wanted a strong central Gov't didn't do well in the south. The south's Loyalty went in this order: God, Family, State, then the Union, Except for in Alabama it was: God, Alabama Crimson Tide , Family, State, then the Union. There were several regiments from Louisiana that were made up of Black citizens, free black citizens.
Slavery was the excuse, not the reason, there is a differance between a reason and an excuse. One is why you do something, the other is what you use to justify why you did it.
[/QUOTE]Great post John. Thanks.
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2004, 08:58 PM   #25
InjaYew
Zhentarim Guard
 

Join Date: December 31, 2003
Location: SE Tornado Belt
Age: 64
Posts: 341
Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/news/stats.asp

Statistics on this site show Democrats are a significant minority in the south. I would hardly call the South "lost" to the Dems.

Further more at a level of state leglislation, the Dems have a majority in a majority of southern states:
quote:

State Senates: 5R (FL, KY, SC, TX & VA)
8D (AL, AR, GA, LA, MS, NC, OK & TN)


State Houses: 3R (FL, SC & VA)
10D (AL, AR, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, OK, TN & TX)
Southwide, there are 314 Democratic state senators, 229 Republicans;
there are 858 Democratic state representatives, 659 Republicans. (1/1/01)
[/QUOTE]While southern Democrats may not be *lost* to the cause, I can tell ya from experience, most of us are dang lonely. We are few and far between.
InjaYew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2004, 09:33 PM   #26
Cerek the Barbaric
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
 

Join Date: October 29, 2001
Location: North Carolina
Age: 62
Posts: 3,257
I've been researching the comments I made about the Southern States having a Constitutional Right to secede from the Union. This was a comment a history teacher had made in class and I simply couldn't remember what logic or what part of the Constitution he used to back up his claim.

I also asked my college buddies for help and here is the answer I got from one of them. It sounds a lot like what my teacher said, so I'm assuming it's pretty close to the theory he used also.

The basic reasoning behind sucession rested on this: the States had, in effect, "hired" as an "agent" the entity known as the Federal Government. The Founding Fathers were most determined that the Federal Government should always be secondary to the individual State Governments. (See many of the comments on this subject in the Federalist Papers). As agent of the States, the Federal Governemnt was given specific, enumerated rights and responsibilities. As Bob noted, the 10th Amendment CLEARLY notes that " 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." The purpose of having a Federal Government was to have an entity that could function in matters (usually international in nature) that required a singular voice (such as the signing of treaties with other nations, instead of having each individual State consider and sign each individual treaty). Also, the Federal Governemnt was needed to standardize certain things within the States (such as weights, measures, currency), and ease the functioning of trade and commerce between the States. The basic idea was that the Union would be, to those outside the Union, a single entity, but to those within it, the States would be completely seperate entities. As seperate entities, States were completely within thier rights to, in effect, "fire" thier agent if and when said agent's services were no longer needed or desired (just as your boss can fire you when your services are no longer needed or desired). It was the greed of the Union for Federal duties and taxes on exports and imports from and to the Southern States that led the great war criminal Lincoln to invade the territories of Soverign southern Sta tes, and wage war on the civilian populace therein.

One side note on Lincoln: during his Presidential campaign, even he affirmed the right of a state to secede!
__________________
[img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth
Cerek the Barbaric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2004, 12:30 AM   #27
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
In effect, the Constitution is a treaty, just like the EU treaty. States are still recognized sovereigns, though participation in the union under the Constitution does relegate certain duties (e.g. treaties, as in Mass. cannot enter a treaty with a country).

However, most treaties supply their own "seccession" (often called "withdrawal")rules. As the Constitution does not have such a rule, we are relegated to the general premises of international law, which I think probably do support the right to negate a previously-signed treaty.
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2004, 03:31 AM   #28
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
So who created Montana or Nevada, and why are they deemed "States"? Why were the Carolinas and Dakotas made seperate states?

In short, what body, what entity created these states? Did they originate organically, with self determination, like say France or Holland or other such states of the "United States of Europe" (as some want it named) or were they infact created by the federal government.

If when the British government was removed, was there in fact a central leadership you would call a federal government of any sort? If so, did this create the states, and if so wouldn't the states owe their existence to the collective and greater body?

Additionally by what right were these states created if they were replacing Amerindian nations? Did Amerindians have a voice in their creation, and can they secede from anything?
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2004, 07:56 AM   #29
InjaYew
Zhentarim Guard
 

Join Date: December 31, 2003
Location: SE Tornado Belt
Age: 64
Posts: 341
manifest destiny
n.
A policy of imperialistic expansion defended as necessary or benevolent.
often Manifest Destiny The 19th-century doctrine that the United States had the right and duty to expand throughout the North American continent.

~~~~ If I didn't have to get ready for work in few, I could rant about this for a long time.
InjaYew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2004, 12:58 PM   #30
Night Stalker
Lord Ao
 

Join Date: June 24, 2002
Location: Nevernever Land
Age: 51
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
So who created Montana or Nevada, and why are they deemed "States"? Why were the Carolinas and Dakotas made seperate states?
As for who created the Western States, the already established United States acquired the teritory through various means (land deals, Manifest Destiny aka Imperialism, and such). Enough people settled the territory, they pettioned for Statehood and formal boundries were set. As to why a North and South version, no clue. For the Carolinas it had to do with colonization terms, but I don't know what they are.

Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
In short, what body, what entity created these states? Did they originate organically, with self determination, like say France or Holland or other such states of the "United States of Europe" (as some want it named) or were they infact created by the federal government.
The original 13 Colonies were separate entities granted under various deals under Brittttish rule. The Federal Government never created the 13. After booting Britain, the first American government was established under the Articles of Confederation. It did not work out and lasted only 6 years. The State then got together to create The United States as now established under the Constitution. The Federal Government owes it's existance to the States, not the other way around.

Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
If when the British government was removed, was there in fact a central leadership you would call a federal government of any sort? If so, did this create the states, and if so wouldn't the states owe their existence to the collective and greater body?
See above.

Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Additionally by what right were these states created if they were replacing Amerindian nations? Did Amerindians have a voice in their creation, and can they secede from anything?
The numerous dealing with the natives of this continent are too long to address for the ?s you proposed. The land was obtained through both fair (William Penn) and unfair means. Some fair deals were even broken outright years later. Needless to say, after 300+ years, the Natives are a subjugated and assimilated people. While some Nations still retain Sovernty they are islands in the sea of The United States.
__________________
[url]\"http://www.duryea.org/pinky/gurkin.wav\" target=\"_blank\">AYPWIP?</a> .... <img border=\"0\" alt=\"[1ponder]\" title=\"\" src=\"graemlins/1ponder.gif\" /> <br />\"I think so Brain, but isn\'t a cucumber that small called a gherkin?\"<br /><br />Shut UP! Pinky!
Night Stalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bad Writing Arvon General Discussion 10 08-25-2005 11:37 AM
Some writing Link Entertainment (Movies, TV Shows and Books/Comics) 2 01-30-2005 03:28 AM
creative writing RevRuby General Discussion 9 10-23-2002 09:35 PM
Writing Nanobyte Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) 2 06-12-2002 03:15 AM
script writing slackerboy Baldurs Gate II Archives 8 03-11-2001 10:52 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved