Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #3486676 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Gary Roselles <Yeowrghis@Jurgis.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-16 16:53 -0700 |
| Last post | 2026-05-25 23:39 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 292 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Gary Roselles <Yeowrghis@Jurgis.net> - 2026-05-16 16:53 -0700
[Spam] Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows they didn't.. Gary Roselles <rudy-the-cocksmoker@Jurgis.net> - 2026-05-17 06:25 +0200
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. bondrock@ifx.net - 2026-05-18 22:55 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-19 02:25 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> - 2026-05-18 20:05 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-19 06:56 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-19 12:56 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-20 06:51 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-20 13:09 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-20 10:36 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-21 06:34 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-21 13:09 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-21 12:04 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-21 17:58 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-21 16:21 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-22 02:19 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-22 00:26 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-23 01:41 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-23 05:09 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-23 14:18 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-24 06:55 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-25 02:26 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-26 15:23 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-27 02:28 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-27 08:43 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 00:48 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-22 07:56 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. End Democracy Now <end-it@democracy.shit> - 2026-05-23 01:40 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:30 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-24 06:56 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-25 02:27 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-26 15:25 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-27 02:34 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-27 08:44 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Anonymous <anon@anon.net> - 2026-05-25 01:43 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-25 13:32 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 02:21 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Anonymous <anon@anon.net> - 2026-05-31 02:51 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-31 11:05 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-31 09:12 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Anonymous <anon@anon.net> - 2026-06-01 02:15 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-01 12:58 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-01 09:05 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-23 13:30 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. End Democracy Now <end-it@democracy.shit> - 2026-05-24 05:29 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-24 14:21 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-24 19:32 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. "Donald J. Trump" <epstein@maga.gop> - 2026-05-26 03:37 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 00:53 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> - 2026-05-20 16:33 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-21 02:01 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-21 06:42 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> - 2026-05-21 12:23 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-21 16:34 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-22 01:58 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-22 00:34 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-23 02:01 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-23 05:33 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-25 02:20 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-26 15:38 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-27 18:31 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-27 13:58 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 13:54 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 16:46 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 16:57 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-28 14:27 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-29 02:08 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.corn> - 2026-05-29 13:53 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 16:04 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 16:52 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 18:21 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 19:30 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-31 10:58 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-31 18:07 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-02 19:02 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-03 13:22 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-04 16:29 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-05 01:47 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-05 06:37 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-05 13:17 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-05 18:28 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-06 14:23 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-07 01:10 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-08 13:52 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-09 07:56 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-12 02:39 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-12 06:02 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 14:20 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-14 15:55 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-17 14:00 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-17 10:33 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-19 14:36 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-20 01:25 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:42 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-20 14:26 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-20 15:33 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 23:23 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-21 14:08 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-21 18:48 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 23:21 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-21 14:16 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-21 08:49 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-22 02:01 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-21 20:24 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-22 06:46 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:28 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-22 10:09 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-23 02:32 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> - 2026-06-22 22:45 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-23 06:38 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> - 2026-06-23 20:10 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-24 06:43 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> - 2026-06-25 22:53 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-26 05:10 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-26 13:45 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-26 09:54 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-27 14:19 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-27 11:38 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-28 02:26 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 08:39 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-23 06:32 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-23 13:37 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-23 09:46 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-23 18:56 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-24 13:43 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-24 10:24 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-24 17:56 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-24 14:48 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-25 13:58 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-25 11:07 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-26 13:27 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-26 10:05 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-28 02:38 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-24 23:47 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 12:33 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-24 17:57 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-24 14:50 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-25 01:45 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-25 02:44 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 11:59 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-24 23:45 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-24 11:09 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-24 18:00 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-24 23:46 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-21 19:01 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 18:15 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-19 02:22 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-19 05:41 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 09:53 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-19 18:14 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-20 01:30 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:43 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-20 09:20 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-21 13:59 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-21 08:35 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-21 19:09 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-21 17:16 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-22 06:51 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-23 02:23 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-23 06:43 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-23 18:34 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-23 19:04 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-23 09:44 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-23 02:16 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-23 06:58 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-24 13:26 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-24 10:32 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-26 13:38 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-26 10:09 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-26 09:21 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-24 11:08 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-23 09:43 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-23 19:12 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> - 2026-06-19 09:01 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Amal Bond <ab@ifx.net> - 2026-06-20 02:11 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> - 2026-06-18 20:30 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-20 02:07 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-19 22:34 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 02:29 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> - 2026-05-21 20:42 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-22 05:15 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> - 2026-05-22 18:20 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-23 05:59 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 00:46 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 00:44 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> - 2026-05-22 18:20 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Anonymous <anon@anon.net> - 2026-05-23 01:55 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-23 06:04 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 00:57 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Gary Roselles <Yeowrghis@Jurgis.net> - 2026-05-23 10:02 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-24 07:07 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-24 18:11 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-26 15:46 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-28 13:32 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-28 14:31 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-28 12:50 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-29 01:51 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-28 18:56 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. John S <smythlejon2@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 02:17 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 07:34 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 13:43 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 14:53 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 16:45 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 16:58 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 18:24 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 19:27 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 21:02 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 21:44 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-30 07:49 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-30 09:36 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-30 11:46 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-30 12:31 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-30 17:33 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-31 10:38 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-31 12:43 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-31 13:06 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-31 14:24 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-31 17:16 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-31 19:53 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-01 08:44 -0600
[Spam] Re: The panties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Rudy Canosa <rudycanosa@lgbtqiamail.con> - 2026-06-01 22:11 +0200
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 16:47 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 18:22 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 19:30 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 21:04 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 21:45 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-30 07:52 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-30 09:37 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-30 11:47 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-30 12:32 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-30 17:34 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-31 10:42 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-31 12:44 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-31 14:25 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-31 17:17 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-31 19:55 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-01 08:45 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-06-01 18:13 +0000
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-01 12:26 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-06-01 12:11 -0700
Re: The pansies switched on race. Everyone knows it. Fudge Packer Canoza <fudge-packer-canoza@newshosting.com> - 2026-06-01 20:49 +0000
Re: The pansies switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-01 15:07 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-01 14:57 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-06-01 14:12 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-01 16:18 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-06-01 16:04 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-01 18:11 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-06-02 09:18 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-06-01 12:00 -0700
Re: The pansies switched on race. Everyone knows it. Fudge Packer Canoza <fudge-packer-canoza@newshosting.com> - 2026-06-01 20:48 +0000
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-06-01 14:10 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-01 14:56 -0600
[Spam] Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Rudy Canosa <rudycanosa@lgbtqiamail.con> - 2026-06-01 23:49 +0200
Re: [Spam] Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-06-01 16:17 -0600
Re: The panties switched on race. Everyone knows it. loother <loother@jk.com> - 2026-05-30 04:04 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 07:33 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 13:44 -0700
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 14:52 -0600
Re: The panties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. loother <loother@jk.com> - 2026-05-30 04:06 +0000
Re: The panties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. loother <loother@jk.com> - 2026-05-30 04:05 +0000
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 13:51 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 16:01 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 16:49 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 18:23 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 19:28 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 21:04 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-29 21:44 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-30 07:50 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-30 09:37 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-30 11:47 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-30 12:32 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-30 17:34 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-31 10:40 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-31 12:43 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-31 13:06 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-31 14:24 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-31 17:16 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. AlleyCat <al@aohello.con> - 2026-05-31 19:54 -0700
[Spam] Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Rudy Canosa <rudycanosa@lgbtqiamail.con> - 2026-06-02 01:19 +0200
Re: The panties switched on race. Everyone knows it. loother <loother@jk.com> - 2026-05-30 04:06 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-05-31 11:01 -0400
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> - 2026-05-31 18:16 +0000
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-31 12:41 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. Attila <prochoice@here.now> - 2026-06-02 19:09 -0400
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Gary Roselles <Yeowrghis@Jurgis.net> - 2026-05-23 12:47 -0700
[Spam] Re: The parties switched off race. Everyone knows it. Trevor Johnson <noreply@mixmin.net> - 2026-05-24 04:28 +0100
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> - 2026-05-24 10:29 -0700
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-24 17:24 -0600
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 01:47 -0400
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Skeeter <invalid@none.com> - 2026-05-29 07:35 -0600
Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. jonball@h.omo - 2026-05-24 06:07 +0000
Re: The parties switched on race. Everyone knows it. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2026-05-25 23:39 -0400
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
| From | Attila <prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 18:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <0vh62l5v384knmarthj7p26ui03iteilus@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3488024 |
On Fri, 05 Jun 2026 13:17:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<XnsB46253274EBCD629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>news:nn852ld6t5bg55as1m5ln18nm4m234msqt@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2026 01:47:27 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>> <XnsB461D251D1F1D629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>
>>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>>>news:udn32llqvglvb0uvd9sprcc3vf8e6r2fo5@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:22:34 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>> <XnsB4605408C4795629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>>>>>news:uqnu1lp46ipntnuqgr6i3isgpi94kagbg8@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 31 May 2026 18:07:19 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>> <XnsB45D845A9EBC0629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:27io1lpn25tp6d3cu2vqlf2843tl2sotil@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2026 02:08:28 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>>> <XnsB45AD5F92E0A5629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In these examples there were no state laws to conflict with
>>>>>>>>>> federal law.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The above just illustrate that the Confederacy was
>>>>>>>>>about defending slavery, they didn't care whit about
>>>>>>>>>"states rights"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just exactly how was the North going to end slavery?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As shown by the portion you snipped,
>>>>>>>at the time the South seceded the North
>>>>>>>wasn't TRYING to end slavery. In fact
>>>>>>>Lincoln offered to PRESERVE slavery in
>>>>>>>the states that already had it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that is true why was the CSA even formed?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Confederates wanted to EXPAND slavery,
>>>>>Lincoln was opposed to that. And they
>>>>>seceded without even trying to negotiate
>>>>>the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Expand it where?
>>>
>>>
>>> From the Confederate Constitution:
>>>
>>>
>>>"The Confederate States may acquire new territory;
>>>and Congress shall have power to legislate and
>>>provide governments for the inhabitants of all
>>>territory belonging to the Confederate States.
>>>In all such territory the institution of negro
>>>slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate
>>>States, shall be recognized and protected"
>>>Art IV, Sec 3, CSA Constitution
>>
>> The North at the time was advocating all new territory be
>> fee of slaves.
>
> But had pass no laws regarding that.
They were expected so the South took preemptive action.
>
>
>> The CSA was simply stating their position on
>> the matter. You seem to have a problem in understanding
>> conditions before and after succession.
>
> The South started the over a demand
>to expand slavery. Not "states rights",
>not "Southern way of life", not "defense
>of property"
The Southern States banded together to protect their
internal laws and to provide for an equal standing in
gaining new territory.
The Southern States had been there since before the
revolution. They did not "start" at this point.
They did at one point band together to form the CSA.
>
>
>>
>> The Confederate Constitution went into effect AFTER
>> succession, not before.
>
>
> Did you notice the CSA denial of
>popular sovereignty? New territories
>MUST have legal slavery even if the
>locals don't want it. So much for
>"states rights"
It was expected the Union would pass laws making slavery
illegal in new states even if the new states wanted it.
>
>>
>> AI Overview
>>
>> Historical Context and Documents Provisional Constitution:
>> Before the permanent constitution, delegates from the
>> seceding states adopted a Provisional Constitution on
>> February 8, 1861, in Montgomery, Alabama, to serve as a
>> temporary framework.Superseded: The permanent constitution
>> went into effect on February 22, 1862.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> State objections were not allowed.
>>>>>>>>>>>The CSA Constitution mandated legal slavery
>>>>>>>>>>>regardless of local opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That was the way the CSA system was constructed. It did not
>>>>>>>>>> exist when the states left the union. At that point it was
>>>>>>>>>> state power vs federal power.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly. The CSA was about slavery,
>>>>>>>>>not state's rights.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are saying the only thing the CSA was concerned about
>>>>>>>> was slavery?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A sampling of the Declaration of
>>>>>>>Secession documents:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly
>>>>>>>identified with the institution of slavery"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue ws slavery but it rested upon the law, which the
>>>>>> states felt should hold state law as paramount.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Supremecy Clause is in the Constitution.
>>>>>Which Southerners loved when it came to forcing
>>>>>states to return runaway slaves to their owners.
>>>>
>>>> There was nothing in Northern law that said differently.
>>>> Stolen property was returned to the owner. Do you have a
>>>> problem with that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Funny how slaves were both property
>>>AND people ("3/5ths of a person") when
>>>it came to congressional representation.
>>
>> That was a legal fiction used to help ratify the
>> Constitution.
>>
>>>And when a slave fled to Canada or Mexico
>>>how did they suddenly become a person?
>>
>> The laws of the country governed. US law is not valid in
>> Canada or Mexico today just as their laws are not valid in
>> the US.
>
>
> The South claims property becomes a
>person according to locals laws. Just as
>pro-lifers claim a zygote is a person
>and not a person accurding to local laws.
No, the South considered a slave as property from the time
he became subject to state law.
Personhood was not an issue. Blacks were persons who were
slaves and had no legal protection or rights.
>
>
>
>>>>>>>Georgia: "For the last ten years we have
>>>>>>>had numerous and serious causes of complaint
>>>>>>>against our non-slave-holding confederate
>>>>>>>States with reference to the subject of
>>>>>>>African slavery."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>South Carolina: "an increasing hostility
>>>>>>>on the part of the non-slaveholding States
>>>>>>>to the institution of slavery."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Texas: "maintaining and protecting the
>>>>>>>institution known as negro slavery -- the
>>>>>>>servitude of the African to the white race."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-
>>>>>>>seceding-states
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln offered to PRESERVE SLAVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Buchanan offered to PRESERVE SLAVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Who was trying to "end slavery"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Republican Party and their platform. Especially in any
>>>>>>>>>> new states.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Show us what the 1860 GOP platform
>>>>>>>>>says about slavery.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look it up yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There were no abolition bills
>>>>>>>>>>>in Congress at the time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because the new Congress had not been sworn in. Nor had
>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly. The Slavery States didn't
>>>>>>>>>want to even negotiate the issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was nothing to negotiate. The South would not accept
>>>>>>>> all new states being slave free and the North would accept
>>>>>>>> nothing else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where did "the Horth" say that at the
>>>>>>>time of secession?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secession occurred because the South expected what the North
>>>>>> eventually did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They seceded to expand slavery. Not
>>>>>because of any "state's rights".
>>>>
>>>> Expand where?
>>>>
>>>
>>> All new territories and states.
>>
>> They wanted slavery to be legal just as the Union wanted it
>> to be illegal. Remember we are talking about a country
>> separate from the US and who had it's own laws.
>>
>
> Actually "the North" had advocated
>popular sovereignty on the issue, as was
>the case with the Kansas Nebrska Act. But
>the South rejected even that.
Are you saying they were required to accept it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To prevent living under the laws against slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit secession was about slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not "states rights".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, that's a start.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The basic issue was whether or not a state could pass laws
>>>>>>>>>> that were in conflict with federal law and prevent federal
>>>>>>>>>> law from being enforced in the state. The particular issue
>>>>>>>>>> were laws involving slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did any states secede over the federal
>>>>>>>>>Slave Fugitive Acts? Many northern states
>>>>>>>>>hate them but didn't not attack the government
>>>>>>>>>over this submission to southern state demands.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The South felt those laws did not apply to them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prisons are full of people who felt the
>>>>>>>law didn't apply to them. Is that a legal
>>>>>>>justification for violating it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Persons are not organized and recognized states.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't get to pick and choose what laws
>>>>>apply to you.
>>>>
>>>> The Southern States felt their laws should come first.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is unconstitutional per the
>>>Supremecy Clause.
>>
>> Which is why they left the Union and formed the CSA. Nothing
>> in the Constitution prevented this.
>>
>
> So the South was both for states
>rights (their own) and against state's
>rights (any new state voting against
>slavery).
The South was for the enforcement of state laws and not
conflicting federal laws. Again you are talking about
Federal law (allowing the issue to be voted upon) and
existing state laws. The South wanted each new state to
make their own laws and not be bound by any Federal law.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did the individual states have the power to negate federal
>>>>>>>>>> law by passing conflicting state law? The Union said no.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Supremecy Clause of the Constituion said no.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The states said yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Secession is unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only by Court interpretation, made after the Civil War.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing in the Constution
>>>>>>>that allows for secession.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is nothing to prevent it either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fact.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for supporting what I said. In 1862 there was no
>>>>>>>> legal mechanism for leaving the union or to prevent states
>>>>>>>> from leaving the union. That was only decided on the
>>>>>>>> battlefield.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That battlefield being Ft Sumter.
>>>>
>>>> A part of South Carolina.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. SoutH Carolina sold Ft Sumter
>>>to the US in the 1820's.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United
>>>States, all the right, title and claim of South
>>>Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the
>>>requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided,
>>>That all processes, civil and criminal issued under
>>>the authority of this State, or any officer thereof,
>>>shall and may be served and executed upon the same,
>>>and any person there being who may be implicated by
>>>law; and that the said land, site and structures
>>>enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability
>>>to pay any tax to this state. Also resolved: That the
>>>State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim
>>>there be, of any individuals under the authority of
>>>this State, to the land hereby ceded."
>>>https://tinyurl.com/y8v6g4kb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Confederacy attacked America,
>>>>>>>why should we "honor" that with statues?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a modern viewpoint. At the time it was the Union
>>>>>> and the CSA. The Union considered the states as still part
>>>>>> of the union. The CSA did not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> States do not get to "consider" what laws
>>>>>they will obey.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That was not the issue. The South considered their laws
>>>> should apply when Federal laws were different. Congress had
>>>> no right to pass laws that conflicted with State laws.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1) What laws? Congress passed no laws
>>>limiting slavery before the South seceded.
>>
>> The election of 1860 had the issue of slavery as a major par
>> of the campaign and the Republican Party had stated they
>> would make slavery illegal.
>
>
> Lincoln only won 39% of the vote, his
>opinions were hardly the force of law.
No President can pas laws. Only Congress can do that. The
election of 1860 put enough people in power to pass laws
against slavery. The new Congress and President wee sworn
in on March 4, 1861.
The Provisional CSA Constitution was signed prior to this.
>>>
>>> 2) And even if they did the Supremecy
>>>Clause required the states to obey them.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The South disagreed. So the states involved left and formed
>> their own country.
>
>
> The Southern states didn't have a
>problem with the Constitution when they
>voted to ratify it in 1789.
>
>
No one was trying to pass federal law that conflicted with
state law.
--
Every person in the US is here either
legally or illegally. Those that are
here illegally should be afraid.
Be very afraid. It does not matter
how long you have been here. It does
not matter why you are here. It does not
matter what you have done legally while you
were here. It does not matter what any
relative may have done while you were here.
It only matters that you are here illegally.
It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer
but we will find you and we will deport you.
Be prepared.
Deport them all.
Due process:
Q. Are you here legally? If so, where is
the documentation to establish that?
All politicians are trained to lie
and make those lies sound like
the truth. They start with the biggest
lie of all: Politicians are public
servants.
National Socialist American Workers Party
(NSAWP) formally known as the Democrat Party
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I support:
A Constitional Amendment establishing
the Freedom of Choice.
The elimination of public expression,
display or support of religion or
religious positions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-06 14:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <XnsB4635E6E51E93629555@185.151.15.190> |
| In reply to | #3488058 |
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:0vh62l5v384knmarthj7p26ui03iteilus@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 05 Jun 2026 13:17:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman
> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <XnsB46253274EBCD629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>
>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>>news:nn852ld6t5bg55as1m5ln18nm4m234msqt@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2026 01:47:27 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <XnsB461D251D1F1D629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>>>>news:udn32llqvglvb0uvd9sprcc3vf8e6r2fo5@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:22:34 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>> <XnsB4605408C4795629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>>>>>>news:uqnu1lp46ipntnuqgr6i3isgpi94kagbg8@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 31 May 2026 18:07:19 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>> <XnsB45D845A9EBC0629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>>>>>>>>news:27io1lpn25tp6d3cu2vqlf2843tl2sotil@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2026 02:08:28 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>>>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>>>> <XnsB45AD5F92E0A5629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In these examples there were no state laws to conflict with
>>>>>>>>>>> federal law.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The above just illustrate that the Confederacy was
>>>>>>>>>>about defending slavery, they didn't care whit about
>>>>>>>>>>"states rights"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just exactly how was the North going to end slavery?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As shown by the portion you snipped,
>>>>>>>>at the time the South seceded the North
>>>>>>>>wasn't TRYING to end slavery. In fact
>>>>>>>>Lincoln offered to PRESERVE slavery in
>>>>>>>>the states that already had it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that is true why was the CSA even formed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Confederates wanted to EXPAND slavery,
>>>>>>Lincoln was opposed to that. And they
>>>>>>seceded without even trying to negotiate
>>>>>>the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Expand it where?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From the Confederate Constitution:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"The Confederate States may acquire new territory;
>>>>and Congress shall have power to legislate and
>>>>provide governments for the inhabitants of all
>>>>territory belonging to the Confederate States.
>>>>In all such territory the institution of negro
>>>>slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate
>>>>States, shall be recognized and protected"
>>>>Art IV, Sec 3, CSA Constitution
>>>
>>> The North at the time was advocating all new territory be
>>> fee of slaves.
>>
>> But had pass no laws regarding that.
>
> They were expected so the South took preemptive action.
>
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler.
I would not even listen to anyone seriously
that came and talked about such a thing."
Dwight Eisenhower
>>
>>
>>> The CSA was simply stating their position on
>>> the matter. You seem to have a problem in understanding
>>> conditions before and after succession.
>>
>> The South started the over a demand
>>to expand slavery. Not "states rights",
>>not "Southern way of life", not "defense
>>of property"
>
> The Southern States banded together to protect their
> internal laws and to provide for an equal standing in
> gaining new territory.
>
> The Southern States had been there since before the
> revolution. They did not "start" at this point.
>
> They did at one point band together to form the CSA.
They "banded together" to attack America.
Why are you defending that?
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The Confederate Constitution went into effect AFTER
>>> succession, not before.
>>
>>
>> Did you notice the CSA denial of
>>popular sovereignty? New territories
>>MUST have legal slavery even if the
>>locals don't want it. So much for
>>"states rights"
>
> It was expected the Union would pass laws making slavery
> illegal in new states even if the new states wanted it.
Was the Pearl Harbor attack justified
because of what Japan "expected" the US to
do?
>>>
>>> AI Overview
>>>
>>> Historical Context and Documents Provisional Constitution:
>>> Before the permanent constitution, delegates from the
>>> seceding states adopted a Provisional Constitution on
>>> February 8, 1861, in Montgomery, Alabama, to serve as a
>>> temporary framework.Superseded: The permanent constitution
>>> went into effect on February 22, 1862.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> State objections were not allowed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>The CSA Constitution mandated legal slavery
>>>>>>>>>>>>regardless of local opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That was the way the CSA system was constructed. It did not
>>>>>>>>>>> exist when the states left the union. At that point it was
>>>>>>>>>>> state power vs federal power.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. The CSA was about slavery,
>>>>>>>>>>not state's rights.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are saying the only thing the CSA was concerned about
>>>>>>>>> was slavery?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A sampling of the Declaration of
>>>>>>>>Secession documents:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly
>>>>>>>>identified with the institution of slavery"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue ws slavery but it rested upon the law, which the
>>>>>>> states felt should hold state law as paramount.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Supremecy Clause is in the Constitution.
>>>>>>Which Southerners loved when it came to forcing
>>>>>>states to return runaway slaves to their owners.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was nothing in Northern law that said differently.
>>>>> Stolen property was returned to the owner. Do you have a
>>>>> problem with that?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Funny how slaves were both property
>>>>AND people ("3/5ths of a person") when
>>>>it came to congressional representation.
>>>
>>> That was a legal fiction used to help ratify the
>>> Constitution.
>>>
>>>>And when a slave fled to Canada or Mexico
>>>>how did they suddenly become a person?
>>>
>>> The laws of the country governed. US law is not valid in
>>> Canada or Mexico today just as their laws are not valid in
>>> the US.
>>
>>
>> The South claims property becomes a
>>person according to locals laws. Just as
>>pro-lifers claim a zygote is a person
>>and not a person accurding to local laws.
>
> No, the South considered a slave as property from the time
> he became subject to state law.
>
> Personhood was not an issue. Blacks were persons who were
> slaves and had no legal protection or rights.
People are not property, they are people.
>>>>>>>>Georgia: "For the last ten years we have
>>>>>>>>had numerous and serious causes of complaint
>>>>>>>>against our non-slave-holding confederate
>>>>>>>>States with reference to the subject of
>>>>>>>>African slavery."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>South Carolina: "an increasing hostility
>>>>>>>>on the part of the non-slaveholding States
>>>>>>>>to the institution of slavery."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Texas: "maintaining and protecting the
>>>>>>>>institution known as negro slavery -- the
>>>>>>>>servitude of the African to the white race."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-
causes-
>>>>>>>>seceding-states
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln offered to PRESERVE SLAVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Buchanan offered to PRESERVE SLAVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Who was trying to "end slavery"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Republican Party and their platform. Especially in any
>>>>>>>>>>> new states.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Show us what the 1860 GOP platform
>>>>>>>>>>says about slavery.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Look it up yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There were no abolition bills
>>>>>>>>>>>>in Congress at the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because the new Congress had not been sworn in. Nor had
>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. The Slavery States didn't
>>>>>>>>>>want to even negotiate the issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There was nothing to negotiate. The South would not accept
>>>>>>>>> all new states being slave free and the North would accept
>>>>>>>>> nothing else.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where did "the Horth" say that at the
>>>>>>>>time of secession?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secession occurred because the South expected what the North
>>>>>>> eventually did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They seceded to expand slavery. Not
>>>>>>because of any "state's rights".
>>>>>
>>>>> Expand where?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All new territories and states.
>>>
>>> They wanted slavery to be legal just as the Union wanted it
>>> to be illegal. Remember we are talking about a country
>>> separate from the US and who had it's own laws.
>>>
>>
>> Actually "the North" had advocated
>>popular sovereignty on the issue, as was
>>the case with the Kansas Nebrska Act. But
>>the South rejected even that.
>
> Are you saying they were required to accept it?
Exactly. All Americans are required
to obey lawfully enacted and Constitutional
laws. The South applauded when John Brown
was hanged for attacking federal property
but then turned around attacked federal
property themselves. Why should we honor
that with statues?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To prevent living under the laws against slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit secession was about slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not "states rights".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, that's a start.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The basic issue was whether or not a state could pass laws
>>>>>>>>>>> that were in conflict with federal law and prevent federal
>>>>>>>>>>> law from being enforced in the state. The particular issue
>>>>>>>>>>> were laws involving slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did any states secede over the federal
>>>>>>>>>>Slave Fugitive Acts? Many northern states
>>>>>>>>>>hate them but didn't not attack the government
>>>>>>>>>>over this submission to southern state demands.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The South felt those laws did not apply to them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prisons are full of people who felt the
>>>>>>>>law didn't apply to them. Is that a legal
>>>>>>>>justification for violating it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Persons are not organized and recognized states.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't get to pick and choose what laws
>>>>>>apply to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Southern States felt their laws should come first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is unconstitutional per the
>>>>Supremecy Clause.
>>>
>>> Which is why they left the Union and formed the CSA. Nothing
>>> in the Constitution prevented this.
>>>
>>
>> So the South was both for states
>>rights (their own) and against state's
>>rights (any new state voting against
>>slavery).
>
> The South was for the enforcement of state laws and not
> conflicting federal laws. Again you are talking about
> Federal law (allowing the issue to be voted upon) and
> existing state laws. The South wanted each new state to
> make their own laws and not be bound by any Federal law.
Wrong. The CSA Constitution itself
(see above) nullified state laws that
conflicted with their Constitution.
Where is the respect for "state's rights"
in that?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did the individual states have the power to negate federal
>>>>>>>>>>> law by passing conflicting state law? The Union said no.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Supremecy Clause of the Constituion said no.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The states said yes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Secession is unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only by Court interpretation, made after the Civil War.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing in the Constution
>>>>>>>>that allows for secession.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing to prevent it either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fact.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for supporting what I said. In 1862 there was no
>>>>>>>>> legal mechanism for leaving the union or to prevent states
>>>>>>>>> from leaving the union. That was only decided on the
>>>>>>>>> battlefield.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That battlefield being Ft Sumter.
>>>>>
>>>>> A part of South Carolina.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nope. SoutH Carolina sold Ft Sumter
>>>>to the US in the 1820's.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United
>>>>States, all the right, title and claim of South
>>>>Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the
>>>>requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided,
>>>>That all processes, civil and criminal issued under
>>>>the authority of this State, or any officer thereof,
>>>>shall and may be served and executed upon the same,
>>>>and any person there being who may be implicated by
>>>>law; and that the said land, site and structures
>>>>enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability
>>>>to pay any tax to this state. Also resolved: That the
>>>>State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim
>>>>there be, of any individuals under the authority of
>>>>this State, to the land hereby ceded."
>>>>https://tinyurl.com/y8v6g4kb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Confederacy attacked America,
>>>>>>>>why should we "honor" that with statues?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a modern viewpoint. At the time it was the Union
>>>>>>> and the CSA. The Union considered the states as still part
>>>>>>> of the union. The CSA did not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> States do not get to "consider" what laws
>>>>>>they will obey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That was not the issue. The South considered their laws
>>>>> should apply when Federal laws were different. Congress had
>>>>> no right to pass laws that conflicted with State laws.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) What laws? Congress passed no laws
>>>>limiting slavery before the South seceded.
>>>
>>> The election of 1860 had the issue of slavery as a major par
>>> of the campaign and the Republican Party had stated they
>>> would make slavery illegal.
>>
>>
>> Lincoln only won 39% of the vote, his
>>opinions were hardly the force of law.
>
> No President can pas laws. Only Congress can do that. The
> election of 1860 put enough people in power to pass laws
> against slavery. The new Congress and President wee sworn
> in on March 4, 1861.
>
> The Provisional CSA Constitution was signed prior to this.
>
Exactly. The South seceded without even
trying to negotiate with Lincoln or even the
sympathic Buchanan.
>>>>
>>>> 2) And even if they did the Supremecy
>>>>Clause required the states to obey them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The South disagreed. So the states involved left and formed
>>> their own country.
>>
>>
>> The Southern states didn't have a
>>problem with the Constitution when they
>>voted to ratify it in 1789.
>>
>>
> No one was trying to pass federal law that conflicted with
> state law.
The Supremacy Clause was in the
Constititon when the Southern states
ratifided it.
Indeed, the Confederate Constition
had SAME SUPREMACY CLAUSE.
"This Constitution, and the laws of the
Confederate States made in pursuance
thereof, and all treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the authority of the
Confederate States, shall be the supreme
law of the land; and the judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, anything in
the constitution or laws of any State to
the contrary notwithstanding."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-07 01:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <5lt92ldcebikgo7l8ho5eq1aumcogkrqh6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3488096 |
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 14:23:54 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<XnsB4635E6E51E93629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>news:0vh62l5v384knmarthj7p26ui03iteilus@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2026 13:17:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>> <XnsB46253274EBCD629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>
>>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>>>news:nn852ld6t5bg55as1m5ln18nm4m234msqt@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2026 01:47:27 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>> <XnsB461D251D1F1D629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>>>>>news:udn32llqvglvb0uvd9sprcc3vf8e6r2fo5@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:22:34 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>> <XnsB4605408C4795629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:uqnu1lp46ipntnuqgr6i3isgpi94kagbg8@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 31 May 2026 18:07:19 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>>> <XnsB45D845A9EBC0629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>news:27io1lpn25tp6d3cu2vqlf2843tl2sotil@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2026 02:08:28 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>>>>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>>>>> <XnsB45AD5F92E0A5629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In these examples there were no state laws to conflict with
>>>>>>>>>>>> federal law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The above just illustrate that the Confederacy was
>>>>>>>>>>>about defending slavery, they didn't care whit about
>>>>>>>>>>>"states rights"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just exactly how was the North going to end slavery?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As shown by the portion you snipped,
>>>>>>>>>at the time the South seceded the North
>>>>>>>>>wasn't TRYING to end slavery. In fact
>>>>>>>>>Lincoln offered to PRESERVE slavery in
>>>>>>>>>the states that already had it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that is true why was the CSA even formed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Confederates wanted to EXPAND slavery,
>>>>>>>Lincoln was opposed to that. And they
>>>>>>>seceded without even trying to negotiate
>>>>>>>the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expand it where?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From the Confederate Constitution:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"The Confederate States may acquire new territory;
>>>>>and Congress shall have power to legislate and
>>>>>provide governments for the inhabitants of all
>>>>>territory belonging to the Confederate States.
>>>>>In all such territory the institution of negro
>>>>>slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate
>>>>>States, shall be recognized and protected"
>>>>>Art IV, Sec 3, CSA Constitution
>>>>
>>>> The North at the time was advocating all new territory be
>>>> fee of slaves.
>>>
>>> But had pass no laws regarding that.
>>
>> They were expected so the South took preemptive action.
>>
>
>
>"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler.
>I would not even listen to anyone seriously
>that came and talked about such a thing."
>Dwight Eisenhower
You are deliberately being dense.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The CSA was simply stating their position on
>>>> the matter. You seem to have a problem in understanding
>>>> conditions before and after succession.
>>>
>>> The South started the over a demand
>>>to expand slavery. Not "states rights",
>>>not "Southern way of life", not "defense
>>>of property"
>>
>> The Southern States banded together to protect their
>> internal laws and to provide for an equal standing in
>> gaining new territory.
>>
>> The Southern States had been there since before the
>> revolution. They did not "start" at this point.
>>
>> They did at one point band together to form the CSA.
>
>
> They "banded together" to attack America.
>
> Why are you defending that?
I am discussing from the viewpoint of the people involved at
the time and not the viewpoint of today. You would have
been a union supporter while I would be able to understand
their viewpoint and be a CSA supporter.
From the viewpoint of today the war was unnecessary. The
entire purpose of slavery was to provide cheap labor and the
Industrial Revolution ws on the way. It is cheaper to have
machines work that either employees or slaves.
Slavery as an institution was doomed.
The fifty states today are stronger in every way as a result
of being part of a single polity than by being part of two
separate ones.
>>>>
>>>> The Confederate Constitution went into effect AFTER
>>>> succession, not before.
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you notice the CSA denial of
>>>popular sovereignty? New territories
>>>MUST have legal slavery even if the
>>>locals don't want it. So much for
>>>"states rights"
>>
>> It was expected the Union would pass laws making slavery
>> illegal in new states even if the new states wanted it.
>
>
> Was the Pearl Harbor attack justified
>because of what Japan "expected" the US to
>do?
From their viewpoint, yes. They failed for a number of
reasons including:
1. A failure to find the carriers at Pearl.
2. The third largest navy went to war with the two largest
navies. Hardly a plan for success.
Yamamoto was correct, as he almost always was.
AI Overview
The Six-Month Warning: In private communications before the
attack, Yamamoto accurately predicted that Japan could "run
wild" and secure victories for the first six to twelve
months, but that after that period, he had no expectation of
a successful outcome.
Deep Depression: Primary records show that while his staff
celebrated the tactical success of the attack, Yamamoto was
visibly despondent. He believed striking a "sleeping enemy"
before war was formally declared was a moral and strategic
blunder.
>
>>>>
>>>> AI Overview
>>>>
>>>> Historical Context and Documents Provisional Constitution:
>>>> Before the permanent constitution, delegates from the
>>>> seceding states adopted a Provisional Constitution on
>>>> February 8, 1861, in Montgomery, Alabama, to serve as a
>>>> temporary framework.Superseded: The permanent constitution
>>>> went into effect on February 22, 1862.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> State objections were not allowed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The CSA Constitution mandated legal slavery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>regardless of local opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That was the way the CSA system was constructed. It did not
>>>>>>>>>>>> exist when the states left the union. At that point it was
>>>>>>>>>>>> state power vs federal power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. The CSA was about slavery,
>>>>>>>>>>>not state's rights.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are saying the only thing the CSA was concerned about
>>>>>>>>>> was slavery?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A sampling of the Declaration of
>>>>>>>>>Secession documents:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly
>>>>>>>>>identified with the institution of slavery"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The issue ws slavery but it rested upon the law, which the
>>>>>>>> states felt should hold state law as paramount.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Supremecy Clause is in the Constitution.
>>>>>>>Which Southerners loved when it came to forcing
>>>>>>>states to return runaway slaves to their owners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was nothing in Northern law that said differently.
>>>>>> Stolen property was returned to the owner. Do you have a
>>>>>> problem with that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny how slaves were both property
>>>>>AND people ("3/5ths of a person") when
>>>>>it came to congressional representation.
>>>>
>>>> That was a legal fiction used to help ratify the
>>>> Constitution.
>>>>
>>>>>And when a slave fled to Canada or Mexico
>>>>>how did they suddenly become a person?
>>>>
>>>> The laws of the country governed. US law is not valid in
>>>> Canada or Mexico today just as their laws are not valid in
>>>> the US.
>>>
>>>
>>> The South claims property becomes a
>>>person according to locals laws. Just as
>>>pro-lifers claim a zygote is a person
>>>and not a person accurding to local laws.
>>
>> No, the South considered a slave as property from the time
>> he became subject to state law.
>>
>> Personhood was not an issue. Blacks were persons who were
>> slaves and had no legal protection or rights.
>
>
> People are not property, they are people.
People can be classified like anything else. The laws of
the time (if they recognized slaves as people) considered
them a class that was property.
Consider surfs in various countries such as Russia and
England as well as Chinese in the US in the late 1800's.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>Georgia: "For the last ten years we have
>>>>>>>>>had numerous and serious causes of complaint
>>>>>>>>>against our non-slave-holding confederate
>>>>>>>>>States with reference to the subject of
>>>>>>>>>African slavery."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>South Carolina: "an increasing hostility
>>>>>>>>>on the part of the non-slaveholding States
>>>>>>>>>to the institution of slavery."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Texas: "maintaining and protecting the
>>>>>>>>>institution known as negro slavery -- the
>>>>>>>>>servitude of the African to the white race."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-
>causes-
>>>>>>>>>seceding-states
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln offered to PRESERVE SLAVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buchanan offered to PRESERVE SLAVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who was trying to "end slavery"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Republican Party and their platform. Especially in any
>>>>>>>>>>>> new states.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Show us what the 1860 GOP platform
>>>>>>>>>>>says about slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Look it up yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There were no abolition bills
>>>>>>>>>>>>>in Congress at the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the new Congress had not been sworn in. Nor had
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. The Slavery States didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>want to even negotiate the issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There was nothing to negotiate. The South would not accept
>>>>>>>>>> all new states being slave free and the North would accept
>>>>>>>>>> nothing else.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where did "the Horth" say that at the
>>>>>>>>>time of secession?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secession occurred because the South expected what the North
>>>>>>>> eventually did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They seceded to expand slavery. Not
>>>>>>>because of any "state's rights".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expand where?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All new territories and states.
>>>>
>>>> They wanted slavery to be legal just as the Union wanted it
>>>> to be illegal. Remember we are talking about a country
>>>> separate from the US and who had it's own laws.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually "the North" had advocated
>>>popular sovereignty on the issue, as was
>>>the case with the Kansas Nebrska Act. But
>>>the South rejected even that.
>>
>> Are you saying they were required to accept it?
>
>
> Exactly. All Americans are required
>to obey lawfully enacted and Constitutional
>laws. The South applauded when John Brown
>was hanged for attacking federal property
>but then turned around attacked federal
>property themselves. Why should we honor
>that with statues?
You ignore the fact that the CSA did not consider themselves
bound by Union law any more then the Colonists considered
themselves bound by English law in 1776. They had formed a
separate country.
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To prevent living under the laws against slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit secession was about slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not "states rights".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, that's a start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The basic issue was whether or not a state could pass laws
>>>>>>>>>>>> that were in conflict with federal law and prevent federal
>>>>>>>>>>>> law from being enforced in the state. The particular issue
>>>>>>>>>>>> were laws involving slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did any states secede over the federal
>>>>>>>>>>>Slave Fugitive Acts? Many northern states
>>>>>>>>>>>hate them but didn't not attack the government
>>>>>>>>>>>over this submission to southern state demands.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The South felt those laws did not apply to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prisons are full of people who felt the
>>>>>>>>>law didn't apply to them. Is that a legal
>>>>>>>>>justification for violating it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Persons are not organized and recognized states.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't get to pick and choose what laws
>>>>>>>apply to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Southern States felt their laws should come first.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is unconstitutional per the
>>>>>Supremecy Clause.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why they left the Union and formed the CSA. Nothing
>>>> in the Constitution prevented this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the South was both for states
>>>rights (their own) and against state's
>>>rights (any new state voting against
>>>slavery).
>>
>> The South was for the enforcement of state laws and not
>> conflicting federal laws. Again you are talking about
>> Federal law (allowing the issue to be voted upon) and
>> existing state laws. The South wanted each new state to
>> make their own laws and not be bound by any Federal law.
>
>
> Wrong. The CSA Constitution itself
>(see above) nullified state laws that
>conflicted with their Constitution.
>Where is the respect for "state's rights"
>in that?
The US Articles of Confederation then the Constitution
nullified English laws that were considered unacceptable.
Such as the quartering of soldiers in private homes.
If it was to have the same laws why bother to create a new
country?
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did the individual states have the power to negate federal
>>>>>>>>>>>> law by passing conflicting state law? The Union said no.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Supremecy Clause of the Constituion said no.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The states said yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Secession is unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only by Court interpretation, made after the Civil War.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is nothing in the Constution
>>>>>>>>>that allows for secession.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing to prevent it either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for supporting what I said. In 1862 there was no
>>>>>>>>>> legal mechanism for leaving the union or to prevent states
>>>>>>>>>> from leaving the union. That was only decided on the
>>>>>>>>>> battlefield.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That battlefield being Ft Sumter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A part of South Carolina.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope. SoutH Carolina sold Ft Sumter
>>>>>to the US in the 1820's.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United
>>>>>States, all the right, title and claim of South
>>>>>Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the
>>>>>requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided,
>>>>>That all processes, civil and criminal issued under
>>>>>the authority of this State, or any officer thereof,
>>>>>shall and may be served and executed upon the same,
>>>>>and any person there being who may be implicated by
>>>>>law; and that the said land, site and structures
>>>>>enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability
>>>>>to pay any tax to this state. Also resolved: That the
>>>>>State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim
>>>>>there be, of any individuals under the authority of
>>>>>this State, to the land hereby ceded."
>>>>>https://tinyurl.com/y8v6g4kb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Confederacy attacked America,
>>>>>>>>>why should we "honor" that with statues?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is a modern viewpoint. At the time it was the Union
>>>>>>>> and the CSA. The Union considered the states as still part
>>>>>>>> of the union. The CSA did not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> States do not get to "consider" what laws
>>>>>>>they will obey.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was not the issue. The South considered their laws
>>>>>> should apply when Federal laws were different. Congress had
>>>>>> no right to pass laws that conflicted with State laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) What laws? Congress passed no laws
>>>>>limiting slavery before the South seceded.
>>>>
>>>> The election of 1860 had the issue of slavery as a major par
>>>> of the campaign and the Republican Party had stated they
>>>> would make slavery illegal.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lincoln only won 39% of the vote, his
>>>opinions were hardly the force of law.
>>
>> No President can pas laws. Only Congress can do that. The
>> election of 1860 put enough people in power to pass laws
>> against slavery. The new Congress and President wee sworn
>> in on March 4, 1861.
>>
>> The Provisional CSA Constitution was signed prior to this.
>>
>
> Exactly. The South seceded without even
>trying to negotiate with Lincoln or even the
>sympathic Buchanan.
The people at the time considered they had good reason to do
this. Just like the Colonists considered they had good
reason to end English rule and form a new country.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) And even if they did the Supremecy
>>>>>Clause required the states to obey them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The South disagreed. So the states involved left and formed
>>>> their own country.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Southern states didn't have a
>>>problem with the Constitution when they
>>>voted to ratify it in 1789.
>>>
>>>
>> No one was trying to pass federal law that conflicted with
>> state law.
>
>
> The Supremacy Clause was in the
>Constititon when the Southern states
>ratifided it.
Conditions had changed between 1789 and 1861 just as
conditions had changed between the time the English settled
the Colonies and 1776.
>
> Indeed, the Confederate Constition
>had SAME SUPREMACY CLAUSE.
>
>
>"This Constitution, and the laws of the
>Confederate States made in pursuance
>thereof, and all treaties made, or which
>shall be made, under the authority of the
>Confederate States, shall be the supreme
>law of the land; and the judges in every
>State shall be bound thereby, anything in
>the constitution or laws of any State to
>the contrary notwithstanding."
>
Different Constitution with a different set of federal laws.
--
Every person in the US is here either
legally or illegally. Those that are
here illegally should be afraid.
Be very afraid. It does not matter
how long you have been here. It does
not matter why you are here. It does not
matter what you have done legally while you
were here. It does not matter what any
relative may have done while you were here.
It only matters that you are here illegally.
It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer
but we will find you and we will deport you.
Be prepared.
Deport them all.
Due process:
Q. Are you here legally? If so, where is
the documentation to establish that?
All politicians are trained to lie
and make those lies sound like
the truth. They start with the biggest
lie of all: Politicians are public
servants.
National Socialist American Workers Party
(NSAWP) formally known as the Democrat Party
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I support:
A Constitional Amendment establishing
the Freedom of Choice.
The elimination of public expression,
display or support of religion or
religious positions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-08 13:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <XnsB46559130B099629555@185.151.15.190> |
| In reply to | #3488124 |
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:5lt92ldcebikgo7l8ho5eq1aumcogkrqh6@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 14:23:54 +0000, Mitchell Holman
> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <XnsB4635E6E51E93629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2026 02:08:28 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>>>>>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>>>>>> <XnsB45AD5F92E0A5629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In these examples there were no state laws to conflict with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> federal law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The above just illustrate that the Confederacy was
>>>>>>>>>>>>about defending slavery, they didn't care whit about
>>>>>>>>>>>>"states rights"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just exactly how was the North going to end slavery?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As shown by the portion you snipped,
>>>>>>>>>>at the time the South seceded the North
>>>>>>>>>>wasn't TRYING to end slavery. In fact
>>>>>>>>>>Lincoln offered to PRESERVE slavery in
>>>>>>>>>>the states that already had it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If that is true why was the CSA even formed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Confederates wanted to EXPAND slavery,
>>>>>>>>Lincoln was opposed to that. And they
>>>>>>>>seceded without even trying to negotiate
>>>>>>>>the issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Expand it where?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the Confederate Constitution:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The Confederate States may acquire new territory;
>>>>>>and Congress shall have power to legislate and
>>>>>>provide governments for the inhabitants of all
>>>>>>territory belonging to the Confederate States.
>>>>>>In all such territory the institution of negro
>>>>>>slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate
>>>>>>States, shall be recognized and protected"
>>>>>>Art IV, Sec 3, CSA Constitution
>>>>>
>>>>> The North at the time was advocating all new territory be
>>>>> fee of slaves.
>>>>
>>>> But had pass no laws regarding that.
>>>
>>> They were expected so the South took preemptive action.
>>>
>>
>>
>>"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler.
>>I would not even listen to anyone seriously
>>that came and talked about such a thing."
>>Dwight Eisenhower
>
> You are deliberately being dense.
Ike was right. Attacking a country
because of what they MIGHT do is war
crime by itself. Remember when America
did that to Iraq? How well did that
work out?
>>>>> The CSA was simply stating their position on
>>>>> the matter. You seem to have a problem in understanding
>>>>> conditions before and after succession.
>>>>
>>>> The South started the over a demand
>>>>to expand slavery. Not "states rights",
>>>>not "Southern way of life", not "defense
>>>>of property"
>>>
>>> The Southern States banded together to protect their
>>> internal laws and to provide for an equal standing in
>>> gaining new territory.
>>>
>>> The Southern States had been there since before the
>>> revolution. They did not "start" at this point.
>>>
>>> They did at one point band together to form the CSA.
>>
>>
>> They "banded together" to attack America.
>>
>> Why are you defending that?
>
> I am discussing from the viewpoint of the people involved at
> the time and not the viewpoint of today. You would have
> been a union supporter while I would be able to understand
> their viewpoint and be a CSA supporter.
>
> From the viewpoint of today the war was unnecessary. The
> entire purpose of slavery was to provide cheap labor and the
> Industrial Revolution ws on the way. It is cheaper to have
> machines work that either employees or slaves.
>
> Slavery as an institution was doomed.
The value of slaves was going UP when
the Confederates attacked, "Cotton is king",
Southern exports were booming and the planters
would make even MORE money from legal slavery.
>
> The fifty states today are stronger in every way as a result
> of being part of a single polity than by being part of two
> separate ones.
>
And that was Lincoln's position when
the South started the war. They were always
"states in rebellion" to him, he rightfully
denied their nationhood.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Confederate Constitution went into effect AFTER
>>>>> succession, not before.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did you notice the CSA denial of
>>>>popular sovereignty? New territories
>>>>MUST have legal slavery even if the
>>>>locals don't want it. So much for
>>>>"states rights"
>>>
>>> It was expected the Union would pass laws making slavery
>>> illegal in new states even if the new states wanted it.
>>
>>
>> Was the Pearl Harbor attack justified
>>because of what Japan "expected" the US to
>>do?
>
> From their viewpoint, yes.
Exactly. Why is a pre-empitive
attack on America a crime when Japan
does it but "understable" when the
South does it?
> They failed for a number of
> reasons including:
>
> 1. A failure to find the carriers at Pearl.
> 2. The third largest navy went to war with the two largest
> navies. Hardly a plan for success.
>
> Yamamoto was correct, as he almost always was.
>
> AI Overview
>
> The Six-Month Warning: In private communications before the
> attack, Yamamoto accurately predicted that Japan could "run
> wild" and secure victories for the first six to twelve
> months, but that after that period, he had no expectation of
> a successful outcome.
>
> Deep Depression: Primary records show that while his staff
> celebrated the tactical success of the attack, Yamamoto was
> visibly despondent. He believed striking a "sleeping enemy"
> before war was formally declared was a moral and strategic
> blunder.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> AI Overview
>>>>>
>>>>> Historical Context and Documents Provisional Constitution:
>>>>> Before the permanent constitution, delegates from the
>>>>> seceding states adopted a Provisional Constitution on
>>>>> February 8, 1861, in Montgomery, Alabama, to serve as a
>>>>> temporary framework.Superseded: The permanent constitution
>>>>> went into effect on February 22, 1862.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> State objections were not allowed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The CSA Constitution mandated legal slavery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>regardless of local opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was the way the CSA system was constructed. It did
not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist when the states left the union. At that point it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state power vs federal power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. The CSA was about slavery,
>>>>>>>>>>>>not state's rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are saying the only thing the CSA was concerned about
>>>>>>>>>>> was slavery?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A sampling of the Declaration of
>>>>>>>>>>Secession documents:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly
>>>>>>>>>>identified with the institution of slavery"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The issue ws slavery but it rested upon the law, which the
>>>>>>>>> states felt should hold state law as paramount.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Supremecy Clause is in the Constitution.
>>>>>>>>Which Southerners loved when it came to forcing
>>>>>>>>states to return runaway slaves to their owners.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was nothing in Northern law that said differently.
>>>>>>> Stolen property was returned to the owner. Do you have a
>>>>>>> problem with that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny how slaves were both property
>>>>>>AND people ("3/5ths of a person") when
>>>>>>it came to congressional representation.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was a legal fiction used to help ratify the
>>>>> Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>>>And when a slave fled to Canada or Mexico
>>>>>>how did they suddenly become a person?
>>>>>
>>>>> The laws of the country governed. US law is not valid in
>>>>> Canada or Mexico today just as their laws are not valid in
>>>>> the US.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The South claims property becomes a
>>>>person according to locals laws. Just as
>>>>pro-lifers claim a zygote is a person
>>>>and not a person accurding to local laws.
>>>
>>> No, the South considered a slave as property from the time
>>> he became subject to state law.
>>>
>>> Personhood was not an issue. Blacks were persons who were
>>> slaves and had no legal protection or rights.
>>
>>
>> People are not property, they are people.
>
> People can be classified like anything else. The laws of
> the time (if they recognized slaves as people) considered
> them a class that was property.
>
> Consider surfs in various countries such as Russia and
> England as well as Chinese in the US in the late 1800's.
Serfs were people, never slaves. They
could not be bought or sold, all had means
to escape serfdom.
>>>>>>>>>>Georgia: "For the last ten years we have
>>>>>>>>>>had numerous and serious causes of complaint
>>>>>>>>>>against our non-slave-holding confederate
>>>>>>>>>>States with reference to the subject of
>>>>>>>>>>African slavery."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>South Carolina: "an increasing hostility
>>>>>>>>>>on the part of the non-slaveholding States
>>>>>>>>>>to the institution of slavery."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Texas: "maintaining and protecting the
>>>>>>>>>>institution known as negro slavery -- the
>>>>>>>>>>servitude of the African to the white race."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-
>>causes-
>>>>>>>>>>seceding-states
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln offered to PRESERVE SLAVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buchanan offered to PRESERVE SLAVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who was trying to "end slavery"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Republican Party and their platform. Especially in any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new states.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Show us what the 1860 GOP platform
>>>>>>>>>>>>says about slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Look it up yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There were no abolition bills
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in Congress at the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the new Congress had not been sworn in. Nor had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. The Slavery States didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>want to even negotiate the issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There was nothing to negotiate. The South would not accept
>>>>>>>>>>> all new states being slave free and the North would accept
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where did "the Horth" say that at the
>>>>>>>>>>time of secession?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Secession occurred because the South expected what the North
>>>>>>>>> eventually did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They seceded to expand slavery. Not
>>>>>>>>because of any "state's rights".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Expand where?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All new territories and states.
>>>>>
>>>>> They wanted slavery to be legal just as the Union wanted it
>>>>> to be illegal. Remember we are talking about a country
>>>>> separate from the US and who had it's own laws.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually "the North" had advocated
>>>>popular sovereignty on the issue, as was
>>>>the case with the Kansas Nebrska Act. But
>>>>the South rejected even that.
>>>
>>> Are you saying they were required to accept it?
>>
>>
>> Exactly. All Americans are required
>>to obey lawfully enacted and Constitutional
>>laws. The South applauded when John Brown
>>was hanged for attacking federal property
>>but then turned around attacked federal
>>property themselves. Why should we honor
>>that with statues?
>
> You ignore the fact that the CSA did not consider themselves
> bound by Union law any more then the Colonists considered
> themselves bound by English law in 1776. They had formed a
> separate country.
The DACA children "consider themselves"
to be Americans, does that make it so?
Sharia law advocates "consider themselves"
to free from US laws, does that make it so?
Since when has US law been nullified by
what violators "consider themselves" to be?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To prevent living under the laws against slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit secession was about slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not "states rights".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, that's a start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The basic issue was whether or not a state could pass laws
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that were in conflict with federal law and prevent federal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> law from being enforced in the state. The particular issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were laws involving slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did any states secede over the federal
>>>>>>>>>>>>Slave Fugitive Acts? Many northern states
>>>>>>>>>>>>hate them but didn't not attack the government
>>>>>>>>>>>>over this submission to southern state demands.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The South felt those laws did not apply to them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prisons are full of people who felt the
>>>>>>>>>>law didn't apply to them. Is that a legal
>>>>>>>>>>justification for violating it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Persons are not organized and recognized states.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't get to pick and choose what laws
>>>>>>>>apply to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Southern States felt their laws should come first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is unconstitutional per the
>>>>>>Supremecy Clause.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is why they left the Union and formed the CSA. Nothing
>>>>> in the Constitution prevented this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the South was both for states
>>>>rights (their own) and against state's
>>>>rights (any new state voting against
>>>>slavery).
>>>
>>> The South was for the enforcement of state laws and not
>>> conflicting federal laws. Again you are talking about
>>> Federal law (allowing the issue to be voted upon) and
>>> existing state laws. The South wanted each new state to
>>> make their own laws and not be bound by any Federal law.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. The CSA Constitution itself
>>(see above) nullified state laws that
>>conflicted with their Constitution.
>>Where is the respect for "state's rights"
>>in that?
>
> The US Articles of Confederation then the Constitution
> nullified English laws that were considered unacceptable.
> Such as the quartering of soldiers in private homes.
>
> If it was to have the same laws why bother to create a new
> country?
Both the Confederate and US Constitutions
ordered states to obey national laws. The whole
argument of "state's rights" is a myth. Neither
country recognized them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did the individual states have the power to negate federal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> law by passing conflicting state law? The Union said no.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Supremecy Clause of the Constituion said no.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The states said yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Secession is unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Only by Court interpretation, made after the Civil War.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing in the Constution
>>>>>>>>>>that allows for secession.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is nothing to prevent it either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for supporting what I said. In 1862 there was no
>>>>>>>>>>> legal mechanism for leaving the union or to prevent states
>>>>>>>>>>> from leaving the union. That was only decided on the
>>>>>>>>>>> battlefield.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That battlefield being Ft Sumter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A part of South Carolina.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope. SoutH Carolina sold Ft Sumter
>>>>>>to the US in the 1820's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United
>>>>>>States, all the right, title and claim of South
>>>>>>Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the
>>>>>>requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided,
>>>>>>That all processes, civil and criminal issued under
>>>>>>the authority of this State, or any officer thereof,
>>>>>>shall and may be served and executed upon the same,
>>>>>>and any person there being who may be implicated by
>>>>>>law; and that the said land, site and structures
>>>>>>enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability
>>>>>>to pay any tax to this state. Also resolved: That the
>>>>>>State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim
>>>>>>there be, of any individuals under the authority of
>>>>>>this State, to the land hereby ceded."
>>>>>>https://tinyurl.com/y8v6g4kb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Confederacy attacked America,
>>>>>>>>>>why should we "honor" that with statues?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is a modern viewpoint. At the time it was the Union
>>>>>>>>> and the CSA. The Union considered the states as still part
>>>>>>>>> of the union. The CSA did not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> States do not get to "consider" what laws
>>>>>>>>they will obey.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was not the issue. The South considered their laws
>>>>>>> should apply when Federal laws were different. Congress had
>>>>>>> no right to pass laws that conflicted with State laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) What laws? Congress passed no laws
>>>>>>limiting slavery before the South seceded.
>>>>>
>>>>> The election of 1860 had the issue of slavery as a major par
>>>>> of the campaign and the Republican Party had stated they
>>>>> would make slavery illegal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lincoln only won 39% of the vote, his
>>>>opinions were hardly the force of law.
>>>
>>> No President can pas laws. Only Congress can do that. The
>>> election of 1860 put enough people in power to pass laws
>>> against slavery. The new Congress and President wee sworn
>>> in on March 4, 1861.
>>>
>>> The Provisional CSA Constitution was signed prior to this.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. The South seceded without even
>>trying to negotiate with Lincoln or even the
>>sympathic Buchanan.
>
> The people at the time considered they had good reason to do
> this. Just like the Colonists considered they had good
> reason to end English rule and form a new country.
What the South did was a rebellion,
not a political movement. Even the Founding
Fathers tried to negotiate with their
existing government. Look up "Olive Branch
Petition" sometime.
>>>>>> 2) And even if they did the Supremecy
>>>>>>Clause required the states to obey them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The South disagreed. So the states involved left and formed
>>>>> their own country.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Southern states didn't have a
>>>>problem with the Constitution when they
>>>>voted to ratify it in 1789.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No one was trying to pass federal law that conflicted with
>>> state law.
>>
>>
>> The Supremacy Clause was in the
>>Constititon when the Southern states
>>ratifided it.
>
> Conditions had changed between 1789 and 1861 just as
> conditions had changed between the time the English settled
> the Colonies and 1776.
What conditions changed? The South
understood the Supremecy Clause applied
to them, even as they created one just
like it in their own government.
>
>>
>> Indeed, the Confederate Constition
>>had SAME SUPREMACY CLAUSE.
>>
>>
>>"This Constitution, and the laws of the
>>Confederate States made in pursuance
>>thereof, and all treaties made, or which
>>shall be made, under the authority of the
>>Confederate States, shall be the supreme
>>law of the land; and the judges in every
>>State shall be bound thereby, anything in
>>the constitution or laws of any State to
>>the contrary notwithstanding."
>>
>
> Different Constitution with a different set of federal laws.
>
The Supremacy Clauses in the US and CSA
Constitutions are identical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 07:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <ootf2ldk1bq41dv8755j8e3t0ugvp51oq8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3488203 |
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 13:52:17 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <XnsB46559130B099629555@185.151.15.190> wrote: >> From the viewpoint of today the war was unnecessary. The >> entire purpose of slavery was to provide cheap labor and the >> Industrial Revolution ws on the way. It is cheaper to have >> machines work that either employees or slaves. >> >> Slavery as an institution was doomed. > > > The value of slaves was going UP when >the Confederates attacked, "Cotton is king", >Southern exports were booming and the planters >would make even MORE money from legal slavery. Slaves were too expensive for the average person to own one. They were mostly held by the large farms that raised enough crops to afford the upkeep cost. Not only the initial cost but food, shelter, and clothing as well as security. > > >> >> The fifty states today are stronger in every way as a result >> of being part of a single polity than by being part of two >> separate ones. >> > > And that was Lincoln's position when >the South started the war. They were always >"states in rebellion" to him, he rightfully >denied their nationhood. He had little to do with it. Congress enacted the laws and raised the army. There are strong parallels between the splitting off of the CSA and the formation of the United Colonies to end British rule in 1776. The Colonies won and the CSA lost. That was basically the major difference. >>>> >>>> It was expected the Union would pass laws making slavery >>>> illegal in new states even if the new states wanted it. >>> >>> >>> Was the Pearl Harbor attack justified >>>because of what Japan "expected" the US to >>>do? >> >> From their viewpoint, yes. > > > Exactly. Why is a pre-empitive >attack on America a crime when Japan >does it but "understable" when the >South does it? How about the pre-emptive attack in Lexington against the British troops? Why was Pearl Harbor a crime? How do you define a crime? > > > >> They failed for a number of >> reasons including: >> >> 1. A failure to find the carriers at Pearl. >> 2. The third largest navy went to war with the two largest >> navies. Hardly a plan for success. >> >> Yamamoto was correct, as he almost always was. >> >> AI Overview >> >> The Six-Month Warning: In private communications before the >> attack, Yamamoto accurately predicted that Japan could "run >> wild" and secure victories for the first six to twelve >> months, but that after that period, he had no expectation of >> a successful outcome. >> >> Deep Depression: Primary records show that while his staff >> celebrated the tactical success of the attack, Yamamoto was >> visibly despondent. He believed striking a "sleeping enemy" >> before war was formally declared was a moral and strategic >> blunder. >> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> AI Overview >>>>>> >>>>>> Historical Context and Documents Provisional Constitution: >>>>>> Before the permanent constitution, delegates from the >>>>>> seceding states adopted a Provisional Constitution on >>>>>> February 8, 1861, in Montgomery, Alabama, to serve as a >>>>>> temporary framework.Superseded: The permanent constitution >>>>>> went into effect on February 22, 1862. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> The South claims property becomes a >>>>>person according to locals laws. Just as >>>>>pro-lifers claim a zygote is a person >>>>>and not a person accurding to local laws. >>>> >>>> No, the South considered a slave as property from the time >>>> he became subject to state law. >>>> >>>> Personhood was not an issue. Blacks were persons who were >>>> slaves and had no legal protection or rights. >>> >>> >>> People are not property, they are people. >> >> People can be classified like anything else. The laws of >> the time (if they recognized slaves as people) considered >> them a class that was property. >> >> Consider surfs in various countries such as Russia and >> England as well as Chinese in the US in the late 1800's. > > > Serfs were people, never slaves. They >could not be bought or sold, all had means >to escape serfdom. Just how could they do that? They usually had to have permission of the local Lord in order to move or change professions and the local lord usually could order them killed. That lord was usually the local court and appointed judges or just rendered judgment himself. >>>>>>>>> They seceded to expand slavery. Not >>>>>>>>>because of any "state's rights". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Expand where? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All new territories and states. >>>>>> >>>>>> They wanted slavery to be legal just as the Union wanted it >>>>>> to be illegal. Remember we are talking about a country >>>>>> separate from the US and who had it's own laws. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Actually "the North" had advocated >>>>>popular sovereignty on the issue, as was >>>>>the case with the Kansas Nebrska Act. But >>>>>the South rejected even that. >>>> >>>> Are you saying they were required to accept it? >>> >>> >>> Exactly. All Americans are required >>>to obey lawfully enacted and Constitutional >>>laws. The South applauded when John Brown >>>was hanged for attacking federal property >>>but then turned around attacked federal >>>property themselves. Why should we honor >>>that with statues? >> >> You ignore the fact that the CSA did not consider themselves >> bound by Union law any more then the Colonists considered >> themselves bound by English law in 1776. They had formed a >> separate country. > > > The DACA children "consider themselves" >to be Americans, does that make it so? Not under American law. They can always try to form their own country if they don't like the law. Good luck with that. >Sharia law advocates "consider themselves" >to free from US laws, does that make it so? See above. > > Since when has US law been nullified by >what violators "consider themselves" to be? The same thing the Colonists were in 1776 when they rejected British law. >>>> >>>> The South was for the enforcement of state laws and not >>>> conflicting federal laws. Again you are talking about >>>> Federal law (allowing the issue to be voted upon) and >>>> existing state laws. The South wanted each new state to >>>> make their own laws and not be bound by any Federal law. >>> >>> >>> Wrong. The CSA Constitution itself >>>(see above) nullified state laws that >>>conflicted with their Constitution. >>>Where is the respect for "state's rights" >>>in that? >> >> The US Articles of Confederation then the Constitution >> nullified English laws that were considered unacceptable. >> Such as the quartering of soldiers in private homes. >> >> If it was to have the same laws why bother to create a new >> country? > > > Both the Confederate and US Constitutions >ordered states to obey national laws. The whole >argument of "state's rights" is a myth. Neither >country recognized them. The Confederate Constitution was for a group of states that were not a part of the US and did not consider themselves as bound by any US laws. Just as the Colonists considered themselves as not a part of England and were not bound by the laws of England. Why do you have such a problem understanding that? As far as the CSA was concerned the US was as much of a foreign country as Mexico, England, France or Germany. >>>>>>>>>>> The Confederacy attacked America, >>>>>>>>>>>why should we "honor" that with statues? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is a modern viewpoint. At the time it was the Union >>>>>>>>>> and the CSA. The Union considered the states as still part >>>>>>>>>> of the union. The CSA did not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> States do not get to "consider" what laws >>>>>>>>>they will obey. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That was not the issue. The South considered their laws >>>>>>>> should apply when Federal laws were different. Congress had >>>>>>>> no right to pass laws that conflicted with State laws. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) What laws? Congress passed no laws >>>>>>>limiting slavery before the South seceded. >>>>>> >>>>>> The election of 1860 had the issue of slavery as a major par >>>>>> of the campaign and the Republican Party had stated they >>>>>> would make slavery illegal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lincoln only won 39% of the vote, his >>>>>opinions were hardly the force of law. >>>> >>>> No President can pas laws. Only Congress can do that. The >>>> election of 1860 put enough people in power to pass laws >>>> against slavery. The new Congress and President wee sworn >>>> in on March 4, 1861. >>>> >>>> The Provisional CSA Constitution was signed prior to this. >>>> >>> >>> Exactly. The South seceded without even >>>trying to negotiate with Lincoln or even the >>>sympathic Buchanan. >> >> The people at the time considered they had good reason to do >> this. Just like the Colonists considered they had good >> reason to end English rule and form a new country. > > > What the South did was a rebellion, >not a political movement. Even the Founding >Fathers tried to negotiate with their >existing government. Look up "Olive Branch >Petition" sometime. You can't seem to understand that the states involved at the time considered the situation as they saw it and determined the best solution was to simply separate themselves from the US and form their own country. They passed this as a resolution in their state legislature, wrote their own Constitution, and signed it. They did not need any permission from anyone to do this and they did not need to state any reason although the issues were well known. Just as the Colonies made their own laws the CSA made their own laws. >>>>> >>>>> The Southern states didn't have a >>>>>problem with the Constitution when they >>>>>voted to ratify it in 1789. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> No one was trying to pass federal law that conflicted with >>>> state law. >>> >>> >>> The Supremacy Clause was in the >>>Constititon when the Southern states >>>ratifided it. >> >> Conditions had changed between 1789 and 1861 just as >> conditions had changed between the time the English settled >> the Colonies and 1776. > > > What conditions changed? The South >understood the Supremecy Clause applied >to them, even as they created one just >like it in their own government. In 1789 no one was trying to pass any Federal laws the states found to be unacceptable. > > >> >>> >>> Indeed, the Confederate Constition >>>had SAME SUPREMACY CLAUSE. >>> >>> >>>"This Constitution, and the laws of the >>>Confederate States made in pursuance >>>thereof, and all treaties made, or which >>>shall be made, under the authority of the >>>Confederate States, shall be the supreme >>>law of the land; and the judges in every >>>State shall be bound thereby, anything in >>>the constitution or laws of any State to >>>the contrary notwithstanding." >>> >> >> Different Constitution with a different set of federal laws. >> > > > The Supremacy Clauses in the US and CSA >Constitutions are identical. > You still don't get it. The US was bound by the laws passed by the US government. THE CSA was bound by the laws passed by the Confederate government. The CSA was no more required to obey US law than the US was required to obey CSA law. -- Every person in the US is here either legally or illegally. Those that are here illegally should be afraid. Be very afraid. It does not matter how long you have been here. It does not matter why you are here. It does not matter what you have done legally while you were here. It does not matter what any relative may have done while you were here. It only matters that you are here illegally. It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer but we will find you and we will deport you. Be prepared. Deport them all. Due process: Q. Are you here legally? If so, where is the documentation to establish that? All politicians are trained to lie and make those lies sound like the truth. They start with the biggest lie of all: Politicians are public servants. National Socialist American Workers Party (NSAWP) formally known as the Democrat Party Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying. I support: A Constitional Amendment establishing the Freedom of Choice. The elimination of public expression, display or support of religion or religious positions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-12 02:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <XnsB468DAFEA68C3629555@185.151.15.118> |
| In reply to | #3488271 |
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:ootf2ldk1bq41dv8755j8e3t0ugvp51oq8@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 13:52:17 +0000, Mitchell Holman
> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <XnsB46559130B099629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>
>>> From the viewpoint of today the war was unnecessary. The
>>> entire purpose of slavery was to provide cheap labor and the
>>> Industrial Revolution ws on the way. It is cheaper to have
>>> machines work that either employees or slaves.
>>>
>>> Slavery as an institution was doomed.
>>
>>
>> The value of slaves was going UP when
>>the Confederates attacked, "Cotton is king",
>>Southern exports were booming and the planters
>>would make even MORE money from legal slavery.
>
> Slaves were too expensive for the average person to own one.
> They were mostly held by the large farms that raised enough
> crops to afford the upkeep cost. Not only the initial cost
> but food, shelter, and clothing as well as security.
Exactly. Slaves were expensive,
giving them away (emancipation) was
out of the question. The secession
was about slavery.
>>> The fifty states today are stronger in every way as a result
>>> of being part of a single polity than by being part of two
>>> separate ones.
>>>
>>
>> And that was Lincoln's position when
>>the South started the war. They were always
>>"states in rebellion" to him, he rightfully
>>denied their nationhood.
>
> He had little to do with it. Congress enacted the laws and
> raised the army.
Congress enacted no laws prior to
secession or even the attack on Ft Sumter.
> There are strong parallels between the
> splitting off of the CSA and the formation of the United
> Colonies to end British rule in 1776. The Colonies won and
> the CSA lost. That was basically the major difference.
>
The Colonies tried to negotiate
prior to separation, the CSA did not.
>
>>>>>>>>>> They seceded to expand slavery. Not
>>>>>>>>>>because of any "state's rights".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Expand where?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All new territories and states.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They wanted slavery to be legal just as the Union wanted it
>>>>>>> to be illegal. Remember we are talking about a country
>>>>>>> separate from the US and who had it's own laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually "the North" had advocated
>>>>>>popular sovereignty on the issue, as was
>>>>>>the case with the Kansas Nebrska Act. But
>>>>>>the South rejected even that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying they were required to accept it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. All Americans are required
>>>>to obey lawfully enacted and Constitutional
>>>>laws. The South applauded when John Brown
>>>>was hanged for attacking federal property
>>>>but then turned around attacked federal
>>>>property themselves. Why should we honor
>>>>that with statues?
>>>
>>> You ignore the fact that the CSA did not consider themselves
>>> bound by Union law any more then the Colonists considered
>>> themselves bound by English law in 1776. They had formed a
>>> separate country.
>>
>>
>> The DACA children "consider themselves"
>>to be Americans, does that make it so?
>
> Not under American law. They can always try to form their
> own country if they don't like the law. Good luck with
> that.
"Consider themselve to be" is not an
excuse for DACAs but IS an excuse for
slaveowners?
>
>>
>> Since when has US law been nullified by
>>what violators "consider themselves" to be?
>
> The same thing the Colonists were in 1776 when they rejected
> British law.
The colonists had no representation
in British government, the South had SCADS
of representation in the US government.
And the Supreme Court, as the Dred Scott
ruling proves.
>>>>> The South was for the enforcement of state laws and not
>>>>> conflicting federal laws. Again you are talking about
>>>>> Federal law (allowing the issue to be voted upon) and
>>>>> existing state laws. The South wanted each new state to
>>>>> make their own laws and not be bound by any Federal law.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. The CSA Constitution itself
>>>>(see above) nullified state laws that
>>>>conflicted with their Constitution.
>>>>Where is the respect for "state's rights"
>>>>in that?
>>>
>>> The US Articles of Confederation then the Constitution
>>> nullified English laws that were considered unacceptable.
>>> Such as the quartering of soldiers in private homes.
>>>
>>> If it was to have the same laws why bother to create a new
>>> country?
>>
>>
>> Both the Confederate and US Constitutions
>>ordered states to obey national laws. The whole
>>argument of "state's rights" is a myth. Neither
>>country recognized them.
>
> The Confederate Constitution was for a group of states that
> were not a part of the US and did not consider themselves as
> bound by any US laws. Just as the Colonists considered
> themselves as not a part of England and were not bound by
> the laws of England.
>
> Why do you have such a problem understanding that?
>
There were no "State's rights" in either
Constititon.
> As far as the CSA was concerned the US was as much of a
> foreign country as Mexico, England, France or Germany.
If the CSA considered the US a foreign
country why did it demand the return of
slaves under the US Fugitive Slave act?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Confederacy attacked America,
>>>>>>>>>>>>why should we "honor" that with statues?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is a modern viewpoint. At the time it was the Union
>>>>>>>>>>> and the CSA. The Union considered the states as still part
>>>>>>>>>>> of the union. The CSA did not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> States do not get to "consider" what laws
>>>>>>>>>>they will obey.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That was not the issue. The South considered their laws
>>>>>>>>> should apply when Federal laws were different. Congress had
>>>>>>>>> no right to pass laws that conflicted with State laws.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) What laws? Congress passed no laws
>>>>>>>>limiting slavery before the South seceded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The election of 1860 had the issue of slavery as a major par
>>>>>>> of the campaign and the Republican Party had stated they
>>>>>>> would make slavery illegal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lincoln only won 39% of the vote, his
>>>>>>opinions were hardly the force of law.
>>>>>
>>>>> No President can pas laws. Only Congress can do that. The
>>>>> election of 1860 put enough people in power to pass laws
>>>>> against slavery. The new Congress and President wee sworn
>>>>> in on March 4, 1861.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Provisional CSA Constitution was signed prior to this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. The South seceded without even
>>>>trying to negotiate with Lincoln or even the
>>>>sympathic Buchanan.
>>>
>>> The people at the time considered they had good reason to do
>>> this. Just like the Colonists considered they had good
>>> reason to end English rule and form a new country.
>>
>>
>> What the South did was a rebellion,
>>not a political movement. Even the Founding
>>Fathers tried to negotiate with their
>>existing government. Look up "Olive Branch
>>Petition" sometime.
>
> You can't seem to understand that the states involved at the
> time considered the situation as they saw it and determined
> the best solution was to simply separate themselves from the
> US and form their own country. They passed this as a
> resolution in their state legislature, wrote their own
> Constitution, and signed it. They did not need any
> permission from anyone to do this and they did not need to
> state any reason although the issues were well known. Just
> as the Colonies made their own laws the CSA made their own
> laws.
The Colonies had not previously
signed a British Constitution, nor
had they any representation in the
British government. They were subjects,
the Southerners were US citizens with
control of the US legislature. Trying
to equate the two is silly.
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Southern states didn't have a
>>>>>>problem with the Constitution when they
>>>>>>voted to ratify it in 1789.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> No one was trying to pass federal law that conflicted with
>>>>> state law.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Supremacy Clause was in the
>>>>Constititon when the Southern states
>>>>ratifided it.
>>>
>>> Conditions had changed between 1789 and 1861 just as
>>> conditions had changed between the time the English settled
>>> the Colonies and 1776.
>>
>>
>> What conditions changed? The South
>>understood the Supremecy Clause applied
>>to them, even as they created one just
>>like it in their own government.
>
> In 1789 no one was trying to pass any Federal laws the
> states found to be unacceptable.
All states ratifying the US
Constitution found the terms to
be acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, the Confederate Constition
>>>>had SAME SUPREMACY CLAUSE.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"This Constitution, and the laws of the
>>>>Confederate States made in pursuance
>>>>thereof, and all treaties made, or which
>>>>shall be made, under the authority of the
>>>>Confederate States, shall be the supreme
>>>>law of the land; and the judges in every
>>>>State shall be bound thereby, anything in
>>>>the constitution or laws of any State to
>>>>the contrary notwithstanding."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Different Constitution with a different set of federal laws.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The Supremacy Clauses in the US and CSA
>>Constitutions are identical.
>>
>
> You still don't get it.
>
> The US was bound by the laws passed by the US government.
> THE CSA was bound by the laws passed by the Confederate
> government.
>
The Southern states signed the US
Constitution and agreed to be bound by it.
> The CSA was no more required to obey US law than the US was
> required to obey CSA law.
There was no legal CSA law. Their
declarations were always a nullity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-12 06:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <7ikn2lhlldoj7a4tinplnrilsr8fab5db7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3488478 |
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:39:09 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <XnsB468DAFEA68C3629555@185.151.15.118> wrote: >Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in >news:ootf2ldk1bq41dv8755j8e3t0ugvp51oq8@4ax.com: > >> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 13:52:17 +0000, Mitchell Holman >> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <XnsB46559130B099629555@185.151.15.190> wrote: >> >>>> From the viewpoint of today the war was unnecessary. The >>>> entire purpose of slavery was to provide cheap labor and the >>>> Industrial Revolution ws on the way. It is cheaper to have >>>> machines work that either employees or slaves. >>>> >>>> Slavery as an institution was doomed. >>> >>> >>> The value of slaves was going UP when >>>the Confederates attacked, "Cotton is king", >>>Southern exports were booming and the planters >>>would make even MORE money from legal slavery. >> >> Slaves were too expensive for the average person to own one. >> They were mostly held by the large farms that raised enough >> crops to afford the upkeep cost. Not only the initial cost >> but food, shelter, and clothing as well as security. > > > Exactly. Slaves were expensive, >giving them away (emancipation) was >out of the question. The secession >was about slavery. The specific cause was slavery but the legal issue was whether or not a federal law could negate a state law. Did the Federal Government have the legal power to tell the states what they could or could not do. > > >>>> The fifty states today are stronger in every way as a result >>>> of being part of a single polity than by being part of two >>>> separate ones. >>>> >>> >>> And that was Lincoln's position when >>>the South started the war. They were always >>>"states in rebellion" to him, he rightfully >>>denied their nationhood. >> >> He had little to do with it. Congress enacted the laws and >> raised the army. > > > Congress enacted no laws prior to >secession or even the attack on Ft Sumter. The CSA was formed in the expectation that such laws would be passed. > > >> There are strong parallels between the >> splitting off of the CSA and the formation of the United >> Colonies to end British rule in 1776. The Colonies won and >> the CSA lost. That was basically the major difference. >> > > The Colonies tried to negotiate >prior to separation, the CSA did not. The negotiation was the election of 1860. >> >>>>>>>>>>> They seceded to expand slavery. Not >>>>>>>>>>>because of any "state's rights". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Expand where? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All new territories and states. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They wanted slavery to be legal just as the Union wanted it >>>>>>>> to be illegal. Remember we are talking about a country >>>>>>>> separate from the US and who had it's own laws. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually "the North" had advocated >>>>>>>popular sovereignty on the issue, as was >>>>>>>the case with the Kansas Nebrska Act. But >>>>>>>the South rejected even that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you saying they were required to accept it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Exactly. All Americans are required >>>>>to obey lawfully enacted and Constitutional >>>>>laws. The South applauded when John Brown >>>>>was hanged for attacking federal property >>>>>but then turned around attacked federal >>>>>property themselves. Why should we honor >>>>>that with statues? >>>> >>>> You ignore the fact that the CSA did not consider themselves >>>> bound by Union law any more then the Colonists considered >>>> themselves bound by English law in 1776. They had formed a >>>> separate country. >>> >>> >>> The DACA children "consider themselves" >>>to be Americans, does that make it so? >> >> Not under American law. They can always try to form their >> own country if they don't like the law. Good luck with >> that. > > > "Consider themselve to be" is not an >excuse for DACAs but IS an excuse for >slaveowners? They formed their own country so they could have their own laws. DACA is free to try the same thing. >>> >>> Since when has US law been nullified by >>>what violators "consider themselves" to be? >> >> The same thing the Colonists were in 1776 when they rejected >> British law. > > > The colonists had no representation >in British government, the South had SCADS >of representation in the US government. >And the Supreme Court, as the Dred Scott >ruling proves. All irrelevant. The CSA felt their only option was to form their own separate government apart from the US. > >>>>>> The South was for the enforcement of state laws and not >>>>>> conflicting federal laws. Again you are talking about >>>>>> Federal law (allowing the issue to be voted upon) and >>>>>> existing state laws. The South wanted each new state to >>>>>> make their own laws and not be bound by any Federal law. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. The CSA Constitution itself >>>>>(see above) nullified state laws that >>>>>conflicted with their Constitution. >>>>>Where is the respect for "state's rights" >>>>>in that? >>>> >>>> The US Articles of Confederation then the Constitution >>>> nullified English laws that were considered unacceptable. >>>> Such as the quartering of soldiers in private homes. >>>> >>>> If it was to have the same laws why bother to create a new >>>> country? >>> >>> >>> Both the Confederate and US Constitutions >>>ordered states to obey national laws. The whole >>>argument of "state's rights" is a myth. Neither >>>country recognized them. >> >> The Confederate Constitution was for a group of states that >> were not a part of the US and did not consider themselves as >> bound by any US laws. Just as the Colonists considered >> themselves as not a part of England and were not bound by >> the laws of England. >> >> Why do you have such a problem understanding that? >> > > There were no "State's rights" in either >Constititon. The US was not involved in forming the CSA Constitution any more than the British government was involved in writing either the DoI or the Constitution. Any similarity is purely coincidental. > > >> As far as the CSA was concerned the US was as much of a >> foreign country as Mexico, England, France or Germany. > > > If the CSA considered the US a foreign >country why did it demand the return of >slaves under the US Fugitive Slave act? Because it's internal laws had been violated. The same reason the US would pressure a foreign country to return someone who is wanted and is in that foreign country. Today if someone owned a cow that crossed into Mexico would the owner not request the return of his property? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Confederacy attacked America, >>>>>>>>>>>>>why should we "honor" that with statues? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is a modern viewpoint. At the time it was the Union >>>>>>>>>>>> and the CSA. The Union considered the states as still part >>>>>>>>>>>> of the union. The CSA did not. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> States do not get to "consider" what laws >>>>>>>>>>>they will obey. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That was not the issue. The South considered their laws >>>>>>>>>> should apply when Federal laws were different. Congress had >>>>>>>>>> no right to pass laws that conflicted with State laws. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) What laws? Congress passed no laws >>>>>>>>>limiting slavery before the South seceded. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The election of 1860 had the issue of slavery as a major par >>>>>>>> of the campaign and the Republican Party had stated they >>>>>>>> would make slavery illegal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lincoln only won 39% of the vote, his >>>>>>>opinions were hardly the force of law. >>>>>> >>>>>> No President can pas laws. Only Congress can do that. The >>>>>> election of 1860 put enough people in power to pass laws >>>>>> against slavery. The new Congress and President wee sworn >>>>>> in on March 4, 1861. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Provisional CSA Constitution was signed prior to this. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Exactly. The South seceded without even >>>>>trying to negotiate with Lincoln or even the >>>>>sympathic Buchanan. >>>> >>>> The people at the time considered they had good reason to do >>>> this. Just like the Colonists considered they had good >>>> reason to end English rule and form a new country. >>> >>> >>> What the South did was a rebellion, >>>not a political movement. Even the Founding >>>Fathers tried to negotiate with their >>>existing government. Look up "Olive Branch >>>Petition" sometime. >> >> You can't seem to understand that the states involved at the >> time considered the situation as they saw it and determined >> the best solution was to simply separate themselves from the >> US and form their own country. They passed this as a >> resolution in their state legislature, wrote their own >> Constitution, and signed it. They did not need any >> permission from anyone to do this and they did not need to >> state any reason although the issues were well known. Just >> as the Colonies made their own laws the CSA made their own >> laws. > > > The Colonies had not previously >signed a British Constitution, nor >had they any representation in the >British government. They were subjects, >the Southerners were US citizens with >control of the US legislature. Trying >to equate the two is silly. The Colonists were subject to the British Crown under the laws in effect at the time. Colonists were not represented in the British government but were subjects of the home country. The US and the CSA had different types of governments that involved representation. >> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Southern states didn't have a >>>>>>>problem with the Constitution when they >>>>>>>voted to ratify it in 1789. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> No one was trying to pass federal law that conflicted with >>>>>> state law. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Supremacy Clause was in the >>>>>Constititon when the Southern states >>>>>ratifided it. >>>> >>>> Conditions had changed between 1789 and 1861 just as >>>> conditions had changed between the time the English settled >>>> the Colonies and 1776. >>> >>> >>> What conditions changed? The South >>>understood the Supremecy Clause applied >>>to them, even as they created one just >>>like it in their own government. >> >> In 1789 no one was trying to pass any Federal laws the >> states found to be unacceptable. > > > All states ratifying the US >Constitution found the terms to >be acceptable. In 1789. But not in 1861. Just as the Colonists for hundreds of years found the British government acceptable. Until they didn't. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, the Confederate Constition >>>>>had SAME SUPREMACY CLAUSE. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>"This Constitution, and the laws of the >>>>>Confederate States made in pursuance >>>>>thereof, and all treaties made, or which >>>>>shall be made, under the authority of the >>>>>Confederate States, shall be the supreme >>>>>law of the land; and the judges in every >>>>>State shall be bound thereby, anything in >>>>>the constitution or laws of any State to >>>>>the contrary notwithstanding." >>>>> >>>> >>>> Different Constitution with a different set of federal laws. >>>> >>> >>> >>> The Supremacy Clauses in the US and CSA >>>Constitutions are identical. >>> >> >> You still don't get it. >> >> The US was bound by the laws passed by the US government. >> THE CSA was bound by the laws passed by the Confederate >> government. >> > > The Southern states signed the US >Constitution and agreed to be bound by it. In 1789. They felt conditions had changed and formed their own country with their own laws. > > >> The CSA was no more required to obey US law than the US was >> required to obey CSA law. > > > There was no legal CSA law. Their >declarations were always a nullity. > They were legal in the CSA just as US laws are legal in the US and Mexican laws are legal in Mexico. You can't seem to understand the Confederate States of America was an accomplished fact and had their own set of laws. No US law applied in any way any more than any British law applied in the US after the Articles of Confederacy. The Revolutionary War was won by the Colonies therefore the government they established survived and continued. The Civil War ws lost by the CSA therefore the government the CSA established was dissolved and the states returned to the US under conditions established and controlled by the US. -- Every person in the US is here either legally or illegally. Those that are here illegally should be afraid. Be very afraid. It does not matter how long you have been here. It does not matter why you are here. It does not matter what you have done legally while you were here. It does not matter what any relative may have done while you were here. It only matters that you are here illegally. It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer but we will find you and we will deport you. Be prepared. Deport them all. Due process: Q. Are you here legally? If so, where is the documentation to establish that? All politicians are trained to lie and make those lies sound like the truth. They start with the biggest lie of all: Politicians are public servants. National Socialist American Workers Party (NSAWP) formally known as the Democrat Party Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying. I support: A Constitional Amendment establishing the Freedom of Choice. The elimination of public expression, display or support of religion or religious positions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 14:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <XnsB46B5DBAAF325629555@185.151.15.109> |
| In reply to | #3488504 |
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:7ikn2lhlldoj7a4tinplnrilsr8fab5db7@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:39:09 +0000, Mitchell Holman
> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <XnsB468DAFEA68C3629555@185.151.15.118> wrote:
>
>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>>news:ootf2ldk1bq41dv8755j8e3t0ugvp51oq8@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 13:52:17 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <XnsB46559130B099629555@185.151.15.190> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> From the viewpoint of today the war was unnecessary. The
>>>>> entire purpose of slavery was to provide cheap labor and the
>>>>> Industrial Revolution ws on the way. It is cheaper to have
>>>>> machines work that either employees or slaves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Slavery as an institution was doomed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The value of slaves was going UP when
>>>>the Confederates attacked, "Cotton is king",
>>>>Southern exports were booming and the planters
>>>>would make even MORE money from legal slavery.
>>>
>>> Slaves were too expensive for the average person to own one.
>>> They were mostly held by the large farms that raised enough
>>> crops to afford the upkeep cost. Not only the initial cost
>>> but food, shelter, and clothing as well as security.
>>
>>
>> Exactly. Slaves were expensive,
>>giving them away (emancipation) was
>>out of the question. The secession
>>was about slavery.
>
> The specific cause was slavery but the legal issue was
> whether or not a federal law could negate a state law. Did
> the Federal Government have the legal power to tell the
> states what they could or could not do.
The federal government did NOTHING
about slavery at time of secession. In
fact it legitimized slavery by enacting
the Fugitive Slave Law Southerners
demanded. And Lincoln told the South
they could KEEP slavery. How is that an
interference?
>>>>> The fifty states today are stronger in every way as a result
>>>>> of being part of a single polity than by being part of two
>>>>> separate ones.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that was Lincoln's position when
>>>>the South started the war. They were always
>>>>"states in rebellion" to him, he rightfully
>>>>denied their nationhood.
>>>
>>> He had little to do with it. Congress enacted the laws and
>>> raised the army.
>>
>>
>> Congress enacted no laws prior to
>>secession or even the attack on Ft Sumter.
>
> The CSA was formed in the expectation that such laws would
> be passed.
The attacks on Ft Sumter and Pearl
Harbor were both justified as "expectation".
Were they correct?
>>> There are strong parallels between the
>>> splitting off of the CSA and the formation of the United
>>> Colonies to end British rule in 1776. The Colonies won and
>>> the CSA lost. That was basically the major difference.
>>>
>>
>> The Colonies tried to negotiate
>>prior to separation, the CSA did not.
>
> The negotiation was the election of 1860.
The election where the South would
not even allow Lincoln to be on the ballot.
Where was the negotiation in that?
>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They seceded to expand slavery. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>>because of any "state's rights".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Expand where?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All new territories and states.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They wanted slavery to be legal just as the Union wanted it
>>>>>>>>> to be illegal. Remember we are talking about a country
>>>>>>>>> separate from the US and who had it's own laws.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually "the North" had advocated
>>>>>>>>popular sovereignty on the issue, as was
>>>>>>>>the case with the Kansas Nebrska Act. But
>>>>>>>>the South rejected even that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you saying they were required to accept it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly. All Americans are required
>>>>>>to obey lawfully enacted and Constitutional
>>>>>>laws. The South applauded when John Brown
>>>>>>was hanged for attacking federal property
>>>>>>but then turned around attacked federal
>>>>>>property themselves. Why should we honor
>>>>>>that with statues?
>>>>>
>>>>> You ignore the fact that the CSA did not consider themselves
>>>>> bound by Union law any more then the Colonists considered
>>>>> themselves bound by English law in 1776. They had formed a
>>>>> separate country.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The DACA children "consider themselves"
>>>>to be Americans, does that make it so?
>>>
>>> Not under American law. They can always try to form their
>>> own country if they don't like the law. Good luck with
>>> that.
>>
>>
>> "Consider themselve to be" is not an
>>excuse for DACAs but IS an excuse for
>>slaveowners?
>
> They formed their own country so they could have their own
> laws.
And then they attacked America.
Why should that be honored with statues?
>
> DACA is free to try the same thing.
>
>>>>
>>>> Since when has US law been nullified by
>>>>what violators "consider themselves" to be?
>>>
>>> The same thing the Colonists were in 1776 when they rejected
>>> British law.
>>
>>
>> The colonists had no representation
>>in British government, the South had SCADS
>>of representation in the US government.
>>And the Supreme Court, as the Dred Scott
>>ruling proves.
>
> All irrelevant. The CSA felt their only option was to form
> their own separate government apart from the US.
>
Their "only option" when they didn't
even try to negotiate with the government?
"We lost the election, we are leaving and
declaring war on you" is hardly an option.
>>
>>>>>>> The South was for the enforcement of state laws and not
>>>>>>> conflicting federal laws. Again you are talking about
>>>>>>> Federal law (allowing the issue to be voted upon) and
>>>>>>> existing state laws. The South wanted each new state to
>>>>>>> make their own laws and not be bound by any Federal law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. The CSA Constitution itself
>>>>>>(see above) nullified state laws that
>>>>>>conflicted with their Constitution.
>>>>>>Where is the respect for "state's rights"
>>>>>>in that?
>>>>>
>>>>> The US Articles of Confederation then the Constitution
>>>>> nullified English laws that were considered unacceptable.
>>>>> Such as the quartering of soldiers in private homes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it was to have the same laws why bother to create a new
>>>>> country?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Both the Confederate and US Constitutions
>>>>ordered states to obey national laws. The whole
>>>>argument of "state's rights" is a myth. Neither
>>>>country recognized them.
>>>
>>> The Confederate Constitution was for a group of states that
>>> were not a part of the US and did not consider themselves as
>>> bound by any US laws. Just as the Colonists considered
>>> themselves as not a part of England and were not bound by
>>> the laws of England.
>>>
>>> Why do you have such a problem understanding that?
>>>
>>
>> There were no "State's rights" in either
>>Constititon.
>
> The US was not involved in forming the CSA Constitution any
> more than the British government was involved in writing
> either the DoI or the Constitution. Any similarity is
> purely coincidental.
>
The CSA constitution had even more
nandates on the states than the US one.
And they followed it up with even MORE
mandates, like a military draft and an
income tax.
"Jefferson Davis antagonized many with his increased
willingness over time to jettison states’ rights in
favor of more centralized power. Like Lincoln, he
used the war as justification to suspend, on several
occasions, basic liberties such as habeas corpus. To
maximize the Confederacy’s mobilization of manpower,
he pushed a conscription bill through the Confederate
Congress in 1862. In addition, Davis imposed taxes and
regulations designed to manage the economy and support
the war effort, confiscated private property, and
imposed martial law."
https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/davis-jefferson-1808-1889/
>
>>
>>
>>> As far as the CSA was concerned the US was as much of a
>>> foreign country as Mexico, England, France or Germany.
>>
>>
>> If the CSA considered the US a foreign
>>country why did it demand the return of
>>slaves under the US Fugitive Slave act?
>
> Because it's internal laws had been violated.
What internal laws were violated?
They demand the return of slaves from
all states and all states complied.
> The same
> reason the US would pressure a foreign country to return
> someone who is wanted and is in that foreign country.
>
> Today if someone owned a cow that crossed into Mexico would
> the owner not request the return of his property?
>
How is giving Southern states what
they wanted "interference"?
>>> You can't seem to understand that the states involved at the
>>> time considered the situation as they saw it and determined
>>> the best solution was to simply separate themselves from the
>>> US and form their own country. They passed this as a
>>> resolution in their state legislature, wrote their own
>>> Constitution, and signed it. They did not need any
>>> permission from anyone to do this and they did not need to
>>> state any reason although the issues were well known. Just
>>> as the Colonies made their own laws the CSA made their own
>>> laws.
>>
>>
>> The Colonies had not previously
>>signed a British Constitution, nor
>>had they any representation in the
>>British government. They were subjects,
>>the Southerners were US citizens with
>>control of the US legislature. Trying
>>to equate the two is silly.
>
> The Colonists were subject to the British Crown under the
> laws in effect at the time. Colonists were not represented
> in the British government but were subjects of the home
> country.
Exactly. The Colonists were forced to
be subjects of Britian, the South AGREED to
be citizens of the US.
>
> The US and the CSA had different types of governments that
> involved representation.
Read the CSA Constition, is almost
an exact copy of the US one.
>>>>>>>> The Southern states didn't have a
>>>>>>>>problem with the Constitution when they
>>>>>>>>voted to ratify it in 1789.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one was trying to pass federal law that conflicted with
>>>>>>> state law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Supremacy Clause was in the
>>>>>>Constititon when the Southern states
>>>>>>ratifided it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conditions had changed between 1789 and 1861 just as
>>>>> conditions had changed between the time the English settled
>>>>> the Colonies and 1776.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What conditions changed? The South
>>>>understood the Supremecy Clause applied
>>>>to them, even as they created one just
>>>>like it in their own government.
>>>
>>> In 1789 no one was trying to pass any Federal laws the
>>> states found to be unacceptable.
>>
>>
>> All states ratifying the US
>>Constitution found the terms to
>>be acceptable.
>
> In 1789. But not in 1861. Just as the Colonists for
> hundreds of years found the British government acceptable.
> Until they didn't.
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, the Confederate Constition
>>>>>>had SAME SUPREMACY CLAUSE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"This Constitution, and the laws of the
>>>>>>Confederate States made in pursuance
>>>>>>thereof, and all treaties made, or which
>>>>>>shall be made, under the authority of the
>>>>>>Confederate States, shall be the supreme
>>>>>>law of the land; and the judges in every
>>>>>>State shall be bound thereby, anything in
>>>>>>the constitution or laws of any State to
>>>>>>the contrary notwithstanding."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Different Constitution with a different set of federal laws.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Supremacy Clauses in the US and CSA
>>>>Constitutions are identical.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You still don't get it.
>>>
>>> The US was bound by the laws passed by the US government.
>>> THE CSA was bound by the laws passed by the Confederate
>>> government.
>>>
>>
>> The Southern states signed the US
>>Constitution and agreed to be bound by it.
>
> In 1789. They felt conditions had changed and formed their
> own country with their own laws.
>
What conditions changed? Because they
lost an election?
>>
>>> The CSA was no more required to obey US law than the US was
>>> required to obey CSA law.
>>
>>
>> There was no legal CSA law. Their
>>declarations were always a nullity.
>>
>
> They were legal in the CSA just as US laws are legal in the
> US and Mexican laws are legal in Mexico.
The CSA didn't even obey it's own laws,
witness the use of martial law and confication
of private property and denial of due process.
It had no international recognition and no
legitimacy. Claiming you are sovereign entity
doesn't work for criminal defendants and it
didn't work for the Confederacy.
>
> You can't seem to understand the Confederate States of
> America was an accomplished fact and had their own set of
> laws. No US law applied in any way any more than any
> British law applied in the US after the Articles of
> Confederacy.
>
> The Revolutionary War was won by the Colonies therefore the
> government they established survived and continued.
>
> The Civil War ws lost by the CSA therefore the government
> the CSA established was dissolved and the states returned to
> the US under conditions established and controlled by the
> US.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 15:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <vg1u2ld8mvj992tiu3jl14n2n2k4kli5lb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3488657 |
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 14:20:26 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <XnsB46B5DBAAF325629555@185.151.15.109> wrote: >> The specific cause was slavery but the legal issue was >> whether or not a federal law could negate a state law. Did >> the Federal Government have the legal power to tell the >> states what they could or could not do. > > > The federal government did NOTHING >about slavery at time of secession. In >fact it legitimized slavery by enacting >the Fugitive Slave Law Southerners >demanded. And Lincoln told the South >they could KEEP slavery. How is that an >interference? You still don't understand. It wasn't so much about what the union did as what the South expected them to do based upon the public discussions of slavery and the positions of many politicians that were elected in 1860. The CSA was formed as a preventive measure to insure the individual states could preserve their existing economic and social structure. -- Every person in the US is here either legally or illegally. Those that are here illegally should be afraid. Be very afraid. It does not matter how long you have been here. It does not matter why you are here. It does not matter what you have done legally while you were here. It does not matter what any relative may have done while you were here. It only matters that you are here illegally. It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer but we will find you and we will deport you. Be prepared. Deport them all. Due process: Q. Are you here legally? If so, where is the documentation to establish that? All politicians are trained to lie and make those lies sound like the truth. They start with the biggest lie of all: Politicians are public servants. National Socialist American Workers Party (NSAWP) formally known as the Democrat Party Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying. I support: A Constitional Amendment establishing the Freedom of Choice. The elimination of public expression, display or support of religion or religious positions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-17 14:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <XnsB46E5A581A8AD629555@185.151.15.109> |
| In reply to | #3488676 |
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in news:vg1u2ld8mvj992tiu3jl14n2n2k4kli5lb@4ax.com: > On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 14:20:26 +0000, Mitchell Holman > <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <XnsB46B5DBAAF325629555@185.151.15.109> wrote: > >>> The specific cause was slavery but the legal issue was >>> whether or not a federal law could negate a state law. Did >>> the Federal Government have the legal power to tell the >>> states what they could or could not do. >> >> >> The federal government did NOTHING >>about slavery at time of secession. In >>fact it legitimized slavery by enacting >>the Fugitive Slave Law Southerners >>demanded. And Lincoln told the South >>they could KEEP slavery. How is that an >>interference? > > You still don't understand. It wasn't so much about what > the union did as what the South expected them to do based > upon the public discussions of slavery and the positions of > many politicians that were elected in 1860. The CSA was > formed as a preventive measure to insure the individual > states could preserve their existing economic and social > structure. > In the deleted portions of this thread we established: That the secession was about slavery. That the CSA had even less "states rights" than the US. That Lincoln offered the South a chance to KEEP their slavery. That the CSA states seceded in order to expand slavery to new territories and states. That the seceding states made no effort to negotiate with either the Buchanan or Lincoln administrations. That the North had enacted no laws limiting slavery at the time of secession. That the war started when the CSA attacked America. That attacking America over "expectations" (Pearl Harbor, Ft Sumter) is never justified. That troops attacking America and killing Americans should not be honored with statues. That even Robert E Lee opposed the building of statues to himself and other Confederates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-17 10:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <p5b53lhfhvv0kbgbvd2o7uk25kh7k6hdgv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3488894 |
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 14:00:26 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <XnsB46E5A581A8AD629555@185.151.15.109> wrote: >Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in >news:vg1u2ld8mvj992tiu3jl14n2n2k4kli5lb@4ax.com: > >> On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 14:20:26 +0000, Mitchell Holman >> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <XnsB46B5DBAAF325629555@185.151.15.109> wrote: >> >>>> The specific cause was slavery but the legal issue was >>>> whether or not a federal law could negate a state law. Did >>>> the Federal Government have the legal power to tell the >>>> states what they could or could not do. >>> >>> >>> The federal government did NOTHING >>>about slavery at time of secession. In >>>fact it legitimized slavery by enacting >>>the Fugitive Slave Law Southerners >>>demanded. And Lincoln told the South >>>they could KEEP slavery. How is that an >>>interference? >> >> You still don't understand. It wasn't so much about what >> the union did as what the South expected them to do based >> upon the public discussions of slavery and the positions of >> many politicians that were elected in 1860. The CSA was >> formed as a preventive measure to insure the individual >> states could preserve their existing economic and social >> structure. >> > > >In the deleted portions of this thread we established: > > >That the secession was about slavery. So you say. I said the basic issue was stats rights and the particular issue in contention was slavery. > >That the CSA had even less "states rights" than the US. Irrelevant. The CSA formed their own country the way they wanted it. Don't forget the Articles of Confederation came before the Constitution. > >That Lincoln offered the South a chance >to KEEP their slavery. He did not have the power to do this. Congress passes laws. > >That the CSA states seceded in order to expand >slavery to new territories and states. So what? They decided they wanted their own country and only CSA citizens had a voice in what they wanted or did not want. > >That the seceding states made no effort to negotiate >with either the Buchanan or Lincoln administrations. They decided to form their own country and settle the issue. > >That the North had enacted no laws limiting >slavery at the time of secession. Such laws were expected. > >That the war started when the CSA attacked America. A Union enclave in CSA territory. I think the CSA had requested they leave - I don't remember the details. > >That attacking America over "expectations" >(Pearl Harbor, Ft Sumter) is never justified. Just as one was justified as far as Japan was concerned the other was justified as far as the CSA was concerned. > >That troops attacking America and killing >Americans should not be honored with statues. Former CSA citizens honoring CSA persons and paying for it themselves. > >That even Robert E Lee opposed the building >of statues to himself and other Confederates. > Irrelevant. Their approval was not necessary. You keep raising the same issues I addressed in my previous post above. You are assuming the perceptions of today combined with what the Union wanted and expected should prevail. You ignore the fact that the CSA declared themselves a new country and set their own laws without any consideration as to what the Union wanted. It is exactly what the Colonies did in 1776 when they formed their own country and established their own laws without taking into consideration what England may or may not have wanted or approved. -- Every person in the US is here either legally or illegally. Those that are here illegally should be afraid. Be very afraid. It does not matter how long you have been here. It does not matter why you are here. It does not matter what you have done legally while you were here. It does not matter what any relative may have done while you were here. It only matters that you are here illegally. It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer but we will find you and we will deport you. Be prepared. Deport them all. Due process: Q. Are you here legally? If so, where is the documentation to establish that? All politicians are trained to lie and make those lies sound like the truth. They start with the biggest lie of all: Politicians are public servants. National Socialist American Workers Party (NSAWP) formally known as the Democrat Party Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying. I support: A Constitional Amendment establishing the Freedom of Choice. The elimination of public expression, display or support of religion or religious positions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 14:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <XnsB470608B4C0B4629555@185.151.15.109> |
| In reply to | #3488896 |
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:p5b53lhfhvv0kbgbvd2o7uk25kh7k6hdgv@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 14:00:26 +0000, Mitchell Holman
> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <XnsB46E5A581A8AD629555@185.151.15.109> wrote:
>
>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
>>news:vg1u2ld8mvj992tiu3jl14n2n2k4kli5lb@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 14:20:26 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <XnsB46B5DBAAF325629555@185.151.15.109> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The specific cause was slavery but the legal issue was
>>>>> whether or not a federal law could negate a state law. Did
>>>>> the Federal Government have the legal power to tell the
>>>>> states what they could or could not do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The federal government did NOTHING
>>>>about slavery at time of secession. In
>>>>fact it legitimized slavery by enacting
>>>>the Fugitive Slave Law Southerners
>>>>demanded. And Lincoln told the South
>>>>they could KEEP slavery. How is that an
>>>>interference?
>>>
>>> You still don't understand. It wasn't so much about what
>>> the union did as what the South expected them to do based
>>> upon the public discussions of slavery and the positions of
>>> many politicians that were elected in 1860. The CSA was
>>> formed as a preventive measure to insure the individual
>>> states could preserve their existing economic and social
>>> structure.
>>>
>>
>>
>>In the deleted portions of this thread we established:
>>
>>
>>That the secession was about slavery.
>
> So you say.
So says EVERY secession declaration.
> I said the basic issue was stats rights and the
> particular issue in contention was slavery.
>
The CSA had even less states rights
than the US. Witness their national draft
and national income tax.
>>
>>That the CSA had even less "states rights" than the US.
>
> Irrelevant. The CSA formed their own country the way they
> wanted it. Don't forget the Articles of Confederation came
> before the Constitution.
>
See above.
>>
>>That Lincoln offered the South a chance
>>to KEEP their slavery.
>
> He did not have the power to do this. Congress passes laws.
>
The Congress that gave the South
all it asked for in Fugitive Slave Act.
>>
>>That the CSA states seceded in order to expand
>>slavery to new territories and states.
>
> So what? They decided they wanted their own country and
> only CSA citizens had a voice in what they wanted or did not
> want.
States being required to accept
slavery = states rights?
>
>>
>>That the seceding states made no effort to negotiate
>>with either the Buchanan or Lincoln administrations.
>
> They decided to form their own country and settle the issue.
>
And by "settle the issue" you mean attack America.
>>
>>That the North had enacted no laws limiting
>>slavery at the time of secession.
>
> Such laws were expected.
>
You cannot go to war over what
is "expected".
>>
>>That the war started when the CSA attacked America.
>
> A Union enclave in CSA territory. I think the CSA had
> requested they leave - I don't remember the details.
>
Ft Sumter was American territory.
Could Cuba demand the return of Guantanamo
Bay Naval Base and attack it if America
doesn't give it up?
>>
>>That attacking America over "expectations"
>>(Pearl Harbor, Ft Sumter) is never justified.
>
> Just as one was justified as far as Japan was concerned the
> other was justified as far as the CSA was concerned.
>
Why do you support unprovoked attacks on America?
>>
>>That troops attacking America and killing
>>Americans should not be honored with statues.
>
> Former CSA citizens honoring CSA persons and paying for it
> themselves.
>
On public land.
>>
>>That even Robert E Lee opposed the building
>>of statues to himself and other Confederates.
>>
>
> Irrelevant. Their approval was not necessary.
>
> You keep raising the same issues I addressed in my previous
> post above.
>
True. And I documented every point
I made with the proof (CSA Constitution,
the sesession documents, the Ft Sumter
sale to the US) you deleted.
> You are assuming the perceptions of today combined with what
> the Union wanted and expected should prevail. You ignore
> the fact that the CSA declared themselves a new country and
> set their own laws without any consideration as to what the
> Union wanted.
>
The Confederates "formed a new goverment"
but demanded return of slaves under the law
of the old government. No one took their "new
government" seriously, even the countries that
needed CSA cotton didn't recognize it.
> It is exactly what the Colonies did in 1776 when they formed
> their own country and established their own laws without
> taking into consideration what England may or may not have
> wanted or approved.
The colonies were attacked by the old
government, the US was attacked by the CSA.
Why should the people who attacked and killed
Americans be honored with statues?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 01:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <oj7c3ll3mpbaaso1udq627kh4t4k9kbp6k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3489042 |
On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 14:36:59 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <XnsB470608B4C0B4629555@185.151.15.109> wrote: >Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in >news:p5b53lhfhvv0kbgbvd2o7uk25kh7k6hdgv@4ax.com: > >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 14:00:26 +0000, Mitchell Holman >> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <XnsB46E5A581A8AD629555@185.151.15.109> wrote: >> >>>Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in >>>news:vg1u2ld8mvj992tiu3jl14n2n2k4kli5lb@4ax.com: >>> >>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 14:20:26 +0000, Mitchell Holman >>>> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>> <XnsB46B5DBAAF325629555@185.151.15.109> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> The specific cause was slavery but the legal issue was >>>>>> whether or not a federal law could negate a state law. Did >>>>>> the Federal Government have the legal power to tell the >>>>>> states what they could or could not do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The federal government did NOTHING >>>>>about slavery at time of secession. In >>>>>fact it legitimized slavery by enacting >>>>>the Fugitive Slave Law Southerners >>>>>demanded. And Lincoln told the South >>>>>they could KEEP slavery. How is that an >>>>>interference? >>>> >>>> You still don't understand. It wasn't so much about what >>>> the union did as what the South expected them to do based >>>> upon the public discussions of slavery and the positions of >>>> many politicians that were elected in 1860. The CSA was >>>> formed as a preventive measure to insure the individual >>>> states could preserve their existing economic and social >>>> structure. >>>> >>> >>> >>>In the deleted portions of this thread we established: >>> >>> >>>That the secession was about slavery. >> >> So you say. > > > So says EVERY secession declaration. I agree it was the specific issue. Exactly how would slavery be ended by the Union? Simply by someone saying so? > > >> I said the basic issue was stats rights and the >> particular issue in contention was slavery. >> > > The CSA had even less states rights >than the US. Witness their national draft >and national income tax. That was their business. Why should the Union be involved? Should England have dictated the laws of the Colonies after 1776? > > >>> >>>That the CSA had even less "states rights" than the US. >> >> Irrelevant. The CSA formed their own country the way they >> wanted it. Don't forget the Articles of Confederation came >> before the Constitution. >> > > See above. Yes, do. You seem to think the Union somehow can dictate to the CSA, which is a totally separate and independent country. > > >>> >>>That Lincoln offered the South a chance >>>to KEEP their slavery. >> >> He did not have the power to do this. Congress passes laws. >> > > The Congress that gave the South >all it asked for in Fugitive Slave Act. Congress had no power over the CSA and could not pass any valid laws dictating what it should or should not do. > > >>> >>>That the CSA states seceded in order to expand >>>slavery to new territories and states. >> >> So what? They decided they wanted their own country and >> only CSA citizens had a voice in what they wanted or did not >> want. > > > States being required to accept >slavery = states rights? If that is what the CSA Constitution said and the States agreed. > > >> >>> >>>That the seceding states made no effort to negotiate >>>with either the Buchanan or Lincoln administrations. >> >> They decided to form their own country and settle the issue. >> > > And by "settle the issue" you mean attack America. Take whatever action they deemed necessary. > >>> >>>That the North had enacted no laws limiting >>>slavery at the time of secession. >> >> Such laws were expected. >> > > You cannot go to war over what >is "expected". A country can go to war for any or no reason. > >>> >>>That the war started when the CSA attacked America. >> >> A Union enclave in CSA territory. I think the CSA had >> requested they leave - I don't remember the details. >> > > Ft Sumter was American territory. >Could Cuba demand the return of Guantanamo >Bay Naval Base and attack it if America >doesn't give it up? If the US violates the agreement between the US and Cuba, yes. I think (but am not certain) that agreement states if all Americans leave it reverts back to Cuba automatically. > >>> >>>That attacking America over "expectations" >>>(Pearl Harbor, Ft Sumter) is never justified. >> >> Just as one was justified as far as Japan was concerned the >> other was justified as far as the CSA was concerned. >> > > Why do you support unprovoked attacks on America? Recognizing the right of a country to do whatever it wants to do is not agreeing with that action. Exactly why did Japan not have the right to attack Pearl Harbor? Why did Hitler not have the right to invade France, Poland, or Russia? Why did the Colonies have the right to attack England? >>> >>>That troops attacking America and killing >>>Americans should not be honored with statues. >> >> Former CSA citizens honoring CSA persons and paying for it >> themselves. >> > > On public land. Not always. The land was frequently bought and paid for. Just exactly who should dictate the use of public land? >>> >>>That even Robert E Lee opposed the building >>>of statues to himself and other Confederates. >>> >> >> Irrelevant. Their approval was not necessary. >> >> You keep raising the same issues I addressed in my previous >> post above. >> > > True. And I documented every point >I made with the proof (CSA Constitution, >the sesession documents, the Ft Sumter >sale to the US) you deleted. You keep trying to relate the actions of the CSA to actions or inaction of the Union. Once formed the CSA was a different country and the dictates of the Union meant no more than the dictates of Mexico or Russia. > > >> You are assuming the perceptions of today combined with what >> the Union wanted and expected should prevail. You ignore >> the fact that the CSA declared themselves a new country and >> set their own laws without any consideration as to what the >> Union wanted. >> > > The Confederates "formed a new goverment" >but demanded return of slaves under the law >of the old government. No one took their "new >government" seriously, even the countries that >needed CSA cotton didn't recognize it. Few took the country formed in 1776 by the Colonies seriously until those colonies started defeating English armies. It was recognized by France because France was an enemy and would recognize anything that opposed England. > > >> It is exactly what the Colonies did in 1776 when they formed >> their own country and established their own laws without >> taking into consideration what England may or may not have >> wanted or approved. > > The colonies were attacked by the old >government, Actually by the entire country of England since the Colonies had stated they were a separate country. >the US was attacked by the CSA. They were not separated by an ocean. That is the only difference. It was easier for the opposing armies to battle each other. >Why should the people who attacked and killed >Americans be honored with statues? Who should decide what statues are erected? -- Every person in the US is here either legally or illegally. Those that are here illegally should be afraid. Be very afraid. It does not matter how long you have been here. It does not matter why you are here. It does not matter what you have done legally while you were here. It does not matter what any relative may have done while you were here. It only matters that you are here illegally. It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer but we will find you and we will deport you. Be prepared. Deport them all. Due process: Q. Are you here legally? If so, where is the documentation to establish that? All politicians are trained to lie and make those lies sound like the truth. They start with the biggest lie of all: Politicians are public servants. Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying. I support: A Constitional Amendment establishing the Freedom of Choice. The elimination of public expression, display or support of religion or religious positions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 09:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <u26d3lpn9fe2tm6vhi2c84s1cdrr9eqj1r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3489129 |
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 01:25:12 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote: >Yes, do. You seem to think the Union somehow can dictate to >the CSA, which is a totally separate and independent >country. Not *is*, *was*. The CSA *was* a collection of traitors and rebels pretending they were their own country. Sadly for them, they lost their first and only war. -- Latest from the left wing rumor mill: It's been another weird week: Knicks vs Bone Spurs edition <https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qWUTo5uJhOA> MAGA: "embrace the suck".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 14:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <XnsB4715EAFAAACB629555@185.151.15.118> |
| In reply to | #3489166 |
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:u26d3lpn9fe2tm6vhi2c84s1cdrr9eqj1r@4ax.com: > On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 01:25:12 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >>Yes, do. You seem to think the Union somehow can dictate to >>the CSA, which is a totally separate and independent >>country. > > Not *is*, *was*. The CSA *was* a collection of traitors and rebels > pretending they were their own country. Sadly for them, they lost > their first and only war. Even the very conservative British and French and Russian governments at the time rejected the idea that the CSA was an actual country.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 15:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <rmqd3lhkmnobh1vsulesb4dg97ta39pi8f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3489169 |
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 14:26:01 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <XnsB4715EAFAAACB629555@185.151.15.118> wrote: >Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >news:u26d3lpn9fe2tm6vhi2c84s1cdrr9eqj1r@4ax.com: > >> On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 01:25:12 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >>>Yes, do. You seem to think the Union somehow can dictate to >>>the CSA, which is a totally separate and independent >>>country. >> >> Not *is*, *was*. The CSA *was* a collection of traitors and rebels >> pretending they were their own country. Sadly for them, they lost >> their first and only war. > > > Even the very conservative British >and French and Russian governments at >the time rejected the idea that the >CSA was an actual country. > > The Union Blockade and the military successes of the North discouraged recognition. Europe continued buying cotton. -- Every person in the US is here either legally or illegally. Those that are here illegally should be afraid. Be very afraid. It does not matter how long you have been here. It does not matter why you are here. It does not matter what you have done legally while you were here. It does not matter what any relative may have done while you were here. It only matters that you are here illegally. It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer but we will find you and we will deport you. Be prepared. Deport them all. Due process: Q. Are you here legally? If so, where is the documentation to establish that? All politicians are trained to lie and make those lies sound like the truth. They start with the biggest lie of all: Politicians are public servants. Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying. I support: A Constitional Amendment establishing the Freedom of Choice. The elimination of public expression, display or support of religion or religious positions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 23:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <76me3lt271qjlso662j20gseupstp4ml5m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3489182 |
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 15:33:54 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote: >The Union Blockade and the military successes of the North >discouraged recognition. As did slavery. Britain left the slave trade in the 1700s and Victoria herself was known to criticize southerners for the institution. >Europe continued buying cotton. You mean the CSA managed to sell cotton to Europe in much the same way Russia currently sells oil to India and the Pac rim? -- Trump: Wrong about everything, one thing at a time. Embrace the suck. 012020298647
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 14:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <XnsB4725BBE95273629555@185.151.15.109> |
| In reply to | #3489182 |
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in news:rmqd3lhkmnobh1vsulesb4dg97ta39pi8f@4ax.com: > On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 14:26:01 +0000, Mitchell Holman > <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <XnsB4715EAFAAACB629555@185.151.15.118> wrote: > >>Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >>news:u26d3lpn9fe2tm6vhi2c84s1cdrr9eqj1r@4ax.com: >> >>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 01:25:12 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>> >>>>Yes, do. You seem to think the Union somehow can dictate to >>>>the CSA, which is a totally separate and independent >>>>country. >>> >>> Not *is*, *was*. The CSA *was* a collection of traitors and rebels >>> pretending they were their own country. Sadly for them, they lost >>> their first and only war. >> >> >> Even the very conservative British >>and French and Russian governments at >>the time rejected the idea that the >>CSA was an actual country. >> >> > > The Union Blockade and the military successes of the North > discouraged recognition. Europe continued buying cotton. > The South was winning battle after battle up until Antietam in Sept 1862 and that was pretty much a draw. The CSA was established to perpetuate slavery and no other country wanted to endorse that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 18:48 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <8hqg3l9bd1ip81i391aadpmvfdm3ghv7du@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3489242 |
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 14:08:40 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <XnsB4725BBE95273629555@185.151.15.109> wrote: >Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in >news:rmqd3lhkmnobh1vsulesb4dg97ta39pi8f@4ax.com: > >> On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 14:26:01 +0000, Mitchell Holman >> <noemail@aol.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <XnsB4715EAFAAACB629555@185.151.15.118> wrote: >> >>>Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >>>news:u26d3lpn9fe2tm6vhi2c84s1cdrr9eqj1r@4ax.com: >>> >>>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 01:25:12 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Yes, do. You seem to think the Union somehow can dictate to >>>>>the CSA, which is a totally separate and independent >>>>>country. >>>> >>>> Not *is*, *was*. The CSA *was* a collection of traitors and rebels >>>> pretending they were their own country. Sadly for them, they lost >>>> their first and only war. >>> >>> >>> Even the very conservative British >>>and French and Russian governments at >>>the time rejected the idea that the >>>CSA was an actual country. >>> >>> >> >> The Union Blockade and the military successes of the North >> discouraged recognition. Europe continued buying cotton. >> > > The South was winning battle after >battle up until Antietam in Sept 1862 >and that was pretty much a draw. The >CSA was established to perpetuate >slavery and no other country wanted >to endorse that. > Slavery was one issue. There were others. -- Every person in the US is here either legally or illegally. Those that are here illegally should be afraid. Be very afraid. It does not matter how long you have been here. It does not matter why you are here. It does not matter what you have done legally while you were here. It does not matter what any relative may have done while you were here. It only matters that you are here illegally. It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer but we will find you and we will deport you. Be prepared. Deport them all. Due process: Q. Are you here legally? If so, where is the documentation to establish that? All politicians are trained to lie and make those lies sound like the truth. They start with the biggest lie of all: Politicians are public servants. Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying. I support: A Constitional Amendment establishing the Freedom of Choice. The elimination of public expression, display or support of religion or religious positions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 23:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The parties never switched on race. Everyone knows it. |
| Message-ID | <stle3l5huh7ps0ljgr2sb05a5ke1q7grva@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3489169 |
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 14:26:01 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> wrote: >Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >news:u26d3lpn9fe2tm6vhi2c84s1cdrr9eqj1r@4ax.com: > >> On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 01:25:12 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >>>Yes, do. You seem to think the Union somehow can dictate to >>>the CSA, which is a totally separate and independent >>>country. >> >> Not *is*, *was*. The CSA *was* a collection of traitors and rebels >> pretending they were their own country. Sadly for them, they lost >> their first and only war. > > > Even the very conservative British >and French and Russian governments at >the time rejected the idea that the >CSA was an actual country The Confederates thought Britain would come in on their side out of desperation to get cotton shipments. What Richmond didn't realize was that Britain had already started cotton plantations in India which subsequently gutted the post war cotton market in the US. That sorted, Attila's freudian slip of placing the CSA in the present tense certifies him as a racial bigot and explains both his Trump support and immigration position. -- Trump: Wrong about everything, one thing at a time. Embrace the suck. 012020298647
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web