150 Years Ago Today

[OCmike]

Look Southern folk, your war was not about fighting for your homeland against a bully aggressor. You fought for the right to own slaves. And unless you intentionally refuse to believe the obvious or are as dumb as a shovel-leaning city pothole filler, you know it, we know it and blacks know it.
Now, lots of people have a fucked up legacy, but eventually they own it and most people move on. It'd be nice if you retards would take the fingers out of your ears, stop going LALALALALALALA and say "yeah, that was kind of a fucked up thing to do" so we can all move on too.

[BSmack]

There would not have been a war only about slavery. That's the point. If the South had decided to maintain membership in the union while continuing their slave trade, the North would not have attacked. Okay? And if the Feds like Lincoln insisted on launching a war, no one in the North would have accepted conscription just to free the slaves.

Bingo.

Lincoln (and the citizens of the north) are so often portrayed as sympathetic to the plight of the slaves. Lincoln was no fan of blacks at all. He wanted them shipped out of the country and regularly referred to their inferiority.

Lincoln's feelings towards black folk are immaterial to the point at hand. Simply put, the south saw the election of Lincoln as an existential threat to the institution of slavery and they acted accordingly. Your treasonous ancestors were acting to protect the institution of slavery. Period.

[OCmike]

So y'all (like that? :D ) are suggesting that, had the South maintained its status as part of the US, yet retained its slaves, the North would have waged war?

I think not.

Of course not. Who gives a fuck about nonsensical hypothetical bullshit?

[mvscal]

Lincoln (and the citizens of the north) are so often portrayed as sympathetic to the plight of the slaves.

Probably because they were, dumbass.

[FLW Buckeye]

Lot of similarities to today's GOP

About as much as the rich slaveowners considered themselves Democrats...

[mvscal]

If by funny you mean total bullshit then, yes, that's a funny definition. The actual reason is that people understand that if the tax burden is too onerous, the rich simply move their money out of the country and the net revenue is zero not to mention the fact that only a dumbfuck believes that we can balance the budget by soaking the rich.

[mvscal]

So in other words they're evading taxes.......

You just figuring that out?

Increased taxes inevitably leads to increased tax avoidance. There are no exceptions to that fundamental law of economics. It doesn't matter if it's a billionaire stashing his cash in the Caimans or a working stiff crossing a state line to buy cigarettes where the taxes are lower.

You know HSBC, UBS and Credit Suisse are opening up their files to the IRS don't you?

Who gives a fuck? They'll move it someplace else.

[Goober McTuber]

I know, pathetic, isn't it?

At least I'm not AP.

I'd like to see some evidence on that.

[BSmack]

Lincoln's feelings towards black folk are immaterial to the point at hand. Simply put, the south saw the election of Lincoln as an existential threat to the institution of slavery and they acted accordingly. Your treasonous ancestors were acting to protect the institution of slavery.

My ancestors are from Ohio.

So y'all (like that? :D ) are suggesting that, had the South maintained its status as part of the US, yet retained its slaves, the North would have waged war? I think not.

Of course the north wouldn't have waged war. In case you haven't kept up with your antebellum history, the abolitionist forces had just succeeded in electing the most anti-slavery President in the history of the Republic. The north had no reason to attempt to gain through war what it had already won at the ballot box.

[mvscal]

Of course the north wouldn't have waged war. In case you haven't kept up with your antebellum history, the abolitionist forces had just succeeded in electing the most anti-slavery President in the history of the Republic. The north had no reason to attempt to gain through war what it had already won at the ballot box.

Plus the demographic picture was shifting north in overwhelming numbers and most of the new immigrants (Germans and Scandinavians) were anti-slavery. Then there was the spectre of new free states being admitted to the Union.

With or without war, slavery was doomed politically.

[War Wagon]

I'd like to see some evidence on that.

I'll show you mine when you show me yours.

On 2nd thought, go fuck yourself.

[Dinsdale]

Then there was the spectre of new free states being admitted to the Union.

Oregon (gained statehood in 1859, a mere 2 years before the CW), was very much anti-slavery... because that involved blacks living in Oregon... strict;y verboten. You could have your slaves help you come across the Oregon Trail, and they were granted free passage to immediately leave the Oregon Territory.

The Territory had a law against blacks residing here. Obviously, the darky-quota was filled by the Firewaterdrinkers.

[Goober McTuber]

I'll show you mine when you show me yours.

That's why they call it the "show me" state, huh?

[Truman]

Absolutely. Your argument fails on every single point and all you can do is run with "Kill yourself, you revisionist spic." That's a melt.

No, that would be a lie. I believe the quote was “kill yourself, you revisionist asshat.”

So now you’re making up quotes along with history? Why am I not surprised? Still, you might wanna give my suggestion some thought. You’d have a tough time convincing me that the world wouldn’t be better off without the rants of another delusional Internet sociopath...

BTW, the “spic” dig was meant to bore under your skin. Lemme know if it worked... :wink:

I'll shoot down your idiocy for the hundred and first time.

Then you might wanna try using something other than clown gun this time, Sparky. Posting a historical fact-or-three might actually lend credence to your arguments for a change, but given your position, I can see where the truth could get messy. Besides, it’s far more fun for you to fling poo between the bars of your cage to see if it sticks than engage the truth, eh, mvscal?

1. The participants at Neosho were former legislators who merely paused briefly while fleeing the state never to return. They were hardly "doing the state's business." They were fugitive criminals.

No they weren’t. They were the official government of the state of Missouri duly elected by its citizenry. Of course, you DO have this collective mass resignation of ”former” state officers documented, correct? Otherwise, you never would’ve posted such a retarded claim. :reallyhugefuckingrolleyeyes:

Which begs the question: Why did the Governor, Senate, and General Assembly flee the capitol in the first place?[/hamster wheel spinning in mvscal’s brain] Could it be that your murderous psychopathic hero General Lyon was storming towards Jeff with the intent of burning them out? Sounds to me like a pretty good incentive to leave. Of course, the Fed acted illegally and unconstitutionally by replacing them with appointees to fill their “vacated” positions of authority...

2. There is absolutely no credible evidence to suggest that quorum was present and, given Missouri's majority support for the Union, it is extremely unlikely that there was one.

And there is absolutely no credible evidence to suggest that quorum wasn’t present, you flaming idiot. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot prove a negative, asseyes. Tell me you knew. The Ordinance of Secession exists. That alone suggests that somebody voted for it. I’ve presented numerous accounts that quorum was, indeed present. All you’ve presented is obfuscations and lies.

3. Even if they had one, a mere quorum was not sufficient to withdraw the state from the union since the state legislature did not have the constitutional authority to do so. What would have been required was a referendum to establish another state constitutional convention since the first state convention overwhelmingly rejected secession.

Picking and choosing these days are we, mvscal? You just posted that the constitutional convention was the only authority that could approve an Ordinance of Secession. Yet, in earlier posts, you have dismissively derided the actions of this same body for establishing Missouri’s position as an armed neutral as unconstitutional. So which is it, Loser? Either the convention alone held sway over Missouri’s right to self-determination, only to see the Union illegally and unconstitutionally trample and decimate this right, or you’ve just scribbled another fallacious post in support of another dramatic lie.

From wiki:

Hamilton Rowan Gamble was named chairman of the Federal relations committee which recommended:
The position of Missouri in relation to the adjacent States which would continue in the Union, would necessarily expose her, if she became a member of a new confederacy, to utter destruction whenever any rupture might take place between the different republics. In a military aspect, secession and connection with a Southern confederacy is annihilation for Missouri. The true position for her to assume is that of a State whose interests are bound up in the maintenance of the Union, and whose kind feelings and strong sympathies are with the people of the Southern States with whom they are connected by ties of friendship and blood.

Regardless, the state’s legislature operated legally within the bounds of the state’s constitution because the State no longer recognized the constitutional authority of the United States of America as its Federal sovereign. For one to reject your argument that the state acted unconstitutionally, one must first accept it. You’re full of shit, mvscal. There isn’t a damn thing anywhere in that document that permanently tied Missouri to the Fed’s tit.

4. Lyon didn't attack Missouri. He attacked insurrectionists in Missouri. There was a war on. Whether or not you recognize that fact is irrelevent. The position of "armed neutrality" was both legally and practically impossible not to mention that it was little more than a ruse designed to buy time to gather manpower and material in support of the rebellion.

Another lie.

From wiki:

Jackson and Price reasserted their position from the Price-Harney agreement and offered a position of Unionist neutrality in exchange for the withdrawal of Lyon's troops from the state, which contained the controversial Wide Awakes. After four hours of discussion, Lyon angrily rose and, pointing down Jackson, Price, and Snead, stated:

"Rather than concede to the State of Missouri the right to demand that my government shall not enlist troops within her limits, or bring troops into the State whenever it pleases, or move troops at its own will into, out of, or through the State; rather than concede to the State of Missouri for one single instant the right to dictate to my government in any matter, however unimportant, I would [pointing at the three state officials] see you, and you, and you, and you and every man, woman and child in the State, dead and buried.

This means war. In an hour one of my officers will call for you and conduct you out of my lines."

Jackson, Price, and their staff promptly returned to Jefferson City where the Governor issued a proclamation declaring that it was still the duty of all Missourians "to obey all the constitutional requirements of the Federal Government" but also that they were "under no obligation whatever to obey the unconstitutional edicts of the military despotism" and its "wicked minions," referring to Lyon, who he said should be driven from the state. However, the President had exercised his constitutional authority to declare an insurrection as a result of Fort Sumter, and he had called for state volunteers under existing Federal law.

In the meantime, Lyon prepared for a rapid advance on Jefferson City. The State government and legislature, fearing for its safety, began an exodus to nearby Boonville, Missouri, which was deemed more defensible from a military perspective. Price, as commander of the state militia, followed from the rear destroying bridges to slow Lyon's advance.

Lyon captured the capital on June 15, but only two state officers including Attorney General J. Proctor Knott remained.

The debate, of course, is whether Lincoln had the ” constitutional authority to declare an insurrection as a result of Fort Sumter.” Losts of folks in these parts didn't seem to think so....

5. The fact that the word, 'slavery,' wasn't in the passage does not mean that it was not about slavery. Whenever confederates talk about "the subversion of the Constitution as intended by the founders," they are talking about the institution of slavery. Those with a broader and more in depth education understand this. You are simply an ignorant fuckhole with a pisspoor education. Again, that isn't my fault.

No, the fault here is yours, because try as you might - and despite your bluff and bluster - you can’t find the word “slavery” anywhere in Missouri’s Ordinance of Secession. I’ll explain it to you one last time, Genius: Missouri seceded because the Federal Government usurped its constitutional authority and Lyon attacked them. I’ve posted numerous links in two threads supporting this position, and all the bullying in world upon your part doesn’t change that fact that not only are you wrong, you’re a lying, flaming bag of shit.

If that murderous hothead Lyon had remained in his little federal arsenal in St. Louis, most likely the state would’ve nervously sat this conflict out and while its citizenry would’ve responded by supporting each side as they saw fit. Wags nailed it: You can't win this argument.

[smackaholic]

You can't win this argument.

bingo.

so fukkin' put it to rest already.

[mvscal]

You can't win this argument.

According to Missouri law, the state constitution can only be totally rewritten via a Constitutional Convention. Since secession would have involved a new constitution, the special convention rather than the Missouri General Assembly was to decide the issue.

Game, set and match. It's over. You've been pounded like a tent peg.

The General Assembly regardless of quorum did not have the authority to withdraw the state from the Union. That is the bottom line. There is no argument that can be made against it.

Why did the Governor, (some of the) Senate, and (some of the) General Assembly flee the capitol in the first place?

Because they were Confederate traitors.

Yet, in earlier posts, you have dismissively derided the actions of this same body for establishing Missouri’s position as an armed neutral as unconstitutional.

A. I didn't say it was unconstitutional. I said it was impossible.

B. They "established" no such policy but don't take my word for it. Here is the text.

http://gathkinsons.net/sesqui/?p=2265

Oh and Jackson and Price were most certainly insurrectionists. You might want to take another look at the dates. The country was at war and Price and Jackson were raising arms and troops in support of the Confederacy. Lyon was merely doing his sworn duty to protect the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. That he took a savage pleasure in executing those duties is beside the point.

The debate, of course, is whether Lincoln had the ” constitutional authority to declare an insurrection as a result of Fort Sumter.”

How is this even a debate? Rebel forces seized Federal property and fired on a Federal installation. Do you dispute those facts?

[smackaholic]

How is this even a debate? Rebel forces seized Federal property and fired on a Federal installation. Do you dispute those facts?

Why did they attack sumter other than because they were dumb asses? Seems to make a bout as much sense as the germans attacking pearl harbor. Wouldn't a better strategy have been to just tell the yanks, "y'all go home now, ya here".

[Truman]

According to Missouri law, the state constitution can only be totally rewritten via a Constitutional Convention. Since secession would have involved a new constitution, the special convention rather than the Missouri General Assembly was to decide the issue.

What’s your point, Loser? Just WHO do you think had the power to authorize the constitutional convention in the first place? I’ll give you a hint: Authorization for such a convention came from the same body that passed a referendum allowing for its creation – and the same body that ultimately elected to leave the Union.

The General Assembly regardless of quorum did not have the authority to withdraw the state from the Union. That is the bottom line. There is no argument that can be made against it.

'Cept this one:

or•di•nance ɔr dn ənsShow Spelled[awr-dn-uh ns] –noun
1. an authoritative rule or law; a decree or command.

Help me understand, mvscal. I’m from the Ozarks, so please type slow so I can keep up: How are state laws passed again? And who has the authority to pass them? Was that a Non-Binding Resolution of Secession the boys passed down in Neosho? Or was it an Ordinance? BTW, Article III of the 1820 Missouri Constitution says you’re a liar, too.

Why did the Governor, (some of the) Senate, and (some of the) General Assembly flee the capitol in the first place?

Because they were Confederate traitors.

And here everything I’ve read suggests they were under attack and running for their lives. BTW, you might want to re-think the addition of pronouns and prepositions before parsing one of my posts again, mvscal. It’s already been documented that only two state officials remained in the Capitol when Lyon invaded.

Yet, in earlier posts, you have dismissively derided the actions of this same body for establishing Missouri’s position as an armed neutral as unconstitutional.

A. I didn't say it was unconstitutional. I said it was impossible.

Why? You’ve futilely taken great pains to establish that the convention was the only constitutional authority that could provide for Missouri’s self –determination.

B. They "established" no such policy but don't take my word for it. Here is the text.

http://gathkinsons.net/sesqui/?p=2265

I didn’t. Your word is shit. Section 5:

Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, the employment of military force by the Federal Government to coerce the submission of the seceding States, or the employment of military force by the seceding States to assail the Government of tho United States, will inevitably plunge this country into civil war, and thereby entirely extinguish all hope of an amicable settlement of the fearful issues now pending before the country; we therefore earnestly entreat, as well the Federal Government as the seceding States, to withhold and stay the arm of military power, and on no pretense whatever bring upon the nation the horrors of civil war.

Reads fairly neutral to me. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Fed. Besides, I’ve already posted narratives from several sources – including its chairman - that armed neutrality was, indeed, the delegation’s position.

Oh and Jackson and Price were most certainly insurrectionists. You might want to take another look at the dates. The country was at war and Price and Jackson were raising arms and troops in support of the Confederacy. Lyon was merely doing his sworn duty to protect the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. That he took a savage pleasure in executing those duties is beside the point.

You might want to take a look at a few dates yourself. The Missouri Constitutional Convention passed its resolution 23 days before South Carolina fired upon Fort Sumter. Yeah, the country was at war, but Missouri – as an armed neutral – wasn’t. That is, until Lyon declared war on the state and attacked it first. As for Price and Jackson being insurrectionists...

So? One hundred thousand Missourians served the Union. Another 40,000 served the Confederacy. Got a feeling the blue-bellies co-opted a squirrel gun-or-three from concerned citizenry with their call for men and arms. Clearly, there was a difference of opinion in this state, with both sides agitating against the other. But organized hostilities did not commence until AFTER Lyon declared war and attacked the state.

The debate, of course, is whether Lincoln had the ” constitutional authority to declare an insurrection as a result of Fort Sumter.”

How is this even a debate? Rebel forces seized Federal property and fired on a Federal installation. Do you dispute those facts?

Hey, Look! mvscal posted a fact! So how’s it feel, champ? Liberating? And here I was assuming your laptop couldn’t post in anything other than “liars mode.”



I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you didn’t read my quote-of-a-quote as carefully as you probably should’ve before responding. Well, it’s either that, or a feeble attempt to move the goal posts.

One of the two.

Go back and re-read my post, Spanky. Lincoln drew his precedent to declare Missouri an insurrection as a result of the actions that occurred at Fort Sumter. The legality of such an action remains the rage and subject for constitutional debate because Missouri didn’t attack anybody.

[Game, set and match. It's over.

Ah. So you're taking your ball and going home. Can't say I blame you. It's not every day that you get to see a self-immolating tard lie himself right out of his own thread.

[BSmack]

You might want to take a look at a few dates yourself. The Missouri Constitutional Convention passed its resolution 23 days before South Carolina fired upon Fort Sumter. Yeah, the country was at war, but Missouri – as an armed neutral – wasn’t.

This is America. You can't pretend you are Switzerland when half the country is trying to split from the other half. That's a bullshit answer.

[Truman]

Thank you, Marcus. What you fail to acknowledge is that the Fed back then wasn’t the all-encompassing power that we’ve all come to love-and-know in modern age. Crazy as this sounds, the states held a reasonable expectation that they actually had the autonomous right to self-determination, and that the United States Constitution meant what it said:

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

[Truman]

Ain’t mad atcha, Willie.

This is simply an argument of historical persuasions.

I’ll admit to being irritated by the platitudes of some Southern California smarty-pants who suggests that the War was fought exclusively over slavery. This irritates me, and smacks of his own particular ignorance and ass-hattery.

The hell. Thought I’d take a moment to set him straight. It’s a smack board, right?

My people came from a poor Missouri county. You can’t plow a straight line more than 10 feet in St. Clair County, much less grow a feed crop beyond familial sustenance. The “luxury” of a slave would’ve amounted to just another mouth to feed. The population wouldn’t have had enough money collectively to purchase a single slave had they pooled their money together. Not that they ever would've wanted to in the first place.

That said, my ancestors were understandably grumpy after the Jayhawkers burned their town flat. That kind of thing has a tendency to fuel passions and influence one to pick sides. Guess my point all along has been that this thing wasn’t all necessarily about slavery. Along the Border, it was about defending one’s home.

The Kansas City paper had very good special in last Sunday’s edition recounting the War in these parts. I suppose what struck me most was the narrative that suggested that the country was able to forward because the combatants all went home. But that wasn’t the case here.

The combatants were home.

So yeah, passions still run deep in these parts. Kids born along the State Line counties still grow up with a healthy suspicion of kids born on the other side of the Line. Yeah, we tolerate one another – We work together, eat together, sometimes even inter-marry. We cheer for the same professional teams. But the stigma remains. Anyone who isn't from here will never understand it. And it doesn’t translate at ALL to a message board. You’d have to've been born here to appreciate it.

Just my nickel's worth.

[War Wagon]

I don't really give a fuck about it. My people were in Germany, Ireland & fucking Kansas at the time that shit was going on, so they weren't a part of it.

pssst... the shit started in Kansas.

[mvscal]

I’ll admit to being irritated by the platitudes of some Southern California St. Louis smarty-pants who suggests that the War was fought exclusively over slavery.

That's because it was, you stupid asshole. Slavery was the exclusive cause of secession and secession was the exclusive cause of the war. You are a brainless, ignorant fuckhole. But I guess you know that already.

What’s your point, Loser? Just WHO do you think had the power to authorize the constitutional convention in the first place? I’ll give you a hint: Authorization for such a convention came from the same body that passed a referendum allowing for its creation – and the same body that ultimately elected to leave the Union.

What's your problem, hayseed? Can't read? Missouri law required a constitutional convention in order to adopt a new constitution not a referendum from the legislature. That's why one was convened in the first place to overwhelmingly reject secession. A referendum from the GA on the subject was completely meaningless not to mention unconstitutional under Missouri law.

Your argument that Missouri was lawfully withdrawn from the Union is a flat out lie with no legal or factual basis. That FACT is indisputable.

Feel free to begin backpedalling, moving goalposts or introducing irrelevant sidebar topics to deflect attention away from your abject failure.

[Truman]

I’ll admit to being irritated by the platitudes of some Southern California St. Louis smarty-pants who suggests that the War was fought exclusively over slavery.

That's because it was, you stupid asshole. Slavery was the exclusive cause of secession and secession was the exclusive cause of the war. You are a brainless, ignorant fuckhole. But I guess you know that already.

No it wasn’t, you lying, flaming, pile of fuck. As applied to Missouri, your feckless arguments have been turned aside with every post point-by-point, and have reduced you to a gibbering idiot. A Cray 2 super computer implanted in your brain-dead dome wouldn’t raise a CT scan past flat-line.

What’s your point, Loser? Just WHO do you think had the power to authorize the constitutional convention in the first place? I’ll give you a hint: Authorization for such a convention came from the same body that passed a referendum allowing for its creation – and the same body that ultimately elected to leave the Union.

What's your problem, hayseed? Can't read? Missouri law required a constitutional convention in order to adopt a new constitution not a referendum from the legislature. That's why one was convened in the first place to overwhelmingly reject secession. A referendum from the GA on the subject was completely meaningless not to mention unconstitutional under Missouri law.

I’ll ask you again, Spic-face – who writes the law? Please feel free to cite Article and Section of the 1820 Missouri Constitution that bestowed this exclusive right upon the Missouri Constitutional Convention to amend the document.

Oh, snap. You can’t. The Missouri Constitutional Convention was convened in the first place at the behest of Governor Jackson – you remember: the Southern insurrectionist and Confederate traitor that justified Lincoln’s unconstitutional declaration and Lyon’s murderous attack?

Your argument that Missouri was lawfully withdrawn from the Union is a flat out lie with no legal or factual basis. That FACT is indisputable.

No, my argument that Missouri was lawfully withdrawn has run you screaming far into the night and right out of your own thread. I can’t help it that you are too fucking retarded to read the posts and links I’ve posted that legally and irrefutably justified the General Assembly’s actions. The only indisputable fact here is that you are a burning bag of lying shit.

Feel free to begin backpedalling, moving goalposts or introducing irrelevant sidebar topics to deflect attention away from your abject failure.

I’ll keep that in mind in the event that I ever feel my argument slipping away. As is, I don’t have to: You’ve done a stellar job of kicking your own ass. You haven’t proven a single point you've made; have had every single lie of the dozens you’ve posted in this thread exposed; and have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be the bitter, miserable, lying fraud that we've all come to love and know.

Anything I add on my end would just simply be piling on....

Edit: Best stick to your SoCal roots, Loser. Claiming St. Louis as home only validates your trisomy...

[Screw_Michigan]

Spic face?

[mvscal]

Another melt, another failure and another steaming pile of lies and bullshit.

Slavery caused secession. FACT

Secession caused the war. FACT

Missouri would never have been asked to provide troops to supress a rebellion if there was no rebellion to supress. FACT

A new constitution requires a new constitutional convention. FACT

That new convention rejected secession. FACT

No other constitutional convention was ever convened to reconsider the issue. FACT

The average chimp is far more intelligent than anyone in western Missouri. FACT

[Truman]

Spic face?

Yeah. It irritates him. Ain't that fun?

[mvscal]

Spic face?

KC hillbillies got their inbred asses kicked by St. Louisans and other loyal Missourians 150 years ago and it's happening again today. He's got nothing left to do but melt. Melt and cry about the "murderous Lyon" while flying the flag of a murderer, thief, pedophile and embarassment to the Confederacy.

It's the way KC Tard rolls.

[Truman]

Another melt, another failure and another steaming pile of lies and bullshit.

Mighty hard on yourself, aren't we, mvscal? Dude, it's a smack board. Don't take it so personally.

Slavery caused secession. FACT

Everywhere but Missouri. Next.

Secession caused the war. FACT

I agree. But not here. Unconstitutional WAR against the state caused secession. Next.

Missouri would never have been asked to provide troops to supress a rebellion if there was no rebellion to supress. FACT

True. 'Cept such a request unconstitutionally violated the State's armed neutral position. State law > Federal law circa 1860. Next.

A new constitution requires a new constitutional convention. FACT

And a Consititutional Convention is given authority and requires a referendum to convene by which ruling body?[/sound of mvscal's head exploding] Next.

That new convention rejected secession. FACT

True. 23 days before Fort Sumter. Insurrectionist Missouri Governor Jackson requested the General Assembly to convene that convention, BTW. But they also adopted the position of armed neutral. Next.

No other constitutional convention was ever convened to reconsider the issue. FACT

Actually, there were several other illegal Conventions convened to do the Fed's business: Appoint officers, write fealty oaths, cut state pay, and free slaves. But yes, no other legally appointed state convention ever reconsidered the question. Didn't matter. The legitimately elected General Assembly that provided legal authority for a constitutional convention considered the question themselves. Next.

The average chimp is far more intelligent than anyone in western Missouri. FACT

True. But the average western Missourian is far more intelligent than an expatriate St Loser bitterman who's family migrated to California. We're both fucked. Kansas City Zoo Chimp House = Scoreboard.

[BSmack]

Thank you, Marcus. What you fail to acknowledge is that the Fed back then wasn’t the all-encompassing power that we’ve all come to love-and-know in modern age. Crazy as this sounds, the states held a reasonable expectation that they actually had the autonomous right to self-determination, and that the United States Constitution meant what it said:

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

I don't care what time in the history of the United States you're talking about, at no time did the Constitution allow states to make foreign policy decisions. It was never within the legal authority of the state of Missouri to declare itself an "armed neutral." Period.

See Article 1 Sec 8 if you need a refresher.

[Truman]

Spic face?

...Waaaahhhh! He melted! What a melty melter! Waaaahhhh!

It's the way KC Tard rolls over socals AND St. Losers.[/fixed]

[Truman]

Thank you, Marcus. What you fail to acknowledge is that the Fed back then wasn’t the all-encompassing power that we’ve all come to love-and-know in modern age. Crazy as this sounds, the states held a reasonable expectation that they actually had the autonomous right to self-determination, and that the United States Constitution meant what it said:

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

I don't care what time in the history of the United States you're talking about, at no time did the Constitution allow states to make foreign policy decisions. It was never within the legal authority of the state of Missouri to declare itself an "armed neutral." Period.

See Article 1 Sec 8 if you need a refresher.

And this applies to Missouri HOW?

The United States wasn't a "foreign policy decision" until AFTER the the state seceded. And it was never within the legal authority of the United States to say that it couldn't. Period.

See Amendment X of the United States Constitution if you need a refresher.

[Dr_Phibes]

Crazy as this sounds, the states held a reasonable expectation that they actually had the autonomous right to self-determination

What I know about the subject is pitiful, but started to lean towards the impression that the South attempted to export slavery into the territories onto a population that didn't want it. That strikes me as being an over-reach of state rights.

Marx covered the war for 'Die Presse' and took great pains to attack the British position, that it was a tariff war (that's what I was taught it was).

Sort of a decent sum up on southern necessity for expansion:

The cultivation of the southern export articles, cotton, tobacco, sugar , etc., carried on by slaves, is only remunerative as long as it is conducted with large gangs of slaves, on a mass scale and on wide expanses of a naturally fertile soil, which requires only simple labour. Intensive cultivation, which depends less on fertility of the soil than on investment of capital, intelligence and energy of labour, is contrary to the nature of slavery. Hence the rapid transformation of states like Maryland and Virginia, which formerly employed slaves on the production of export articles, into states which raise slaves to export them into the deep South.
Even in South Carolina, where the slaves form four-sevenths of the population, the cultivation of cotton has been almost completely stationary for years due to the exhaustion of the soil. Indeed, by force of circumstances South Carolina has already been transformed in part into a slave-raising state, since it already sells slaves to the sum of four million dollars yearly to the states of the extreme South and South-west.

As soon as this point is reached, the acquisition of new Territories becomes necessary, so that one section of the slaveholders with their slaves may occupy new fertile lands and that a new market for slave-raising, therefore for the sale of slaves, may be created for the remaining section. It is, for example, indubitable that without the acquisition of Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas by the United States, slavery in Virginia and Maryland would have been wiped out long ago. In the Secessionist Congress at Montgomery, Senator Toombs, one of the spokesmen of the South, strikingly formulated the economic law that commands the constant expansion of the territory of slavery. "In fifteen years," said he, "without a great increase in slave territory, either the slaves must be permitted to flee from the whites, or the whites must flee from the slaves".

[BSmack]

I don't care what time in the history of the United States you're talking about, at no time did the Constitution allow states to make foreign policy decisions. It was never within the legal authority of the state of Missouri to declare itself an "armed neutral." Period.

See Article 1 Sec 8 if you need a refresher.

And this applies to Missouri HOW?

Ultimate authority over all armed forces in the United States falls under the purview of the Federal Government. What about that don't you understand? The president is the CinC and Congress has the explicit authority to authorize both regular army and militia to put down insurrections. You know, like the one that was happening in 1861.

The United States wasn't a "foreign policy decision" until AFTER the the state seceded. And it was never within the legal authority of the United States to say that it couldn't. Period. See Amendment X of the United States Constitution if you need a refresher.

I would were it relevant. But again, the Constitution explicitly gives ultimate authority over all militias and regular armies to the Federal Government. Period.

[War Wagon]

I laughed. Hearty guffaws.

Rack this thread.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Another melt, another failure and another steaming pile of lies and bullshit.

Mighty hard on yourself, aren't we, mvscal? Dude, it's a smack board. Don't take it so personally.

Finally, some IKYABWAI from old KC faithful. I just lost 20 bucks on the under.

[Truman]

Finally, some IKYABWAI from old KC faithful. I just lost 20 bucks on the under.

mvscal posted it, but he failed to attribute it. If that's what passes for IKYABWAI, then I guess you pretty much got fucked for making such a tard bet. Besides, mvscal dropped one two pages back.

[Truman]

I don't care what time in the history of the United States you're talking about, at no time did the Constitution allow states to make foreign policy decisions. It was never within the legal authority of the state of Missouri to declare itself an "armed neutral." Period.

See Article 1 Sec 8 if you need a refresher.

And this applies to Missouri HOW?

Ultimate authority over all armed forces in the United States falls under the purview of the Federal Government. What about that don't you understand? The president is the CinC and Congress has the explicit authority to authorize both regular army and militia to put down insurrections. You know, like the one that was happening in 1861.

The United States wasn't a "foreign policy decision" until AFTER the the state seceded. And it was never within the legal authority of the United States to say that it couldn't. Period. See Amendment X of the United States Constitution if you need a refresher.

I would were it relevant. But again, the Constitution explicitly gives ultimate authority over all militias and regular armies to the Federal Government. Period.

What's your point, B? Clearly, Missouri's sitting government disagreed and got their ass kicked for their trouble.

[BSmack]

What's your point, B? Clearly, Missouri's sitting government disagreed and got their ass kicked for their trouble.

The question is, do YOU agree? It's in the Constitution in black and white.

[Truman]

What's your point, B? Clearly, Missouri's sitting government disagreed and got their ass kicked for their trouble.

The question is, do YOU agree? It's in the Constitution in black and white.

Yes, I agree that Missouri's sitting government disagreed and got their ass kicked for their trouble.

And I also agree that Article 1, Section 8 and Amendment X can both be found in the Constitution in black and white, along with a whole buncha other neato stuff.

Anything else, B?