How would you have treated confederate leaders? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 12:58:20 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  How would you have treated confederate leaders? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: How would you have treated confederate leaders?  (Read 29876 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« on: January 13, 2005, 10:57:45 PM »

And yet, you still insist you're not a Stalinist.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2005, 03:39:18 PM »

Yeah. And then after losing the war, you'd get hanged by your own men for being such a ing idiot.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2005, 03:52:42 PM »

The reason why Jefferson Davis never was put on trial for treason was that he would have argued, successfully, that the Constitution and the Declaration gave the states the implicit right to secede if the federal government overstepped its authority. 

Having Lincoln win an election was overstepping authority?


No. The 1860 GOP campaign plank to halt the spread of slavery into the territories was, however, very clearly unconstitutional. That Lincoln was elected president made that unconstitutional campaign promise essentially a fait-accompli.

How in the world was that unconstitutional?

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2005, 03:59:17 PM »

"Needful" is a very relative concept. Needful for what? I think it is implied that Congress can make rules and regulations that it deems "needful" for whatever purpose.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2005, 06:38:47 PM »

I disagree on the courts. I think that clause is just giving Congress the authority to make general rules and regulations that they deem needful for whatever purpose.

There is no objective way to determine what a "needful" rule is.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2005, 06:45:50 PM »

If the courts tried something that stupid, I'm sure the Congress would just pass a law revoking their jurisdiction over the matter.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 12 queries.