The Jena Six

[Oh, Gee!!]

don't you see ES? WC would fight for the south because he loves the 10th amendment soooo much. It's not that he likes slavery per se, it's an issue of federalism.

[Spurminator]

I may not agree with you buying and selling people like cattle based on skin color, but I'll fight to the death for your right to do so.

[TLWisfoine]

A situation none of us really want now, is it?


Agreed.


They didn't need those articles in my opinion. The tenth amendment already spelled out states right to a satisfactory degree. The northern controlled states clearly violated this by overstepping their bounds. The federal government is cons utionally restricted. Through legal trickery, we have lost what it is meant to be, and the south losing the civil was the first major blow to states rights.


I don't completely agree with you. What makes it such that there must be a cons utional provision to succeed? Both sides acted poorly. Rather than trying to come to terms with each other, the North used blockades of trade. The south made the first mistake of attacking the fort. Was it fort Sumter? (spelling?)


Yes, and as wrong as we view slavery today, it was legal and their states right. This was being violated. And yes, I agree the slavery is wrong. It was a necessary evil in the beginning to keep slavery legal in order to form the cons ution in the first place! The northern states were reneging on a contract! They were using means of political force ideology rather than allowing for common ground over time.


Southern partisan? You mean southern slave owner?

We all have our views of who is and is not a patriot, or legitimate American. If it were up to me, those espousing socialism would considered illegitimate Americans.


Well, I do side with the rebels. Not because of slavery, but because of the tenth amendment!

Don't like the cons ution... change it by legal means. Not by violations of the cons ution, which the north clearly did!

So from what I'm getting here is that the South was fighting for their "state's right" to continue slavery, and you support that?

[Oh, Gee!!]

So from what I'm getting here is that the South was fighting for their "state's right" to continue slavery, and you support that?

yes, but he doesn't personally own slaves (nor would he if given the chance...wink, wink).

[ChumpDumper]

He wouldn't own other human beings, but he would fight to the death to protect the right of Americans to own other human beings.

[TLWisfoine]

yes, but he doesn't personally own slaves (nor would he if given the chance...wink, wink).

But didn't he say that the war wasn't about slavery, but it was about the South "state's right" to continue slavery? this is getting confusing.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think the balancing test WC employs re: the 10th Amendment is whether any act/law/practice done by the individual states is so heinous as to outweigh the totally rad awesomeness of the 10th. WC obviously thinks the 10th Amendment’s totally rad awesomeness outweighs the negative aspects of slavery.

[DarkReign]

But didn't he say that the war wasn't about slavery, but it was about the South "state's right" to continue slavery? this is getting confusing.

It gets confusing because state's rights were an issue of the civil war.

But the "state right" being referred to was slavery and the spread of it. You were correct in that Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery outright, but he was steadfast in that slavery "stayed where it laid"....particularly in the rural south.

The country as a whole was busy expanding west and taking their law with them, so to speak. So as southern land owners expanded west, they brought slaves with them to work their new fields. This expanding land was not American soil, per say. It was American territory. Those Midwestern territories werent tallied in Congressional electoral representation...basically, they werent states yet.

But Lincoln was set against slavery being spread further west. He knew if he isolated where slavery was lawful that it would die its own death. Needless to say the Southern states were none too happy when told that slavery wasnt allowed in the new territory. So the state and federal government came to verbal (and physical) blows about it. They hashed out a slipshod agreement called the Missouri Compromise among other pieces of legislation that headed off the inevitable conflict that was to ensue.

Long story short, the South had good legal arguments about the role of the Federal government and its ability to squash state's rights as it sees fit. The problem with their argument was that it involved the bondage of human beings as property.

Different time then, it seems foreign to discuss the prospect of a legal battle over human slaves but you must remember, slaves were around for longer than anyone had been alive. Long before then as well. So the "change in wind" that the north was having was acutely unique in historical perspective.

Either way, everyone knows who won the war. Lincoln, who in his "House Divided" speech made clear his intentions to only restrict slavery from spreading outside where it already was, had the unfortunate obligation to militarily engage his own countrymen. As an aside, since the time for talk was dead, Lincoln decided the time for slavery was as well in totality once the South seceded and took arms against the Union. He was the villain and the hero at the same time, which makes him a dynamic figure in our history. Im sure he never intended the Emancipation Proclamation to be the kick start to Civil War, and if in retrospect he had to do it again, he probably wouldnt have decreed the do ent. But he did, they seceded, bloody war, North wins, slavery abolished, Southern economy in tatters.

One could argue slavery didnt end with the war, it just changed names being called "Indentured Servants", but thats another matter.

[Extra Stout]

Lincoln didn't promulgate the EP until 1863; the CW began in '61.

[Nbadan]

Another lasso has been found..

From Sarah B. Boxer
CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) --

A noose was discovered this week on the office door of an African-American professor at Columbia University, school officials and the New York Police Department said. The noose was found in a building at Columbia's Teachers College, said Joe Levine, executive director for external affairs at Teachers College. The noose apparently was placed on the 44-year-old professor's office door sometime before 9 a.m. ET Tuesday, Levine said.

Security cameras cover the entrance to the building, but there are none in the hallway where the noose was discovered, he added. The building, which is open 24 hours a day, is accessible only to those with a Teachers College ID card or proof that they are affiliated with someone within the school, Levine said

The New York Police Department's Hate Crime Task Force is investigating.

Reacting to the news, more than 150 undergraduates attended a meeting Tuesday night on campus, and more than 120 Teachers College students expressed outrage at a gathering in their dining hall as well, according to the student-run newspaper Columbia Spectator....

CNN

[TLWisfoine]

It gets confusing because state's rights were an issue of the civil war.

But the "state right" being referred to was slavery and the spread of it. You were correct in that Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery outright, but he was steadfast in that slavery "stayed where it laid"....particularly in the rural south.

The country as a whole was busy expanding west and taking their law with them, so to speak. So as southern land owners expanded west, they brought slaves with them to work their new fields. This expanding land was not American soil, per say. It was American territory. Those Midwestern territories werent tallied in Congressional electoral representation...basically, they werent states yet.

But Lincoln was set against slavery being spread further west. He knew if he isolated where slavery was lawful that it would die its own death. Needless to say the Southern states were none too happy when told that slavery wasnt allowed in the new territory. So the state and federal government came to verbal (and physical) blows about it. They hashed out a slipshod agreement called the Missouri Compromise among other pieces of legislation that headed off the inevitable conflict that was to ensue.

Long story short, the South had good legal arguments about the role of the Federal government and its ability to squash state's rights as it sees fit. The problem with their argument was that it involved the bondage of human beings as property.

Different time then, it seems foreign to discuss the prospect of a legal battle over human slaves but you must remember, slaves were around for longer than anyone had been alive. Long before then as well. So the "change in wind" that the north was having was acutely unique in historical perspective.

Either way, everyone knows who won the war. Lincoln, who in his "House Divided" speech made clear his intentions to only restrict slavery from spreading outside where it already was, had the unfortunate obligation to militarily engage his own countrymen. As an aside, since the time for talk was dead, Lincoln decided the time for slavery was as well in totality once the South seceded and took arms against the Union. He was the villain and the hero at the same time, which makes him a dynamic figure in our history. Im sure he never intended the Emancipation Proclamation to be the kick start to Civil War, and if in retrospect he had to do it again, he probably wouldnt have decreed the do ent. But he did, they seceded, bloody war, North wins, slavery abolished, Southern economy in tatters.

One could argue slavery didnt end with the war, it just changed names being called "Indentured Servants", but thats another matter.

Thanks!!!

[TLWisfoine]

He wouldn't own other human beings, but he would fight to the death to protect the right of Americans to own other human beings.

He should consider working for the ACLU!!!

[ChumpDumper]

Another lasso has been found..

From Sarah B. Boxer
CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A noose was discovered this week on the office door of an African-American professor at Columbia University, school officials and the New York Police Department said. The noose was found in a building at Columbia's Teachers College, said Joe Levine, executive director for external affairs at Teachers College. The noose apparently was placed on the 44-year-old professor's office door sometime before 9 a.m. ET Tuesday, Levine said.

Security cameras cover the entrance to the building, but there are none in the hallway where the noose was discovered, he added. The building, which is open 24 hours a day, is accessible only to those with a Teachers College ID card or proof that they are affiliated with someone within the school, Levine said

The New York Police Department's Hate Crime Task Force is investigating.

Reacting to the news, more than 150 undergraduates attended a meeting Tuesday night on campus, and more than 120 Teachers College students expressed outrage at a gathering in their dining hall as well, according to the student-run newspaper Columbia Spectator....

CNN

That was obviously the Columbia rodeo club just fooling around. The field hockey team had just played a game against Brown.

[Wild Cobra]

So from what I'm getting here is that the South was fighting for their "state's right" to continue slavery, and you support that?

I do not agree with slavery. I agree it was their states right to have it. Let's make sure you don't twist my words to say I support slavery.

[DarkReign]

Lincoln didn't promulgate the EP until 1863; the CW began in '61.

Damnit, youre right. Nice catch. Just kinda spewed it from memory, shoulda checked that out. Thanks.

[Extra Stout]

I do not agree with slavery. I agree it was their states right to have it. Let's make sure you don't twist my words to say I support slavery.

Wild Cobra: pro-choice on human chattel slavery.

[101A]

Another lasso has been found..

[B]From Sarah B. Boxer
CNN



CNN

What did that professor do to so piss off the local Klan at Columbia?

Sit under the wrong tree?

[Oh, Gee!!]

I do not agree with slavery. I agree it was their states right to have it. Let's make sure you don't twist my words to say I support slavery.

so it's a state's right to violate an individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or, maybe the slaves weren't individuals?

[xrayzebra]

so it's a state's right to violate an individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or, maybe the slaves weren't individuals?

OG, what happened then compared to what happens in
today's world are entirely two different things. And you
know it.

Slavery was ended. No way does anyone in the United
States want it to come back. You want to get on some
other peoples case about slavery look to the Middle East
and Africa. It still exist in those countries.

[Oh, Gee!!]

OG, what happened then compared to what happens in
today's world are entirely two different things. And you
know it.

but WC is around today, not the 1800's.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Slavery was ended. No way does anyone in the United
States want it to come back.

WC wouldn't oppose it however.

You want to get on some other peoples case about slavery look to the Middle East and Africa. It still exist in those countries.

WC approves of their right to continue the practice.

[xrayzebra]

OG, get serious once in a while. What happened in Jena is so
confused no one except maybe the school officials knows what
really happened. The courts are attempting to right a wrong.

I am no so damn old that I cant remember how kids do things.
In days gone past the adults would have kicked a little butt
themselves and that would have been the end of it. But in
todays world the Liberals have to bring the court system into
everything. Never mind, I just get a bit peeved when
crap happens that never should happen.

[101A]

A kid got thrown in jail for reacting to a hate crime, while the perpetrators of said hate crime got off scot-free

Hey, I've got an idea...let's start this thread ALL over again!

ElP got us going, now I'll fire back:

The incidents were separated by months, and there is no link between them.

[xrayzebra]

A kid got thrown in jail for reacting to a hate crime, while the perpetrators of said hate crime got off scot-free

There you go. A hate crime, my foot! And no one got
off scott free. If the truth were known it was more than
likely young toughs, some white, some black and
they had to prove something to everyone. Anyhow,
there is no such thing as a hate crime in my books. There
is crime and there is hate. Two different things. And
no one will every stop either.

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Cobra: pro-choice on human chattel slavery.

On the contrary. I am pro life and anti-slave. However, I also beliieve in following the law of the land.

Abortion is legal as appauling as I see it.

Slavery was legal as appauling as it was.

Both are actulally issues of states rights rather than the rights of the federal government.