Reply With Quote
A little over a minute in, he quotes a founding fathers statement that states are duty bound to resist illegal laws. Well, look what happened to the South when they resisted.
Nullification: Interview with a Zombie
A zombie sits down to interview Tom Woods on Tom's latest book, "Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5...ayer_embedded#!
A little over a minute in, he quotes a founding fathers statement that states are duty bound to resist illegal laws. Well, look what happened to the South when they resisted.
But then your point is moot. They did resist...lost and capitulated, rightly or wrongly.
Resistance is fine, but you have to "win" in order to affect change.
Moreover, the issue of the Civil War is a bad one. There are laws and there was slavery as law.
Poor argument, even to a statist like myself.
Slavery was just a part of the states rights. I wasn't arguing a single aspect. Fact is, we really eroded states rights when the north won. Do you disagree with that aspect of my argument?
I'm not going to say that slavery was right. Fact is, slavery had to remain intact for the nation to come together. It was recognized in the cons ution.
Shouldn't the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments been created before forcing federal laws on free states? The laws were uncons utional, and the south rebelled. Still, slavery was only one of several issues that the federal government imposing over states rights.
Since when is freeing dark skinned human beings from labour they did not contract themselves to part of state's rights? those states.
Have you read the cons ution?
It was there. I'm not arguing morality.
No, not at all. I agree with you absolutely.
Therein lies the problem with codifying things into law that are meaningfully void when applied to the idea of a democratic nation.I'm not going to say that slavery was right. Fact is, slavery had to remain intact for the nation to come together. It was recognized in the cons ution.
The way the country went through that process is about as just as it could get. Bottom line, spin it if you like, Southerners still wanted to own human beings. That was appalling to most Northern citizens and a right to most Southern citizens.Shouldn't the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments been created before forcing federal laws on free states? The laws were uncons utional, and the south rebelled. Still, slavery was only one of several issues that the federal government imposing over states rights.
War broke out, someone lost via an unconditional surrender. The end.
The South had a right to fight for its cause and its rights, and they did. But when they unconditionally surrendered, their rights no longer mattered. They were the conquered, the vanquished, they lost. How history interprets that is irrelvant.
Its a shame that State's Rights were an ever-lasting casualty of war because of it (a God damned shame), but in that instance, trust me, I'd have had a rifle in my hand for the blueshirts.
Last edited by DarkReign; 06-30-2010 at 03:01 PM. Reason: "their" not "theyre"
That's impossible to unequivocably state. If you had existed back then, your mindset would have been vastly different from what it is now.
Just saying
Don't you see the ever growing and encroachment of the federal government over states responsibilities?That's impossible to unequivocably state. If you had existed back then, your mindset would have been vastly different from what it is now.
Just saying
...and you'd be "just saying" correctly. It was a stupid blanket statement to make.That's impossible to unequivocably state. If you had existed back then, your mindset would have been vastly different from what it is now.
Just saying
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
