tenthamendmentcenter.com — An examination of the recent 10th amendment state sovereignty movement with particular application from the work of ?tienne de la Bo?tie. The central point from la Bo?tie is that tyrants can only succeed in their abuse so long as the people are willing to serve as the tyrant's instruments, and that once they cease their support, the tyrant falls.
May 23, 2009 View in Crawl 4
samsmartjrMay 25, 2009
Yes, the Civil War was about commerce. BUT THEIR WHOLE ECONOMIC SYSTEM WAS BASED ON SLAVERY. That's a fact. And the devaluation of a human being to property is an infringement on that person's human rights. States' rights should never be used to justify infringement of human rights, and an economic system based on infringement of human rights is never an excuse.Slavery ended after the war. But racial discrimination in the South didn't. Jim crow laws, grandfather clauses, poll taxes, and the doctrine of "separate but equal" were all used by state governments to disenfranchise African-Americans of their right to vote for almost a century after the Civil War. That's fact.What is also fact? That it was the federal government that had to enforce desegregation in the South. This is shown when President Eisenhower confronted Governor Faubus of Arkansas to integrate Little Rock Central High School and when President Kennedy confronted Governor Wallace of Alabama to integrate the University of Alabama. It wasn't the federal government that was preventing the civil rights of African-Americans to an equal education - it was the state governments. That's a fact.Tasine, while big government is not a savior, neither is state governments. This has been proven by history time and time again. This is because state governments tend to only focus on their own majorities within the state, giving little thought to minority groups. This allows them to pass discriminatory laws, such as Jim Crow laws that prevent African-Americans their right to vote in order to make their voice heard in politics or sodomy laws that make it illegal for homosexuals to pursue their choice in lifestyle. And that is where the power of the federal government lies - in protecting minority groups from disenfranchisement of state governments. This because not every citizen in this country is a Georgian or a New Yorker or a Californian or a Minnesotan.But every citizen in this country is an American, and deserves the same freedoms against disenfranchisement and discrimination throughout the whole nation despite local politicians trying to inflict such oppressions on minority groups. And that is what the federal government does.Fact.
samsmartjrMay 25, 2009
"We fought a war to free slaves?<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Ci">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Ci</a> ...Lincoln himself disagrees with you."Oh really?FTA: However, in August 1862, Lincoln wrote to editor Horace Greeley that DESPITE HIS OWN MORAL OBEJCTION TO SLAVERY, the objective of the war was to save the Union and not either to save or to destroy slavery. He went on to say that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, OR BY FREEING ALL THE SLAVES, or by freeing only some of the slaves, he would do it."Hmmm... Looks like he fought the Civil War to free the slaves in order to save the Union after all..."The federal government may have ended slavery but, as wikipedia has just shown, that was a byproduct and not the goal of the war. Abolition of slavery could have come about by totally peaceful means. If anyone from the north, or the federal government, really cared about the slaves enough to free them they would've put their money were their mouth is and simply bought the slaves, and freed them. It would have been cheaper than war, in both monetary and human costs."It would have been incredibly difficult for abolition to happen that way. As many of you have stated, the Southern economy was built on slavery. Therefore, Congressmen and Senators from the South would have blocked the federal government from passing legislation purchasing the slaves and freeing them. Whether through legislative or military means, the Southern economy would have collapsed with abolition. Therefore, Southern politicians had a vested interest in continuing it, whether through politics or rebellion."The 'tyranny of state governments' is farcical. Citizens of a given state have de facto citizenship in whatever state they _reside_ in. This means that if you want to leave an oppressive state, you can."Why should I leave a state whose government is oppressive? Why shouldn't I instead fight for my civil rights and liberties? An American is an American no matter what state he resides in. If a state government is oppressive it is not those individuals oppressed that should change but rather the state government should be made free of oppression."We the people are the check to state powers. The states are the check to federal powers. We the people are the supreme authority, the state is a framework within which we agree to exercise our liberties, the federal government is the framework in which the states agree to exercise their sovereignty."Yes, we the people. This means all the people, despite which social and cultural groups we belong to, are the supreme authority. And when state governments make attempts at disenfranchisement, we have the power of the federal government to call on. This is because the federal government was created to protect the rights of all Americans, no matter what individual state they are in.
njonMay 25, 2009Submitter
That's a complete straw man, samsmartjr; I never said that. No, it's never okay for any government to violate any person's natural rights. Your statement is also a red herring, because as I made perfectly clear, the Civil War was not ultimately about slavery (thus your statement is moot), yet you keep ignoring facts and pretending like it was about slavery. What part of 'some slave states remained in the Union' and 'Lincoln was a racist' don't you understand? And again, I point to the anti-slavery General Lee. He knew that what the Union was doing was tyrannical; that's why he sided with his home state.Notice how you cannot answer ANY of my multiple historical facts that discredit your claims?
samsmartjrMay 25, 2009
"What part of 'some slave states remained in the Union'"Which states? Did those states resist emancipation or desegregation? If so, those states are just as bad as the southern states. I honestly don't know what you're trying to prove here with that point."'Lincoln was a racist'"How can he be racist when he advocated giving slaves their freedoms while he was debating the issue with Douglas? If you meant colonization, well, that doesn't necessarily make him a racist - perhaps he advocated it because he knew how racist the majority of white Americans were at that time. Wanting to find a peaceful place for a minority to live isn't necessarily racism."'I point to the anti-slavery General Lee. He knew that what the Union was doing was tyrannical; that's why he sided with his home state.'"Was it because he believed that the federal government was tyrannical? Or was it because he held too much of a love for his native state of Virginia? Maybe people thought of their states first and as Americans last. But one general being anti-slavery does not dismiss the fact that the state was pro-slavery. And I think that a state that would perpetuate slavery is in itself tyrannical because of violation of human rights, which supersede constitutional rights.
njonMay 26, 2009Submitter
[[[Which states? Did those states resist emancipation or desegregation? If so, those states are just as bad as the southern states. I honestly don't know what you're trying to prove here with that point.]]]Oh, come on. You don't know what I'm trying to prove? You're arguing that the Civil War was fought to abolish slavery. Yet the side you think supposedly felt a moral obligation to fight slavery --- the Union --- had several states that continued the practice of slavery. It's pretty obvious why this is an issue. See <a class="user" href="http://www.civilwarhome.com/borderstates.htm">http://www.civilwarhome.com/borderstates.htm</a>[[[How can he be racist when he advocated giving slaves their freedoms while he was debating the issue with Douglas?]]]Judge Andrew Napolitano has a brand new book, and interestingly enough, the free chapter he has on his website is about Lincoln on this very issue. See <a class="user" href="http://www.judgenap.com/dsr6.pdf">http://www.judgenap.com/dsr6.pdf</a>[[[If you meant colonization, well, that doesn't necessarily make him a racist - perhaps he advocated it because he knew how racist the majority of white Americans were at that time. Wanting to find a peaceful place for a minority to live isn't necessarily racism.]]]Given the other evidence we have about Lincoln, that's a sad excuse if I ever heard it. And to think that we're the ones who are called 'revisionist' for telling the truth about Lincoln.[[[Was it because he believed that the federal government was tyrannical? Or was it because he held too much of a love for his native state of Virginia?]]]As Dr. Baldwin pointed out in the article I cited earlier at <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/political_opinion/Chuck_Baldwin_Honors_Robert_E_Lee_and_Stonewall_Jackson">http://digg.com/political_opinion/Chuck_Baldwin_Ho ...</a> General Lee had a solid family history in America. His father had fought in the Revolution, and mebers of his family signed the Declaration of Independence. He was fighting tyranny just like the generation of his family before him.[[[Maybe people thought of their states first and as Americans last.]]]Generally speaking, people DID think of themselves as state citizens first, national citizens second. At least before the Civil War.[[[But one general being anti-slavery does not dismiss the fact that the state was pro-slavery.]]]Not just a general, but the top general. What it does show is that the war was not all about slavery; it was fundamentally about state sovereignty and decentralized government. Plus, there are other factors about the war to consider. See <a class="user" href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo56.html">http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo56.h ...</a> for a listing example in regard to Lincoln.[[[And I think that a state that would perpetuate slavery is in itself tyrannical because of violation of human rights, which supersede constitutional rights.]]]You're correct on that point, but that still doesn't mean the Civil War was about slavery, or that the federal government had the power to abolish slavery. And you know what? They didn't. Slavery was abolished by Constitutional amendment.