568
569

PhotoGraduation (imgur.com)

ThePurpleNegus が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]only_your_enemy -3ポイント-2ポイント  (15子コメント)

The confederate constitution did not require states to own slaves. What are you talking about?

So you believe the Confederates seceded over the belief that abolishing slavery is an improper power of the federal government

I'm not sure what you mean by "improper" power.

Confederates seceded over the belief that abolishing slavery was not a power of the federal government; the federal government didn't have that authority.

[–]nope_nic_tesla 3ポイント4ポイント  (13子コメント)

I quoted the line directly above where they required exactly that. It's clear you don't know WTF you are talking about and aren't even reading the sources people are citing.

Since you apparently missed it, here it is again:

Source

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

[–]only_your_enemy -3ポイント-2ポイント  (12子コメント)

How are you getting "requiring slavery" from that?

[–]nope_nic_tesla 2ポイント3ポイント  (10子コメント)

It is saying no states can pass laws that deny the "right" to own slaves. How are you interpreting that...? I mean, it's really straightforward. Nobody can pass laws denying the right to own slaves. It is very clear.

[–]only_your_enemy -1ポイント0ポイント  (9子コメント)

Nobody can pass laws denying the right to own slaves. It is very clear.

Right, and it's different from requiring slavery. There's a difference between requiring X and requiring that you can't deny someone X. If you can't understand that then you're not a logical person.

[–]nope_nic_tesla 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

You're not a logical person if you think "you must allow slavery" and "you can't ban slavery" has any practical difference in real life. In either case the real-world effect is that slavery is practiced and protected in every Confederate state, and states did not have the right to ban it. This is not consistent with your earlier claims that it was about states' rights.

[–]only_your_enemy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (7子コメント)

You're not a logical person if you think "you must allow slavery" and "you can't ban slavery" has any practical difference in real life.

It does. Why do you think otherwise?

The statement "slavery is required" means that owning slaves would be compulsory. Protecting the right to own slaves doesn't mean anyone has to actually own slaves. A right can be protected and yet never utilized. The point of that would be to restrict the government's authority, to say it does not have the power to deny persons of that right.

This is not consistent with your earlier claims that it was about states' rights.

It's entirely consistent. I'm still arguing that the root issue of the civil war was federal authority versus states rights, as I have been all along.

[–]nope_nic_tesla 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions? Because others have already posted the actual declarations of secession by the seceding states, as well as speeches by people like the Vice President, and none of them support your position.

If it was about states' rights, then states should have the right to ban slavery. What you are saying makes no sense. Under the Confederate Constitution, nobody could abolish slavery.

[–]nope_nic_tesla 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

The statement "slavery is required" means that owning slaves would be compulsory. Protecting the right to own slaves doesn't mean anyone has to actually own slaves. A right can be protected and yet never utilized. The point of that would be to restrict the government's authority, to say it does not have the power to deny persons of that right.

Owning slaves isn't a right, so this is a non-sequitur. Every state had slavery as a widespread and common practice, and this was to ensure that it continued. You know this is the case, don't be so obtuse.

[–]only_your_enemy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Owning slaves isn't a right, so this is a non-sequitur.

How is it non-sequitur? How is it not a right?

Every state had slavery as a widespread and common practice, and this was to ensure that it continued.

No, to ensure that people had the right to continue it if they wanted, and to restrict the authority of the federal government to tell people they can't.

don't be so obtuse.

[–]nope_nic_tesla 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Do you really need an explanation for why owning other human beings against their will is not a right? I never thought I'd see someone actually argue in favor of slavery.

[–]nope_nic_tesla 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

They also required all new territories to enforce slavery:

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

[–]nope_nic_tesla 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

How is it that you know so much more about the Confederacy than its Vice President?

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

  • Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy

I mean he literally says slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession. Nothing in there about federal powers.