Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[kishnevi]

What article of the US Constitution as ratified by the member states as per 1861 formally prohibited secession? Quote it word by word, please.

I will not cease posting this question until it gets a straight answer. 

There was none.  If there had been one, there would have been no Civil War.  Or perhaps a war fought with a much different dynamic.

Simply put, the South used a good thing to defend evil.  Which resulted in the good thing being trampled underfoot in order to extirpate the evil.

[Ken B]

There was none.  If there had been one, there would have been no Civil War.  Or perhaps a war fought with a much different dynamic.

Simply put, the South used a good thing to defend evil.  Which resulted in the good thing being trampled underfoot in order to extirpate the evil.

The constitution DID provide a mechanism for secession. Amendment.

[Ken B]

It is probably true that smaller states are better or at least more easily governed, and the citizens of smaller states enjoy more overall liberty as a result.  There is a big difference in the nation that created the constitution and the one we have today, with 50 states, and nearly 400 million people.  The Federal government has done nothing but assume more and more power over the states, which were originally supposed to be where most of the power to govern was to devolve. 

While the focus of rebellion was the Fugitive Slave Act, the principle was states rights: i.e. which government, the state or the federal, would hold the trump card when there was a disagreement over how a state would decide issues that primarily effected only their own citizens.

I am no fan of slavery and will not defend the institution, but the North benefited from it economically along with the South.  And slavery was not the call to arms until midway through the war when Lincoln saw that his army needed a more emotionally charged reason to fight than preserving the union.

It is my belief that slavery would have ended eventually, and the I would have preferred it if the south would have simply been allowed to leave the union, saving millions of lives in the process.

I will answer only the point about benefitting from slavery, as it important. Slave holders benefitted. Some others did too. But the country as a whole did not, even just in terms of wealth. Free labour is more productive and if all the slaves had been free and not subject to racist laws (like Jim Crow) the polity in toto would have been better off, to say nothing of the slaves.

[Ken B]

What article of the US Constitution as ratified by the member states as per 1861 formally prohibited secession? Quote it word by word, please.

I will not cease posting this question until it gets a straight answer. 

What article mandated judicial review per Marbury? That was a purely structural argument, and a sound one.
Which article mentions wiretaps, the subject of a recent ruling?

If you want though, I'll play. Cite a verse of the Bible mandating any right for anyone, except a right to command or punish? Cite a passage prohibiting slavery? Cite a passage mandating the Nicene creed? Legal theory is not the only subject where indirect arguments get used ...

[Ken B]

From the beginning of the white settlement of America, huge land masses were granted to individuals by colonial powers with the plan being to develop the land and resources.  Slavery, as an institution, was part of the equation that went into the creation of the United States and every colonial power had a hand in the slave trade.  Without slave labor, these large areas could not have been developed.  It is disingenuous to say the country did not benefit from it; it did until it became intolerable for moral reasons.  And I think a combination of those reasons as well as others would have caused the South to abandon slavery sooner or later.

I am not arguing that slavery should have continued, only that it was hypocritical for the North to assume a stance of moral superiority merely because the slaves were located in the South, while Northern industries received the fruit of their labor at very low cost.

No-one denies that those who stole the slaves' labor benefitted from doing so. Theft pays if you can get away with it. But it is not socially productive. I am pointing out that each slave would have produced more had he been allowed to control his own life and labor. And of course the costs of invigilation could have been more productively used.
Put N people in an economy. They will produce more wealth free than as a slave state. So the country did benefit from the labor of the slaves, but not from the slavery.

[Todd]

While the focus of rebellion was the Fugitive Slave Act, the principle was states rights: i.e. which government, the state or the federal, would hold the trump card when there was a disagreement over how a state would decide issues that primarily effected only their own citizens.

Well, this is actually something of a neat trick, in addition to being a hollow argument.  The Southern states were unambiguously ignoring issues that directly and negatively affected the lives of slaves.  But then, slaves weren't citizens.  See, that's the trick.  When a vast swath of people can simply be ignored, it allows for false arguments of high principle.  Then there is also the problem of interstate trade between slave states in both goods and services, along with slaves.  The Constitution is very clear about which level of government has the power to regulate interstate trade. 

The argument also strikes me as selective.  Southern states were generally adamant about enforcement of fugitive slave laws.  Should not a true advocate of States' Rights also argue that Northern States had every right to not enforce fugitive slave laws because they violated or otherwise negatively affected the citizens of Northern States?  If there is a dispute between states, which entity settles such a dispute?

Here I'll be blunt: States' Rights is a crock.  Always has been, always will be.  The actual history of States' Rights has been one of oppression.  Slavery, Jim Crow in the South, other legalized forms of segregation in the North, etc.  I cannot ignore the actual facts, the actual history.  Whatever bright spots in the history of States' Rights one can point to are far more than offset by the brutish facts.

And slavery was not the call to arms until midway through the war when Lincoln saw that his army needed a more emotionally charged reason to fight than preserving the union.

Preservation of slavery was a call to arms for the South from day one - ie, December 20, 1860.

It is my belief that slavery would have ended eventually, and the I would have preferred it if the south would have simply been allowed to leave the union, saving millions of lives in the process.

This is both contrafactual, and thereby of inherently limited value, and factually erroneous.  First, millions did not die during the Civil War.  About 620,000 did. 

Second, the argument that slavery would have ended eventually is dubious.  How long would it have taken?  Ten years?  Thirty years?  Fifty years?  The beauty of contrafactual arguments is that you can make up any number you want and say it is reasonable.  The ambitions of some slaveowners – exploring the possibility of expanding into the Carribean, for instance – indicates that some had no desire to ever see it end, and would take steps to expand it.  They may or may not have succeeded, but they would have tried – they did try.

Let me ask this contrafactual question: Had slavery continued for <insert the number of years you estimate it would have survived>, how many millions of slaves would have lived and died in bondage?  Would the lives of those slaves had been worth less in some way than the 620,000 people who died during the war?

What article mandated judicial review per Marbury?

Also, what provision of the Constitution allowed for the Louisiana Purchase?  Even Jefferson (supposedly) agonized over this one.  So did others.  Yet the Treasury still cut the check.

[Florestan]

I have cleaned up my mess. Todd, I apologize.

[Ken B]

I could leave this on several threads, but this one seems relevant. Hillary Clinton taking bribes to let the Russians buy uranium.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=3
The corruption goes far beyond just the Clintons.

Here's a brief summary of the highlights as they regard Clinton.
https://ricochet.com/hillarys-day-of-wrath/

There seems to have been Canadian government involvement too. I hope that will come out so we can see just what was done.

[Ken B]

Well, this is actually something of a neat trick, in addition to being a hollow argument.  The Southern states were unambiguously ignoring issues that directly and negatively affected the lives of slaves.  But then, slaves weren't citizens.  See, that's the trick.  When a vast swath of people can simply be ignored, it allows for false arguments of high principle.  Then there is also the problem of interstate trade between slave states in both goods and services, along with slaves.  The Constitution is very clear about which level of government has the power to regulate interstate trade. 

The argument also strikes me as selective.  Southern states were generally adamant about enforcement of fugitive slave laws.  Should not a true advocate of States' Rights also argue that Northern States had every right to not enforce fugitive slave laws because they violated or otherwise negatively affected the citizens of Northern States?  If there is a dispute between states, which entity settles such a dispute?

Here I'll be blunt: States' Rights is a crock.  Always has been, always will be.  The actual history of States' Rights has been one of oppression.  Slavery, Jim Crow in the South, other legalized forms of segregation in the North, etc.  I cannot ignore the actual facts, the actual history.  Whatever bright spots in the history of States' Rights one can point to are far more than offset by the brutish facts.




Preservation of slavery was a call to arms for the South from day one - ie, December 20, 1860.




This is both contrafactual, and thereby of inherently limited value, and factually erroneous.  First, millions did not die during the Civil War.  About 620,000 did. 

Second, the argument that slavery would have ended eventually is dubious.  How long would it have taken?  Ten years?  Thirty years?  Fifty years?  The beauty of contrafactual arguments is that you can make up any number you want and say it is reasonable.  The ambitions of some slaveowners – exploring the possibility of expanding into the Carribean, for instance – indicates that some had no desire to ever see it end, and would take steps to expand it.  They may or may not have succeeded, but they would have tried – they did try.

Let me ask this contrafactual question: Had slavery continued for <insert the number of years you estimate it would have survived>, how many millions of slaves would have lived and died in bondage?  Would the lives of those slaves had been worth less in some way than the 620,000 people who died during the war?



Also, what provision of the Constitution allowed for the Louisiana Purchase?  Even Jefferson (supposedly) agonized over this one.  So did others.  Yet the Treasury still cut the check.

Excellent post Todd. Danke sehr.

[Todd]

In it to win it!

[Karl Henning]

Excellent post Todd. Danke sehr.

Hear, hear.

[Jubal Slate]

In it to win it!

I'll check him out. 

[Karl Henning]

I'll check him out. 

Yes!

[Todd]

I'll check him out.

My Helmet of Prognostication gives Mr Sanders a 0% chance of winning the nomination.

[Jubal Slate]

My Helmet of Prognostication gives Mr Sanders a 0% chance of winning the nomination.

Of course. 

[Karl Henning]

My Helmet of Prognostication gives Mr Sanders a 0% chance of winning the nomination.

I think your helmet accurately evaluates the effect of the Juggernaut.

[Ken B]

My Helmet of Prognostication gives Mr Sanders a 0% chance of winning the nomination.

Insure that thing. A Helmet that reliable is valuable.

[Karl Henning]

The Darnhelm!

[Todd]

Two more Republicans officially join the fray.

Ben Carson is unique in that his chances of winning are actually less than zero.  He boosts all other candidates' chances by running.

Failed, but well compensated, former executive Carly Fiorina has also entered the race.  She has a slightly greater chance of winning the election than I do.  Maybe she wants to be Secretary of Commerce, or something.  No way she'd get one of the big three cabinet posts.

[Karl Henning]

I even just enjoy the headline at the online Washington Post:

9 best moments from Carson's bizarre launch/concert