Which side do YOU view as right?

Look what you did Gen. Lee, you caused everyone to go off topic! lol, no problem... I thought it was hypothetical.

Well if they think that it is my fault they should say so. BACK ON TOPIC!

You are on topic.

Back to Nullification. What are your views on this, Civ?

Oh gosh...
I would say good and bad thing. Good in that it gave the states rights but bad if the government couldn't control anything going on within the state. If that make any sense at all... hah

Yes, there is always the question of who gets the final say. Give it to the Federal Government, and they use it to overrule the states' rights. Give it to the States, and they have the ability to ignore everything that the Federal Government does. But I think that in the time when our country was founded, when means of communication and travel were extremely limited, it would have been of more importance to give the States the option and the ability to nullify unconstitutional jurisdiction.

I'll agree with you there,

Thank you Civ! I appreciate the support.

Ahem, about nullification, again I think it gives the state way to much power because if you can take a law away simply because somebody in a poll dubs it "uncontitutional" for whatever reason, then you have to much say in the matter. That's why the feds(it does NOT sound dorky ) are there, to bring a balance to the way the nation is governed. To set limits on power, not to excerize it. At least, thats what they are supposed to do.

The Opposition wrote:

That's why the feds(it does NOT sound dorky ) are there, to bring a balance to the way the nation is governed. To set limits on power, not to excerize it. At least, thats what they are supposed to do.

Oppie, listen to what you just said: "That's why the feds...are there...to set limits on power, not to exercise it."

First of all, if the "feds" (btw, it does sound dorky lol) only exist to limit power, whose power are they limiting?

Secondly, isn't the very act of limiting power, also an act of exercising power?

The way our government was designed to work, is with governing by the people. The people always have the final say. But who directly represents the people, in the little picture? Congress? Not really, they are only one of three branches of government who all share power equally, thus, in theory, giving the people only 33% direct say. The real representatives of the people are the states. The more local you can get, the smaller government gets, and all the more impact people have on goverment.

The U.S. Constitution, the document by which our government functions, has but one soul purpose: to set limits on the federal government. The way the constitution works, is not to set limits on the people, but to create restraints upon the central government. We, the people, are not governed in our everyday lives and actions by what the Constitution says we can and cannot do. Rather, the federal government is; if a right of government is not included in the Constitution, then our government cannot execute that act.

Naturally, in this situation, we cannot give the federal government the right to dictate its own rights and powers. Who is to do it then? Believe it or not, it was with the goodwill of the States, and representatives of the people acting as delegates, who formed the Constitution, and passed it into law; the delegates by creating such a document, and the states by accepting it in a near-unanimous majority. It wasn't until then, in all reality, that the United States of America came into being. For what is the United States? In my mind, I see it as more of a state of being, a virtual bondage, entered into by the states. There is no such place as the United States. It only exists in the historical documents that created this Great Expiriment, and in the hearts and minds of the people. It is an image, and a symbol, of freedom, liberty, and equality.

General Stuart wrote:

The Opposition wrote:

That's why the feds(it does NOT sound dorky ) are there, to bring a balance to the way the nation is governed. To set limits on power, not to excerize it. At least, thats what they are supposed to do.

Oppie, listen to what you just said: "That's why the feds...are there...to set limits on power, not to exercise it."

First of all, if the "feds" (btw, it does sound dorky lol) only exist to limit power, whose power are they limiting?

Secondly, isn't the very act of limiting power, also an act of exercising power?

The way our government was designed to work, is with governing by the people. The people always have the final say. But who directly represents the people, in the little picture? Congress? Not really, they are only one of three branches of government who all share power equally, thus, in theory, giving the people only 33% direct say. The real representatives of the people are the states. The more local you can get, the smaller government gets, and all the more impact people have on goverment.

The U.S. Constitution, the document by which our government functions, has but one soul purpose: to set limits on the federal government. The way the constitution works, is not to set limits on the people, but to create restraints upon the central government. We, the people, are not governed in our everyday lives and actions by what the Constitution says we can and cannot do. Rather, the federal government is; if a right of government is not included in the Constitution, then our government cannot execute that act.

Naturally, in this situation, we cannot give the federal government the right to dictate its own rights and powers. Who is to do it then? Believe it or not, it was with the goodwill of the States, and representatives of the people acting as delegates, who formed the Constitution, and passed it into law; the delegates by creating such a document, and the states by accepting it in a near-unanimous majority. It wasn't until then, in all reality, that the United States of America came into being. For what is the United States? In my mind, I see it as more of a state of being, a virtual bondage, entered into by the states. There is no such place as the United States. It only exists in the historical documents that created this Great Expiriment, and in the hearts and minds of the people. It is an image, and a symbol, of freedom, liberty, and equality.

Whoah, Sorry about that, I was a little confused.

maybe it had something to do with that coconut that hit me on the head yesterday........


(and feds does not SOUND DORKY!)

No problem Oppie. And to be honest, "the feds" sounds like a bad thing, like the guys that come to take E.T.

Most of the Confederate states did not even have Lincoln on their presidential ballots in 1860. That fact alone gives the North more credence.

What side do you support, Reb? I thought your name was something of a hint, but maybe not...

I'ma born and bred Yankee who thinks Lee was a better general than Grant, and my moniker reflects that.
My main concern is the historical truth, as far as knowable, so I don't blindly support either side. For instance, I believe that Lee made mistakes at Gettysburg, but do not beleive it was a decisive battle. I don't see any one battle as crucial to deciding the war.

I think the fireeaters (on both sides) influenced/controlled the debate enough to put rational thought on the back burner until sucession made rationality impossible.

Topic closed due to it's having 23 pages.