The South screwed the US over
05 Nov 2025, 5:43 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
The south didn't need to secede.
Neither did the original 13 colonies. Slavery would have probably ended a long time ago if we had remained under British rule and the Native Americans may have even been spared the mass genocide out West.
Quote:
They brought the wrath of the Union on themselves.
Yeah and people are now making that same argument about the entire US of A earning the world's wrath for willingly electing Donald Trump twice (and he happens to be a New Yorker btw).
So tell me, as a 'fellow' American but one who feels oh so superior to the southern region, how does it feel to be hated and looked down on because of a permanent stain on our shared history?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
05 Nov 2025, 6:22 am
S0n0fAWitch13 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The south didn't need to secede.
Neither did the original 13 colonies. Slavery would have probably ended a long time ago if we had remained under British rule and the Native Americans may have even been spared the mass genocide out West.
Quote:
They brought the wrath of the Union on themselves.
Yeah and people are now making that same argument about the entire US of A earning the world's wrath for willingly electing Donald Trump twice (and he happens to be a New Yorker btw).
So tell me, as a 'fellow' American but one who feels oh so superior to the southern region, how does it feel to be hated and looked down on because of a permanent stain on our shared history?
As a matter of fact, my regional identity rests with being a westerner. And trust me, my part of the country has an abysmal track record with the genocide of Native Americans, and the theft of their land. That's the stain I bear for my region's history.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
05 Nov 2025, 7:50 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
S0n0fAWitch13 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The south didn't need to secede.
Neither did the original 13 colonies. Slavery would have probably ended a long time ago if we had remained under British rule and the Native Americans may have even been spared the mass genocide out West.
Quote:
They brought the wrath of the Union on themselves.
Yeah and people are now making that same argument about the entire US of A earning the world's wrath for willingly electing Donald Trump twice (and he happens to be a New Yorker btw).
So tell me, as a 'fellow' American but one who feels oh so superior to the southern region, how does it feel to be hated and looked down on because of a permanent stain on our shared history?
As a matter of fact, my regional identity rests with being a westerner. And trust me, my part of the country has an abysmal track record with the genocide of Native Americans, and the theft of their land. That's the stain I bear for my region's history.
The genocide was carried out on orders from the US Government. Being from the West where much of it was executed doesn't make one more guilty than being from some other region.
Anyway the purpose of this thread was mostly to bemoan the utter lack of autonomy for states, which came about because the South seceded and was returned to the Union through a bloody act of coercion. Unfortunately, if it's true that the whole point of that secession was to preserve slavery, then I can't sympathize but now we must do everything as dictated from DC, at a time when we could benefit from the autonomy that was abused by those slaveholders.
It shouldn't be a thread for Southerner and Northerners to throw shade at each other.
06 Nov 2025, 2:54 pm
MaxE wrote:
...we must do everything as dictated from DC, at a time when we could benefit from the autonomy that was abused by those slaveholders.
It shouldn't be a thread for Southerner and Northerners to throw shade at each other.
It shouldn't be a thread for Southerner and Northerners to throw shade at each other.
Your assumptions about the nature and power of the federal government as relates to states' rights seem to be grossly misunderstood. The states have always been beholden to the federal government. There are some things the states have never been allowed to say "no" to. Like the constitution. When an amendment gets added to the constitution, as has happened many times in our history, it apples to all states, and doesn't magically cancel ALL states' rights in the process. It just adds some new rules - not strip them of all freedom.
The civil war may have gotten a new rule added, but there were already rules. Beyond those rules, states still have their autonomy, just as they always have. You can tell cos some states have laws that other states don't. Laws vary greatly from state to state. States couldn't do that if they didn't have any lateral autonomy. Last I checked, the 10th amendment still existed.
Furthermore, "this shouldn't be a thread for north and south to throw shade" is a fairly ironic comment, when the thread title itself is throwing shade at the south - "they screwed us over" - a claim which itself is based on a flawed premise and a seeming lack of understanding of how federal law applies to states.
08 Nov 2025, 4:51 pm
uncommondenominator wrote:
MaxE wrote:
...we must do everything as dictated from DC, at a time when we could benefit from the autonomy that was abused by those slaveholders.
It shouldn't be a thread for Southerner and Northerners to throw shade at each other.
It shouldn't be a thread for Southerner and Northerners to throw shade at each other.
Your assumptions about the nature and power of the federal government as relates to states' rights seem to be grossly misunderstood. The states have always been beholden to the federal government. There are some things the states have never been allowed to say "no" to. Like the constitution. When an amendment gets added to the constitution, as has happened many times in our history, it apples to all states, and doesn't magically cancel ALL states' rights in the process. It just adds some new rules - not strip them of all freedom.
The civil war may have gotten a new rule added, but there were already rules. Beyond those rules, states still have their autonomy, just as they always have. You can tell cos some states have laws that other states don't. Laws vary greatly from state to state. States couldn't do that if they didn't have any lateral autonomy. Last I checked, the 10th amendment still existed.
Furthermore, "this shouldn't be a thread for north and south to throw shade" is a fairly ironic comment, when the thread title itself is throwing shade at the south - "they screwed us over" - a claim which itself is based on a flawed premise and a seeming lack of understanding of how federal law applies to states.
I did a Google AI search on "constitutional basis for southern states seceding" and the answer I got was less than concise, but it would seem the Southern States believed they could argue the constitutionality of secession. The argument against secession is something along the lines of "there's no constitutional provision for it" but of course if a state secedes regardless, then there's no recourse apart from force of arms deal with it, or else you concede that the state in question is no longer part of the US.
My problem is that states supposedly have rights but that the whole idea of "state's rights" was abused by the Southern states of the mid-1800s for the express purpose of preserving slavery, which in turn cast a shadow over the whole idea of state's rights. But I don't think the Federal Government should be able to seize control of a state's National Guard barring some horrible threat to national security or the equivalent, whereas it seems as though the Federal government aims to seize control with far less motivation, which they can do because "state's rights" is a concept that lost respect.
Interestingly I found a copy of this bill that went before the Kansas State Legislature earlier this year. I will quote the beginning anyway. Feel free to read this and ask yourself whether Federal control over state National Guards has been taken according to the principles articulated here:
Quote:
Date: 1/30/202
Bill number: SB38 – Defend The Guard
Indicate Disposition: Proponent Dan McKnight 13 Year Veteran (USMC, US Army, ID Army National Guard) Chairman and Founder of Bring Our Troops Home.
Chairman Thompson and Members of the Committee, We are here to discuss Defend the Guard, a legally sound measure designed to close a loophole in existing law and ensure that the Kansas National Guard is never misused by the federal government outside its constitutional and statutory authority.
At its core, Defend the Guard is about enforcing and clearly defining the limits of executive power so that Kansas Guardsmen are deployed only for their rightful and lawful missions—not at the whim of a single individual or unelected bureaucrat. It is about honoring the men and women who put on the uniform of the National Guard and ensuring that they are never used for political purposes.
The President’s Limited Authority to Federalize the National Guard The supreme law of the land—the Constitution—grants only three purposes for which the National Guard, formerly known as the militia, may be called into federal service:
1. To repel an invasion.
2. To suppress an insurrection.
3. To enforce the laws of the Union.
Beyond these very specific constitutional mandates, federal law has further clarified and restricted when and how the National Guard can be federalized to prevent executive overreach. The primary laws governing this authority are found in Title 10, U.S. Code, Sections 12301 and 12302.
(the text if the above follows)
Bill number: SB38 – Defend The Guard
Indicate Disposition: Proponent Dan McKnight 13 Year Veteran (USMC, US Army, ID Army National Guard) Chairman and Founder of Bring Our Troops Home.
Chairman Thompson and Members of the Committee, We are here to discuss Defend the Guard, a legally sound measure designed to close a loophole in existing law and ensure that the Kansas National Guard is never misused by the federal government outside its constitutional and statutory authority.
At its core, Defend the Guard is about enforcing and clearly defining the limits of executive power so that Kansas Guardsmen are deployed only for their rightful and lawful missions—not at the whim of a single individual or unelected bureaucrat. It is about honoring the men and women who put on the uniform of the National Guard and ensuring that they are never used for political purposes.
The President’s Limited Authority to Federalize the National Guard The supreme law of the land—the Constitution—grants only three purposes for which the National Guard, formerly known as the militia, may be called into federal service:
1. To repel an invasion.
2. To suppress an insurrection.
3. To enforce the laws of the Union.
Beyond these very specific constitutional mandates, federal law has further clarified and restricted when and how the National Guard can be federalized to prevent executive overreach. The primary laws governing this authority are found in Title 10, U.S. Code, Sections 12301 and 12302.
(the text if the above follows)
09 Nov 2025, 9:28 pm
All of which is lovely, but it still ignores the full scope of the reality of the situation.
States already gave up some autonomy when they signed onto the Constitution. Which stated did willingly. You had to APPLY for statehood. There's some historical dishonesty here and there as far as that goes, but in general, becoming a state was a willing process that the states initiated of their own accord.
They understood that doing so made them beholden to the Constitution, and that they would have a voice in it's administration and application as a result. This includes the amendments to the constitution. The imposition of a new rule simply added that new rule. It did not invalidate all the other rights that a state still possesses.
I don't suppose you realize just how many amendments and exist and acts have been passed, simply because some states were trying to pull a trick, and the new rule simply closed the loophole on the scam they were pulling. There are may things the states have done to try to cheat the federal government, and there are times the states shouldn't be able to say "no" to the national guard being deployed. Else it could be abused as a political tool.
I don't suppose you realize that the National Guard can only be deployed for specific reasons. And also can't enforce whatever it wants - it can only enforce existing federal law and whatever state laws exist in that state - things that the state is already obligated to do, as a state. Failure to do so itself violates law.
So it's funny that you say the national guard should only be able to be deployed in certain cases, when that's literally already in the rules, and has been for some time.
If your argument is based on the angle of "well, yes, those rules exist, but they're breaking those rules!", then any previous rule changes wouldn't matter, cos they'd still just be breaking the rules now, too. What, you think rules stop rule-breakers?
It seems like you're clutching at straws.
