It seems that alot of the pro-CSA arguments in the Civil War threads are focused on the (very revisionist) argument that the Confederate States would have been some sort of libertarian paradise, more 'respectful' of citizen's rights & such...

However, apart from the historical evidence (showing that during the war the CSA was WORSE than the USA in that regard), I ask you to think about one question:

Today, as it is, WHICH government infringes on your rights more: Federal or State?

Think long and hard...

Some of you (CA, NY, NJ, etc) may not have to, it's obvious...

Now, immagine a world where there was no 14th Ammendment, no Federal restraint on State governments... Immagine a world where California could decide to implement statewide "Speech Codes"...

I don't know about you, but the history I've seen shows the STATE governments have been far more prone to abuse rights than the FEDERAL one has....

And the whole purpose of the CSA was to re-establish the CSA states as individual soveriegn nations, as they were pre-Constitution.... To return to a world where STATE governments had all the power that the FEDS do now, and then some...

For what it's worth, I agree with you.

as i imagine this world of yours........................Texas seems pretty damned utopian.  so far its been FEDERAL shit that overwhelmingly fucks us down here

I think it is somewhere in the middle. In the free states it is the feds that infringe upon their rights, In the commie states the states infringe so much that they dont notice the feds invasiveness. But look at a map all the commie states are states that fought for the union.

Quoted: as i imagine this world of yours........................Texas seems pretty damned utopian.  so far its been FEDERAL shit that overwhelmingly fucks us down here

Your state is pretty damn utopian right now...

WI would be if we could just get our 1868-era CCW law repealed (working on it)...

Apart from the 86 MG ban, the administratively 'created' LEO sign-off, and the 'sporting purposes' test in the GCA, there really isn't any federal 'Infringement' out there, that was my point...

Most of the Fed's overreaching has been in the creation of 'additional' rights such as 'privacy' (Roe), and then the hypocrytical arguments over weather one may violate a 'right' that only exists because the folks who are arguing created it...

Most of the problems folks have with GOVERNMENT is State-level, thy just don't see it...

That is my point...

I agree but for other reasons. Political and real power was much more concentrated in the South and therefore much easier to seize and then abuse. This did not change until after WWII.

Huey Long is a prime example of how dictatorship could have come about in the South. He was the de-facto dictator of LA.

I wish we had the choice

Quoted: I wish we had the choice

I, most of this country,  most of Europe, and a good number of Koreans & Iraqis are quite glad we never did...

Pretty much FEDERAL law that takes our rights.....NC pretty much leaves me alone....But if a state in the CSA became oppressive, I could easily move to one that didn't, and still stay in the CSA.

Quoted: Pretty much FEDERAL law that takes our rights.....NC pretty much leaves me alone....But if a state in the CSA became oppressive, I could easily move to one that didn't, and still stay in the CSA.

And if they all did?

Remember, these are states that felt they could ignore the US Constitution, and start a war over a presidential election that didn't go their way...

Can you imagine the fees and tarriffs for items coming into a state from out of state?  If one state's farmers couldn't compete with anothers' when it comes to a product like meat or a specific produce, the price of out of state goods will be artifically high to eliminate competition.  Either way, you'll end up spending more than if the states were required to get along.

Gosh, Dave, thanks for more of your customary genius! Tell us exactly what a slimy shithole the US was before the war - how hellish it was, how uncertain were our rights, how miserable our existence. Guess what, sport! Before the war, THERE WAS NO 14th AMENDMENT, AND EFFECTIVELY NO FEDERAL RESTRAINT ON STATE GOVERNMENTS. Do you EVER read your posts before clicking on "submit?"

Quoted: Gosh, Dave, thanks for more of your customary genius! Tell us exactly what a slimy shithole the US was before the war - how hellish it was, how uncertain were our rights, how miserable our existence. Guess what, sport! Before the war, THERE WAS NO 14th AMENDMENT, AND EFFECTIVELY NO FEDERAL RESTRAINT ON STATE GOVERNMENTS. Do you EVER read your posts before clicking on "submit?"

Do you read what I am posting here?

I'm not talking about BEFORE THE WAR! Before the war the US was a pretty primative country, without the population or position to require the size/scope of government we have today.

I'm saying NOW! I'm saying look at the laws you have the most trouble with, and for most people you will see that your STATE government is the worse of the two.

I'm saying that if it wern't for the FEDS you would have LESS rights, not more, as there are (fortunately) some things that the Feds won't let the STATES screw up...

BASICALLY, THE POINT IS THAT BASED ON WHAT STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE BECOME, THE FACT THAT THEY ARE RESTRAINED BY THE FEDS IS A GOOD THING, AND THE CSA/STATES-AS-SOVREIGN-GOVTS SCENARIO WOULD HAVE CREATED A MONSTER BY THIS TIME, HAD IT NOT BEEN DESTROYED!
Copy?

Texas is about as far from a "Utopia" as possible. Illegal aliens run rampant, the open container law is just an invitation to death, belligerent people who only drive the biggest damn trucks they can find. Nope, not thinking Texas is America's utopia. Plus, all Texans can talk about is how much better they would be without the rest of the U.S.



------

"An army of principles will penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot... it will march on the horizon of the world, and it will conquer." - Thomas Paine

Lessee...
affirmative action
"hate" speech
the good ol' 55mph speed limit
BLM
EPA (Not all of it but they spew enough bullshit)
I could go on but since we are touting the wonderful benefits of an all inclusive centralized government why don't we just jump on the UN band wagon? Hell, if federalization is such a great idea why not go all the way and make it a worldwide thing?





Yeah, whatever you say. I am tired of arguing this crap myself.

Quoted: I'm not talking about BEFORE THE WAR! Before the war the US was a pretty primative country, without the population or position to require the size/scope of government we have today.

Before the war, the US gov't had for the most part only the powers the CS gov't had while it lasted. The "good things" you specified in your initial post are post-CW developments. Therefore, you are saying that the US before the civil war was a shithole. You think that the US gov't before the civil war was more oppressive than it is now. That is stupidity walking.

I'm saying NOW! I'm saying look at the laws you have the most trouble with, and for most people you will see that your STATE government is the worse of the two.

That is a statement of unfathomable stupidity. Alternatively, your $75 occupational license represents the most annoying contact you have with government, in which case you are a victim of parochialism and ignorance rather than stupidity - and I apologize. Get a newspaper subscription. Citizens are now registered with the government via Social Security, the income tax,  and other novel programs. Economic activity is now tracked via various "anti-money-laudering" laws. It is effectively impossible to live an anonymous  law-abiding life, which was the norm before the CW (and more especially before FDR's 2d term).

I'm saying that if it wern't for the FEDS you would have LESS rights, not more, as there are (fortunately) some things that the Feds won't let the STATES screw up...

True, if you're black; otherwise nonsense nonpareil.

BASICALLY, THE POINT IS THAT BASED ON WHAT STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE BECOME, THE FACT THAT THEY ARE RESTRAINED BY THE FEDS IS A GOOD THING, AND THE CSA/STATES-AS-SOVREIGN-GOVTS SCENARIO WOULD HAVE CREATED A MONSTER BY THIS TIME, HAD IT NOT BEEN DESTROYED! Copy?

I copy the fact that you apply neither thought nor research to your posts. Please specifiy the state intrusions on individual liberties which have been restrained by federal powers acquired after the CW. Leave out race-related state action (including segregation, racially-enforced gun control laws, miscegenation laws, etc., all of which could have been eradicated by constitutional amendments which did not give the federal octopus the murderous power it now exercises).

Again, specify the state intrusions on individual rights which were ended by the application of post-CW federal powers. Then compare and contrast those intrusions (if you find any) with current federal intrusions on individual liberties made possible by the post-CW ascendancy of the federal government.

Quoted: The states do ignore the federal Constituion - Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments mainly.

How would a state ignore the 9th, or more particularly the 10th amendment, each of which is by its own terms a restriction only on federal power?

Quoted: Pretty much FEDERAL law that takes our rights.....NC pretty much leaves me alone....But if a state in the CSA became oppressive, I could easily move to one that didn't, and still stay in the CSA.

BZZT WRONG - No you couldn't, unless you had enough political pull , you need to read up on the Confederate sytem of internal passports and bans on travel.  Although nominally to eliminate the movement of "spies" it was primarily a measure to prevent the loss of producers and products.

About the only right the South really cared about and defended was the individual right to property.

Quoted: Quoted: Pretty much FEDERAL law that takes our rights.....NC pretty much leaves me alone....But if a state in the CSA became oppressive, I could easily move to one that didn't, and still stay in the CSA. BZZT WRONG - No you couldn't, unless you had enough political pull , you need to read up on the Confederate sytem of internal passports and bans on travel.  Although nominally to eliminate the movement of "spies" it was primarily a measure to prevent the loss of producers and products. About the only right the South really cared about and defended was the individual right to property.

hmmm..that's funny..my great-great-grandfather was from NC, 7 miles from SC.  He married a girl from SC DURING the war....so I guess BZZT I am not here.

You spout Yankee propoganda.

I don't get it.

1. Before the CW, the US had no 14th amendment.

2. After the CW, the US adopted the 14th amendment.

3. Your conclusion: Thus, the CSA would be more oppressive.  

question:

1. why wouldn't the CSA have adopted a 14th like amend.?

2. would the USA have still adopted the 14th if it had lost the war?

Quoted: Quoted: I'm not talking about BEFORE THE WAR! Before the war the US was a pretty primative country, without the population or position to require the size/scope of government we have today. Before the war, the US gov't had for the most part only the powers the CS gov't had while it lasted. The "good things" you specified in your initial post are post-CW developments. Therefore, you are saying that the US before the civil war was a shithole. You think that the US gov't before the civil war was more oppressive than it is now. That is stupidity walking. I'm saying NOW! I'm saying look at the laws you have the most trouble with, and for most people you will see that your STATE government is the worse of the two. That is a statement of unfathomable stupidity. Alternatively, your $75 occupational license represents the most annoying contact you have with government, in which case you are a victim of parochialism and ignorance rather than stupidity - and I apologize. Get a newspaper subscription. Citizens are now registered with the government via Social Security, the income tax,  and other novel programs. Economic activity is now tracked via various "anti-money-laudering" laws. It is effectively impossible to live an anonymous  law-abiding life, which was the norm before the CW (and more especially before FDR's 2d term). I'm saying that if it wern't for the FEDS you would have LESS rights, not more, as there are (fortunately) some things that the Feds won't let the STATES screw up... True, if you're black; otherwise nonsense nonpareil. BASICALLY, THE POINT IS THAT BASED ON WHAT STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE BECOME, THE FACT THAT THEY ARE RESTRAINED BY THE FEDS IS A GOOD THING, AND THE CSA/STATES-AS-SOVREIGN-GOVTS SCENARIO WOULD HAVE CREATED A MONSTER BY THIS TIME, HAD IT NOT BEEN DESTROYED! Copy? I copy the fact that you apply neither thought nor research to your posts. Please specifiy the state intrusions on individual liberties which have been restrained by federal powers acquired after the CW. Leave out race-related state action (including segregation, racially-enforced gun control laws, miscegenation laws, etc., all of which could have been eradicated by constitutional amendments which did not give the federal octopus the murderous power it now exercises). Again, specify the state intrusions on individual rights which were ended by the application of post-CW federal powers. Then compare and contrast those intrusions (if you find any) with current federal intrusions on individual liberties made possible by the post-CW ascendancy of the federal government.

Ok:

1) Pre-14th,, the 4th & 5th Ammendments only applied to the Federal government.

2) My point was not focused on the Federal restraint of state violations, but rather that the most significant violations of my rights are committed by state government, and this is a trend nationwide.

The Federal government does not tell me where I can carry my weapons, and how I must transport them. They do not make me wait 2 days to pick up a postol I purchased.  And we're a 'good' state, with a state RKBA ammendment, and all... Oh yeah, WI is a tax-hell, too...

The Federal Government does not tell Californians that they cannot own AR-15s, or prohibit the folks in Illinois from owning machineguns, short longarms, & sound supressors, and make them register as gun owners & pay for a 'FOID'...

In fact, Federal law enforcement has minimal interaction with most citizens, as 99% of the restrictive laws on the books are STATE law.

My point is that these infringements would be WORSE under a CSA-style arrangement... That's all...

The fact that the Federal government requires certain minimal standards of criminal procedure thru the 14th that were not previously applicable to the states pre-CW is a sidenote, the main point (As stated above) is that STATE GOVERNMENTS are inherantly more opressive than the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and thus the CSA would have been worse...

Quoted: I don't get it. 1. Before the CW, the US had no 14th amendment. 2. After the CW, the US adopted the 14th amendment. 3. Your conclusion: Thus, the CSA would be more oppressive.   question: 1. why wouldn't the CSA have adopted a 14th like amend.? 2. would the USA have still adopted the 14th if it had lost the war?

No, here's my logic in point-by-point form:

1) State governments have proven to be far more opressive than the Federal Government

2) The CSA was a system by which each state had Federal-level powers as a near soverign nation

3) Therefore, in a (2) situation (1) would mean that the states, and therefore the CSA, would have been more opressive.

It really would depend upon the state. And I think states that broke off from a tyrannical federal gov't would be very vigilant about keeping freedom.

Of course, this is all conjecture. If the war ended like Korea (extended truce), the people on both sides could have most of their civil liberties "temporarily" suspended.

The CSA tried to become quite repressive in order to maintain their war machine.

Guns and Roses- "I don't need your Civil War"

Here we go again, I wonder if we can get a AR15.com Civil War forum, you think?

... and we could all be issued bayonets at the door.

uh, your argument doesn't hold water.  The level of oppression would depend on the state.  If it weren't for the federal laws, Texas would be pretty damn free.  However, California is FAR more opressive than the federal government, yet you don't see the federal government stepping in to protect the rights of californians from their state government, do you?

Quoted: uh, your argument doesn't hold water.  The level of oppression would depend on the state.  If it weren't for the federal laws, Texas would be pretty damn free.  However, California is FAR more opressive than the federal government, yet you don't see the federal government stepping in to protect the rights of californians from their state government, do you?

The Constitution limits what the Feds can do...

My argument DOES hold water, as demonstrated by history...

How would you like to have your news censored...

How would  you like to be arrested & have your house searched without a warrant...

How would you like to have a confession beaten out of you?

How would you like to be jailed indefinately without a 'speedy and fair trial'...

How would you like to be denied a trial by jury, and have contaminated evidence used against you...

And how would you like to be told that all of this was perfectly legal, because your 'Constitutional Rights' didn't apply to STATE government?

Think that's 'a lack of research' or 'a hypothetical'? WRONG: It's US History - that's what STATE and LOCAL governments commonly did, nationwide, before Federal courts put a stop to it, and applied FEDERAL rights to STATE cases...

Texas did it too...  So did most Southern states and many Northern ones too...

Still think you'd be 'pretty damn free' if not for the Feds?