Comrade Anklebiter wrote: But this is a weird position for me to be arguing in because I'm a big Union fan. Just because you're a fan of unions doesn't automatically make you a Union fan!
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Doing this from memory, so please forgive/correct any errors:
There were many reasons that the South lost the Civil War, but one of them was state's rights. As soon as the Confederacy was founded, the leaders of the individual states started falling out over all sorts of things. IIRC, the two main thorns in Jefferson Davis's side(s?) were Vice-President Alexander Stephens and the Governor of North Carolina whose name, I think, was Zebulon Vance. Cool name, btw. They (along with other zealous state's rights advocates) made it nigh on impossible for the Confederacy to achieve the same sort of unity and organization that the Union brought to bear.
I'm not saying that it's an argument against state's rights, but I am saying that it was kind of funny.
I think it proves a point about the Confederacy. All their talk of state's rights was hot air, and the common assertion that the south stood for state's rights is only a half truth. The Confederate government was just as federalist as the Union, and the states railed against it just as much as they railed against such behavior in the Union. Are you arguing that the fact that the Confederacy was falling apart because they supported states rights proves that they weren't supporting states' rights?
That makes no sense.
Kavren Stark wrote: Matthew Morris wrote: And that's the biggest flaw in most libertarian arguments. Few people are willing to step over the guy in the street who's suffering from his bad choices/luck. While private institutions/citizens can step up (G_d knows I have), it is hard to see suffering and not do something. The flaw is more general than that; Libertarianism, like Communism, might be a good way of organizing a society for a sentient species with certain characteristics that could plausibly evolve somewhere in the universe, but Homo sapiens is not that species. I don't want to get into a lot of detail on this here, but I highly recommend philosophy professor Ernest Partridge's essay series A Dim View of Libertarianism. The biggest problem with criticisms against libertarianism is the inherent contradiction. They claim that people cannot be trusted to look after their fellow human beings, so people should be given power over their fellow human beings (that is, we shouldn't have libertarianism).
Its a huge flaw in critical thinking skills.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Doing this from memory, so please forgive/correct any errors:
There were many reasons that the South lost the Civil War, but one of them was state's rights. As soon as the Confederacy was founded, the leaders of the individual states started falling out over all sorts of things. IIRC, the two main thorns in Jefferson Davis's side(s?) were Vice-President Alexander Stephens and the Governor of North Carolina whose name, I think, was Zebulon Vance. Cool name, btw. They (along with other zealous state's rights advocates) made it nigh on impossible for the Confederacy to achieve the same sort of unity and organization that the Union brought to bear.
I'm not saying that it's an argument against state's rights, but I am saying that it was kind of funny.
I think it proves a point about the Confederacy. All their talk of state's rights was hot air, and the common assertion that the south stood for state's rights is only a half truth. The Confederate government was just as federalist as the Union, and the states railed against it just as much as they railed against such behavior in the Union. Are you arguing that the fact that the Confederacy was falling apart because they supported states rights proves that they weren't supporting states' rights?
That makes no sense. No, what I'm saying is that the Confederate federal government did not support states rights much more than the Union government, except for a few areas where they should not have been supporting state's rights, and that the individual southern states had a problem with this, causing a lot of internal strife between the states and the federal government.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: No, what I'm saying is that the Confederate federal government did not support states rights much more than the Union government, except for a few areas where they should not have been supporting state's rights, and that the individual southern states had a problem with this, causing a lot of internal strife between the states and the federal government. And the only thing you've based this on is your assertion that the South had line item veto? - a line item veto which could, itself, be overriden by the houses of congress?
Darkwing Duck wrote:
The biggest problem with criticisms against libertarianism is the inherent contradiction. They claim that people cannot be trusted to look after their fellow human beings, so people should be given power over their fellow human beings (that is, we shouldn't have libertarianism).
Its a huge flaw in critical thinking skills.
That's a simplistic argument and it's not the real problem with libertarianism. The real question that I've put to Libertarians time and time again is this. Libertarians seek to remove an reduce government as force. The problem as Liaseez-faire capitalism proved in the past is that when you create that kind of power vacuum, it's taken up by corporations. It was proved again when Washington gave free reign to Wall Street during the big rush to deregulate. Libertarians can't or won't give an answer to this consequence.
The fact is you have this choice, government by elected representatives,or your societie's decisions made by corporate ogliarchs.
If you think the latter is preferable, you need reread history.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: No, what I'm saying is that the Confederate federal government did not support states rights much more than the Union government, except for a few areas where they should not have been supporting state's rights, and that the individual southern states had a problem with this, causing a lot of internal strife between the states and the federal government. And the only thing you've based this on is your assertion that the South had line item veto? - a line item veto which could, itself, be overriden by the houses of congress? I mentioned more than line item vetoes.
Changes in the Confederate constitution regarding state's rights include the following (this is only Article 1). NOTE that there is a HEAVY emphasis on the expansion of states' rights, though not an absolute supremacy of states' rights over federal rights.
* except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.
* The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.
* no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry;
* To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.
* but no law of Congress shall discharge any debt contracted before the passage of the same.
*The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
*(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
* (6) No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses.
* (9) Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish
* (10) All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.
*(20) Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
* (3) No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, except on seagoing vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations; and any surplus revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury. Nor shall any State keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof.
LazarX wrote:
The fact is you have this choice, government by elected representatives,or your societie's decisions made by corporate ogliarchs.
If you think the latter is preferable, you need reread history.
If you think that government by elected representatives protects human rights, you are the one who needs to reread history.
Except for the very largest corporations (which, by and large, got that way due to lucrative government contracts), the reach of corporations isn't nation-wide. The reach of the Federal government, on the other hand, is. A person can MOVE beyond the reach of a corporation (again, except for the very largest which, again, typically got that way through lucrative government contracts), but can only move beyond the reach of a corrupt and powerful federal government by moving out of the country (which is a far harder thing to do).
Darkwing Duck wrote: Changes in the Confederate constitution regarding state's rights include the following (this is only Article 1). NOTE that there is a HEAVY emphasis on the expansion of states' rights, though not an absolute supremacy of states' rights over federal rights.
* except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.
* The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.
* no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry;
* To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.
* but no law of Congress shall discharge any debt contracted before the passage of the same.
*The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually...
I already mentioned that the Confederacy went state's rights in a couple areas, notably gathering and spending funds.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: But this is a weird position for me to be arguing in because I'm a big Union fan. Just because you're a fan of unions doesn't automatically make you a Union fan! Not automatically, I suppose, but it happens to be the case.
In general, you will find that Marxists are generally more excited about the Second American Revolution than the first one.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Darkwing Duck wrote: LazarX wrote:
The fact is you have this choice, government by elected representatives,or your societie's decisions made by corporate ogliarchs.
If you think the latter is preferable, you need reread history.
If you think that government by elected representatives protects human rights, you are the one who needs to reread history.
Except for the very largest corporations (which, by and large, got that way due to lucrative government contracts), the reach of corporations isn't nation-wide. The reach of the Federal government, on the other hand, is. A person can MOVE beyond the reach of a corporation (again, except for the very largest which, again, typically got that way through lucrative government contracts), but can only move beyond the reach of a corrupt and powerful federal government by moving out of the country (which is a far harder thing to do). The reach of the largest corporations isn't nationwide, it's planetary. During the Bush era, Regulatory agencies were staffed by people drawn from the corporations they were supposed to regulate. Unless you plan on moving into a hovel deep in the Australian bush so deep that your ownly neighbors and food source are dingos, you really can't move beyond the consequences of the decisions of major corporate and banking blocs.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Changes in the Confederate constitution regarding state's rights include the following (this is only Article 1). NOTE that there is a HEAVY emphasis on the expansion of states' rights, though not an absolute supremacy of states' rights over federal rights.
* except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.
* The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.
* no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry;
* To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.
* but no law of Congress shall discharge any debt contracted before the passage of the same.
*The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as
... The Confederacy went States' rights in a LOT of areas, not only gathering and collecting funds (which was, itself, multiple HUGE restrictions), but, also (just from the above) the ability for a state to impeach Federal officers within its borders and the requirement that any federal law apply to but one subject.
LazarX wrote: During the Bush era, Regulatory agencies were staffed by people drawn from the corporations they were supposed to regulate. Which is another reason why libertarianism is a good idea.
You've presented a false dilemma - large corporations or large government. The simple fact is that large government leads to large corporations (not particularly healthy corporations, but corporations who control our lives to an unhealthy degree).
Without government, how do you prevent corporate control?
With government, how do you prevent corporate control?
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: With government, how do you prevent corporate control? +1
So you're saying corporations cannot be controlled?
TOZ wrote: Well, level except for the fact that they have all the money. No one has all the money. Money needs to exchange hands else-wise its useless. The bigger question is "which one of the competitors can use the money they have most efficiently?"
TOZ wrote: So you're saying corporations cannot be controlled? Controlled by whom? Shareholders? Yes. Corporations can be controlled by shareholders.
Government? Again, who controls government?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ideally, the people. Of course, that's not happening right now.
TOZ wrote: So you're saying corporations cannot be controlled? Who me? No, I'm not saying anything. I'm just asking questions.
TOZ wrote: Ideally, the people. Of course, that's not happening right now. Remind me, when was the last time it happened?
Darkwing Duck wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: With government, how do you prevent corporate control? +1 +1's are so last year, man.
Instead of asking me questions, you could explain your position like I asked you to. Dodging questions doesn't help me understand. Just makes you seem hostile and confrontational.
TOZ wrote: Instead of asking me questions, you could explain your position like I asked you to. Dodging questions doesn't help me understand. Just makes you seem hostile and confrontational. How should I respond to a question which self-consciously presumes that the world behaves the way it doesn't actually behave?
Correct that presumption?
But if you don't want to take that time, just say so and we can end this derail.
Hmm. Three-way conversations are confusing.
TOZ, if I seemed hostile and confrontational, that certainly wasn't my intention. I was just trying to get cheap laughs.
TOZ wrote: Correct that presumption?
But if you don't want to take that time, just say so and we can end this derail.
Okay, here's me correcting that presumption..
Politics, even in the US, are largely NOT driven by what the people want, but rather what those with the money to control the media can convince the people that they want.
I assumed that you were already aware of this, which made me confused as to what kind of response you might want from your post
"Ideally, the people. Of course, that's not happening right now."
Well, if the puppeteer is pulling the strings, is the puppet really the one controlling?
TOZ wrote: Well, if the puppeteer is pulling the strings, is the puppet really the one controlling? The puppeteer being the corporations and the puppet being the government?
No, the puppet is not really the one controlling.
What I'd like to make sure is that we don't arm the puppet with even more power when we can't trust the puppeteer.
Darkwing Duck wrote: LazarX wrote: During the Bush era, Regulatory agencies were staffed by people drawn from the corporations they were supposed to regulate. Which is another reason why libertarianism is a good idea.
You've presented a false dilemma - large corporations or large government. The simple fact is that large government leads to large corporations (not particularly healthy corporations, but corporations who control our lives to an unhealthy degree). That "simple fact" is hardly simple. That large corporations are only the result of large government is not at all obvious to anyone but libertarians.
It's fairly well established in business theory that there are advantages to scale and that gives incentive to grow. Some critiques of capitalism claim that monopoly is the end-state of the business cycle, absent government interference.
Obviously, some level of government is necessary for corporations. They are state-chartered. Basic enforcement of property rights and contract law are required, but most libertarian accept these things as the proper role of government.
It falls back to the principle I mentioned in another thread: Any apparent failure of the free market is really caused by government interference.
thejeff wrote:
That "simple fact" is hardly simple. That large corporations are only the result of large government is not at all obvious to anyone but libertarians.
I didn't say that they are ALL due to government assistance, I said that they are by and large due to government assistance (ie. there are some exceptions.
thejeff wrote:
It's fairly well established in business theory that there are advantages to scale and that gives incentive to grow.
There are also disadvantages to scale - the Peter principle, for example, becomes more of a problem. Properly managing knowledge resources is another.
thejeff wrote: Some critiques of capitalism claim that monopoly is the end-state of the business cycle, absent government interference. Not particularly good critiques (or, at least, not particularly recent critics).
thejeff wrote: Obviously, some level of government is necessary for corporations. Obviously.
Comrade Anklkebiter wrote: With government, how do you prevent corporate control? Axe. Bullet. Guillotine. Polonium. Deportation. Seizure. Imprisonment. Institutionalization.
The usual.
I like the way you think, Comrade Wolf!
Darkwing Duck wrote: The Confederacy went States' rights in a LOT of areas, not only gathering and collecting funds (which was, itself, multiple HUGE restrictions), but, also (just from the above) the ability for a state to impeach Federal officers within its borders and the requirement that any federal law apply to but one subject. Of course. That's why the states spent so much time fighting with the federal government over how it wasn't giving them the rights they wanted.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: The Confederacy went States' rights in a LOT of areas, not only gathering and collecting funds (which was, itself, multiple HUGE restrictions), but, also (just from the above) the ability for a state to impeach Federal officers within its borders and the requirement that any federal law apply to but one subject. Of course. That's why the states spent so much time fighting with the federal government over how it wasn't giving them the rights they wanted. There is a BIG difference between
a.) going completely states' rights on everything
and
b.) favoring states' rights a lot more than the Yankees did
The Confederacy was b.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: The Confederacy went States' rights in a LOT of areas, not only gathering and collecting funds (which was, itself, multiple HUGE restrictions), but, also (just from the above) the ability for a state to impeach Federal officers within its borders and the requirement that any federal law apply to but one subject. Of course. That's why the states spent so much time fighting with the federal government over how it wasn't giving them the rights they wanted. There is a BIG difference between
a.) going completely states' rights on everything
and
b.) favoring states' rights a lot more than the Yankees did
The Confederacy was b. Insist it all you want that they were pro state's rights.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: The Confederacy went States' rights in a LOT of areas, not only gathering and collecting funds (which was, itself, multiple HUGE restrictions), but, also (just from the above) the ability for a state to impeach Federal officers within its borders and the requirement that any federal law apply to but one subject. Of course. That's why the states spent so much time fighting with the federal government over how it wasn't giving them the rights they wanted. There is a BIG difference between
a.) going completely states' rights on everything
and
b.) favoring states' rights a lot more than the Yankees did
The Confederacy was b. Insist it all you want that they were pro state's rights. I've shown above that their Constitution evidences a strong states' rights position. I would require actual evidence before believing otherwise.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: The Confederacy went States' rights in a LOT of areas, not only gathering and collecting funds (which was, itself, multiple HUGE restrictions), but, also (just from the above) the ability for a state to impeach Federal officers within its borders and the requirement that any federal law apply to but one subject. Of course. That's why the states spent so much time fighting with the federal government over how it wasn't giving them the rights they wanted. There is a BIG difference between
a.) going completely states' rights on everything
and
b.) favoring states' rights a lot more than the Yankees did
The Confederacy was b. Insist it all you want that they were pro state's rights. I've shown above that their Constitution evidences a strong states' rights position. I would require actual evidence before believing otherwise. No, you've pulled up some stuff that I already covered in my statement and then claimed victory.
They were pro states rights...but they quickly ran into the reality that states rights simply don't let you make a nation.
The Us government had the same problem with no taxation*: the same people that said that started running a government and said holy bleeep this is expensive.. we need taxes!
*the no taxation without representation thing was a canard. At first it was no internal taxes, but when they started enforcing tariffs the colonists got uppity. They just flat out didn't want to pay
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: The Confederacy went States' rights in a LOT of areas, not only gathering and collecting funds (which was, itself, multiple HUGE restrictions), but, also (just from the above) the ability for a state to impeach Federal officers within its borders and the requirement that any federal law apply to but one subject. Of course. That's why the states spent so much time fighting with the federal government over how it wasn't giving them the rights they wanted. There is a BIG difference between
a.) going completely states' rights on everything
and
b.) favoring states' rights a lot more than the Yankees did
The Confederacy was b. Insist it all you want that they were pro state's rights. I've shown above that their Constitution evidences a strong states' rights position. I would require actual evidence before believing otherwise. No, you've pulled up some stuff that I already covered in my statement and then claimed victory. I'm not interested in victory, I'm interested in facts supported by evidence. You've provided no evidence to support your position. I've referenced the Confederate constitution and how it strongly supported states rights in at least three different ways.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: The Confederacy went States' rights in a LOT of areas, not only gathering and collecting funds (which was, itself, multiple HUGE restrictions), but, also (just from the above) the ability for a state to impeach Federal officers within its borders and the requirement that any federal law apply to but one subject. Of course. That's why the states spent so much time fighting with the federal government over how it wasn't giving them the rights they wanted. There is a BIG difference between
a.) going completely states' rights on everything
and
b.) favoring states' rights a lot more than the Yankees did
The Confederacy was b. Insist it all you want that they were pro state's rights. I've shown above that their Constitution evidences a strong states' rights position. I would require actual evidence before believing otherwise. No, you've pulled up some stuff that I already covered in my statement and then claimed victory. I'm not interested in victory, I'm interested in facts supported by evidence. You've provided no evidence to support your position. I've referenced the Confederate constitution and how it strongly supported states rights in at least three different ways. I didn't provide any evidence? Did you read the part where I listed all the federalistic stuff the Confederate government did?
Then again, knowing how you debate, I'm sure nothing I say matters, regardless of what it is.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: The Confederacy went States' rights in a LOT of areas, not only gathering and collecting funds (which was, itself, multiple HUGE restrictions), but, also (just from the above) the ability for a state to impeach Federal officers within its borders and the requirement that any federal law apply to but one subject. Of course. That's why the states spent so much time fighting with the federal government over how it wasn't giving them the rights they wanted. There is a BIG difference between
a.) going completely states' rights on everything
and
b.) favoring states' rights a lot more than the Yankees did
The Confederacy was b. Insist it all you want that they were pro state's rights. I've shown above that their Constitution evidences a strong states' rights position. I would require actual evidence before believing otherwise. No, you've pulled up some stuff that I already covered in my statement and then claimed victory. I'm not interested in victory, I'm interested in facts supported by evidence. You've provided no evidence to support your position. I've referenced the Confederate constitution and how it strongly supported states rights in at least three different ways. I didn't provide any evidence? Did you read the part where I listed all the federalistic stuff the Confederate government did?
Then again, knowing how you debate, I'm sure nothing I say matters, regardless of what it is. You mean this list?
Gave the president a line item veto (which is actually a good idea)
Allowed 7 members of the president's cabinet to simultaneously serve on the cabinet and in congress
Could mint coins, sign treaties, regulate systems of measurement, naturalize citizens, set and collect levies, and many other things.
Oh, and the Confederate sates could not choose to ban slavery. The Confederate constitution explicitly forbid it.
Whose facts you heavily misrepresented. For example, the president's line item veto could be over ruled by congress - a fact you conveniently neglected to mention.
Well...
Johnny Reb had some great tunes, and their Uniforms were stylin'.
Oh and a nice flag too!
One of my faves:
PThe Irish Brigade
Darkwing Duck wrote: You mean this list?
Gave the president a line item veto (which is actually a good idea)
Allowed 7 members of the president's cabinet to simultaneously serve on the cabinet and in congress
Could mint coins, sign treaties, regulate systems of measurement, naturalize citizens, set and collect levies, and many other things.
Oh, and the Confederate sates could not choose to ban slavery. The Confederate constitution explicitly forbid it.
Whose facts you heavily misrepresented. For example, the president's line item veto could be over ruled by congress - a fact you conveniently neglected to mention.
It can be overturned by congress about as easily as any veto in the US, and the US president does not have a line item veto. That means the Confederate president had more power than the US president in this regard.
Shifty wrote: Well...
Johnny Reb had some great tunes, and their Uniforms were stylin'.
Oh and a nice flag too!
One of my faves:
PThe Irish Brigade
Here's another Confederate song based off of an Irish song.
While I may not be a Confederacy supporter, I am most definitely a fan. The Confederates were damn good fighters.
As for styling uniforms, for some reason I actually like the butternut uniforms (they were supposed to wear gray coats and light blue trousers, but in practice they very often wore butternut or captured Union uniforms).
I'm less of a fan of the Butternut (still ok, just a bit meh).
The grey being a much nicer outfit.
Frankly I don't get into the right and wrong of the politics because it is pretty clear there were faults on bith sides (and equally there was merit) but it seems the winners were the ones who wrote the history book, and they took a fair few liberties (so to speak).
Not my country either, so my comments don't count :)
Shifty wrote: I'm less of a fan of the Butternut (still ok, just a bit meh).
The grey being a much nicer outfit.
Frankly I don't get into the right and wrong of the politics because it is pretty clear there were faults on bith sides (and equally there was merit) but it seems the winners were the ones who wrote the history book, and they took a fair few liberties (so to speak).
Not my country either, so my comments don't count :)
I comment on you Aussies all the time (though I am almost always horribly wrong), so feel free to pitch in. Your opinion is just as valid. It's not like any of us were alive during the Civil War, so we can't ridicule you for speaking of things you have no experience with.
As for the rest, most definately. I'm more pro-Union than pro-Confederacy, but I'm not about to say the Confederacy never had a good idea or that the Union never did something it shouldn't have. Case in point, reconstruction. The Union got way too heavy handed there.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: You mean this list?
Gave the president a line item veto (which is actually a good idea)
Allowed 7 members of the president's cabinet to simultaneously serve on the cabinet and in congress
Could mint coins, sign treaties, regulate systems of measurement, naturalize citizens, set and collect levies, and many other things.
Oh, and the Confederate sates could not choose to ban slavery. The Confederate constitution explicitly forbid it.
Whose facts you heavily misrepresented. For example, the president's line item veto could be over ruled by congress - a fact you conveniently neglected to mention.
It can be overturned by congress about as easily as any veto in the US, and the US president does not have a line item veto. That means the Confederate president had more power than the US president in this regard. What it means is that in the Confederacy, the ultimate power lay with Congress, not the President.
Also note that while the US president doesn't have a line item veto, the Federal Congress has the power to add pork to any laws before they get passed. This leads to an ever expanding federal government. In the Confederacy, pork wasn't possible.
|
