Petition for Opting Out of Social Security

[ArrieS]

"...by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens". The Federal level was trying to tell States what to do within their own borders. The States disagreed.

South Carolina was basically saying "Other States allowed slaves to become citizens. We disagree with this view and have not done so within our own borders. We resent that you are trying to tell us that we must do this as well."

And off to war they went.

What, please identify where it says the Federal Government was requiring States to grant the right to vote to Black men. That is a bold face lie.

"Then there was the matter of the Tariff of Abominations, which became abominable for all concerned."

Except this is tariff and is completely constitutional. So you're argument that it was states rights versus Federal rights is wrong.... Unless you want to claim the Federal government doesn't have the right to levy a trade Tariff?

Is that it, you're claiming it's unconstitutional for the Federal Government to have a trade tariff?

Because if it isn't unconstitutional for the federal government to have a trade tariff than the Southern States didn't declare independency because of an unconstitutional tax so you have no argument because it is a power granted by the intent of our founding fathers.

[Aitrus]

What, please identify where it says the Federal Government was requiring States to grant the right to vote to Black men. That is a bold face lie.

*Sigh* Ya know, I'm getting tired of you calling me a liar when I place words in front of you which you fail to read, even when they're your own words, and worse is when you claim I lied about something (voting rights for Black men) that I didn't even talk about.

What I did in this post is show you what South Carolina was saying by rewording the entire passage into a simpler form. They were, in this passage, citing their reason for being mad at the Federal government. It was the votes of the States (in Congress), that also had instituted citizenship for Black men, on policies that the South didn't like, that the Federal Level was trying to force on the South, that they were talking about. It wasn't at all about the votes that Black men might have cast for or against a policy.

"Then there was the matter of the Tariff of Abominations, which became abominable for all concerned."

Except this is tariff and is completely constitutional. So you're argument that it was states rights versus Federal rights is wrong.... Unless you want to claim the Federal government doesn't have the right to levy a trade Tariff?

Is that it, you're claiming it's unconstitutional for the Federal Government to have a trade tariff?

Because if it isn't unconstitutional for the federal government to have a trade tariff than the Southern States didn't declare independency because of an unconstitutional tax so you have no argument.[/quote]

The tariff was created to target, and only affect, only the South. It might have been Constitutional in that it was a tariff in name, but in effect it was egregious and the South had legitimate complaint. If a tax, or tariff, affects only a certain segment of the populace, then while it may be Constitutional in that the Federal government is granted the ability to create and enforce it, it doesn't mean that the tax is legitimate or just.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

And while I haven't yet researched the full history of the tarriff in question, this little section from the Constitution shows that since it affected only the South that it would be unconstutional, and hence, my arguments have merit.

[ArrieS]

*Sigh* Ya know, I'm getting tired of you calling me a liar when I place words in front of you which you fail to read, even when they're your own words, and worse is when you claim I lied about something (voting rights for Black men) that I didn't even talk about.

See that South Carolina is complaining the Federal Government is allowing free states to grant citizenship, particularly the right to vote. Voting rights at this time were States rights and not the prevue of the Federal Government.

Citizenship in this context as I pointed out had to do with voting. Therefore in this discussion since I linked citizenship and voting originally it is expected to be included when talking about citizenship.

"...by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens". The Federal level was trying to tell States what to do within their own borders. The States disagreed.

South Carolina was basically saying "Other States allowed slaves to become citizens. We disagree with this view and have not done so within our own borders. We resent that you are trying to tell us that we must do this as well."

Right there you said, "We resent that you are trying to tell us that we must do this as well." Where does it say in their statement they claimed the Federal government was requiring that they grant citizenship in their own borders as you claimed?

I'll quote the whole section again for you,

"This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

No where in their statement do they claim the Federal government was requiring they grant citizenship to black men as you stated. Rather, they were complaining the Federal Government wasn't stopping states from doing it. Meaning they were complaining the Federal was respecting states rights.

In other words, granting black men the right to vote who would vote to end slavery. Which leads back to my original point. The Civil war was about slavery.

And while I haven't yet researched the full history of the tarriff in question, this little section from the Constitution shows that since it affected only the South that it would be unconstutional, and hence, my arguments have merit.

Or you suppose they have merit. You're only guessing by your own admission.

The tariff was levied to raise the cost of imports, to protect and grow the American economy. It isn't in the Federal Governments power to protect and promote economic growth? The only reason the South was hurt was because they had to pay for more expensive Northern goods instead of cheap European imports.

In modern terms it would be the equivalent of the Federal Government leaving the World Trade Organization and enacting trade tariffs on China. Than the Southern States declaring independence because they no longer had access to cheap Chinese goods.

Does that sound like a good reason to declare independence, not having access to cheap Chinese goods anymore?