14th Amendment vs. 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter UH1-D Rotorhead
- Start date
Hugh Damright
New member
You seem to be saying that foreign States are sovereign but States in the Union are not. In New York v Miln, the SCOTUS explained that "a state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the constitution of the United States".
Slavery was over when the 14th Amendment came up, yet you seem to keep saying that yankees needed to amend the Constitution at the point of a bayonet to end slavery ... and you keep talking about women's rights as if the 14th had anything to do with that.
JuanCarlos
New member
Slavery had only recently ended when the 14th came up, and had really only been ended at the point of a bayonet. The point of the 14th was to ensure that all those newly freed slaves might actually have equal protection under the law (thus be treated as equal human beings), something the Constitution in and of itself didn't at the time guarantee.
And no, the 19th wasn't passed through military force...I only bring that one up because it has been mentioned as an example of the federal government wrongly usurping power over the states. I'm just using both slavery and women's suffrage as examples of the fact that the states, left to their own devices, don't really have fantastic human rights records.
Hence the need for the 14th amendment.
So you think that if it wasn't for having a centralized government to save the day, we would 1) still have slavery today, 2) women wouldn't be allowed to vote today.
Social change must come overnight via central government decree or war.
We are going in circles now, in one way or another this has already been asked and answered several times
Social change must come overnight via central government decree or war.
We are going in circles now, in one way or another this has already been asked and answered several times
Hugh Damright
New member
You seem to imagine that the States once denied women and negroes their rights, while the US remains squeaky clean. It's as if you blame the States for everything bad, and credit the US with everything good ... and of course you conclude that we need the 14th "Amendment", by hook or by crook, to make the US all powerful and save us from those evil States.
I will again point out that what you believe in seems to be antithetical to the Second Amendment ... you seem to be against the security of free States.
I will again point out that what you believe in seems to be antithetical to the Second Amendment ... you seem to be against the security of free States.
JuanCarlos
New member
No, of course not. I think that if it wasn't for a centralized government slavery would not have ended for maybe another 50 years. 50 years of people being whipped and chained isn't considered a worthy tradeoff to avoid the big, bad central government. As for women's voting rights, I think it's likely (though not guaranteed) that all 50 stats would have passed it on their own by now. It certainly would have taken another decade or few to make it happen without the central government. As for minority (particularly black) voting rights...well, if slavery hadn't petered out for another few decades I think it's actually possible that there'd still be states to this day that didn't allow blacks to vote. As it was there were states trying to disenfrancise blacks despite the 14th/15th amendments well into the 20th century.
And no, the US as a whole is not "squeaky clean," but they have (in the form of this evil central government) been ahead of the curve more often than not.
I believe in the second amendment for personal defense, for common defense from external enemies, and for defense against a tyrannical central (or state) government. If you consider forcing people to acknowledge human beings as people rather than property (by force), or forcing people to acknowledge women as equal human beings (by law) to be "tyranny" then I don't think we're going to see eye to eye. No, I do not put states' rights above human rights.
Put simply, if the evil central government invaded my state over something silly like basic human rights violations...well, I'd not be fighting on my state's side. I'd exercise my second amendment rights against my state and on the side of the federal government.
And before anybody tries to give me a history lesson, don't worry I've had plenty. I fully realize that slavery was not the sole cause, nor the direct cause, of the Civil War. However, slavery was one of the root causes of the secession, which was the direct cause of the war. So blah blah blah states' rights, but slavery was one of the "states' rights" in question.
Hugh Damright
New member
I make some attempt to study the reconstruction amendments. Lately, when I think of the 14th, I think of Oregon. Oregon voted for the 14th. I expect that what Oregon knew about the situation was what the yankee press told them, and the South was demonized at every opportunity to get the West to support the Northern Party (and to this day many people have views based upon this war propaganda).
I think it is important to understand that Oregon had something like ... I forget now, but it was about 250 or 350 negroes in the whole State. So what a bold and daring experiment for Oregon, to try to absorb 250 or 350 negroes into their society! But what gave them the right to tell other States ... I think at one point SC had more blacks than whites, so who was Oregon to tell SC that every State must cease all discrimination at once ... especially when the Constitution denied the US any such jurisdiction?
But Oregon saw the truth when the people of New England showed their true colors by deciding to get their 14th amendment at the point of a bayonet. And I think the President Johnson had suggested to States that they should not ratify the amendment, and he said that in reality the Southerners cared more about the negro race than the North ever could. Oregon realized that they had gotten in with a bad crowd, they had been "taken", and that they wanted no part of what yankees were doing, so they withdrew their ratification of the 14th (New Jersey also withdrew their ratification but I digress). But the yankee Congress told Oregon "no, you voted for the 14th, and you cannot change your vote". Meanwhile, when Southern States voted against the amendment, they not only could change their vote, but were put under military rule until they did. It's all arbitrary and at the point of a sword, and that seems to be the exact opposite of the free government that the Second Amendment was intended to secure.
I think it is important to understand that Oregon had something like ... I forget now, but it was about 250 or 350 negroes in the whole State. So what a bold and daring experiment for Oregon, to try to absorb 250 or 350 negroes into their society! But what gave them the right to tell other States ... I think at one point SC had more blacks than whites, so who was Oregon to tell SC that every State must cease all discrimination at once ... especially when the Constitution denied the US any such jurisdiction?
But Oregon saw the truth when the people of New England showed their true colors by deciding to get their 14th amendment at the point of a bayonet. And I think the President Johnson had suggested to States that they should not ratify the amendment, and he said that in reality the Southerners cared more about the negro race than the North ever could. Oregon realized that they had gotten in with a bad crowd, they had been "taken", and that they wanted no part of what yankees were doing, so they withdrew their ratification of the 14th (New Jersey also withdrew their ratification but I digress). But the yankee Congress told Oregon "no, you voted for the 14th, and you cannot change your vote". Meanwhile, when Southern States voted against the amendment, they not only could change their vote, but were put under military rule until they did. It's all arbitrary and at the point of a sword, and that seems to be the exact opposite of the free government that the Second Amendment was intended to secure.
JuanCarlos,
I don't want to get into a War Between the States debate either (it is kind of hard when discussing the 14th and 2cond amendment), but as I've said you are trying to oversimplify a complicated part of history that involves many different people and has many different variables. First of all, slavery had existed for 200 prior to this in the United States and even longer in the rest of the world. 50 more years, granting that is an accurate figure (Brazil did away with it peacefully 1885, I think), is a drop of water compared to the history of slavery in the Western world as a whole. Second, there was a lot of critizism for slavery in the South, ESEPCIALLY prior to the Radical Abolitionist fanatics and terrorists starting to stir the pot in the 1830s (3/4ths of the anti-slavery societies were in South prior to 1830) and even after 1830 and up into the War there were many people who, if they weren't against slavery in and of itself, they were against the way slavery functioned at many points (it's numerous abuses). British traveler during the war Arthur Freemantle was quitely told by several people that many people either found slavery distasteful or at least didn't like the way it operated on many points. Many believed that it would have been at least amended in the way it functioned and probably eventually ended if the States were left peacfully to handle their own problems. Most, if not all, the original 13 States (Virginia being the first) outlawed the international importation of slaves prior to the federal government in 1808. The Confederacy's own Constitution outlawed the slave trade. Most Americans, North and South, in one way or another knew that slavery was not good and it was not going to last and recognized it was an abusive and even inefficient system. Slavery became the weapon more than the issue when the Abolitionists and Republicans started using it as a political vehicle and even terror tactic for power in the mid 19th century. It was then that it became a principle and any talk about ending it became a sensitive subject on the political level.
Had it been allowed to die peacefully and gradually with wise consideration to all concerned, we wouldn't have the Federal government having all centralizing power that we do today controlling our land, guns, lives, fortunes, etc. Ex-Slaves and their decendants wouldn't have been used for generations by politicians for votes and been kept dependant in on false promises in slums for generations. Ex-Slaves and their decendants and their white counterparts wouldn't have had a wedge of bitterness on both sides and oppression that lasted for another 100 years and in many ways continues to this day. Like I said, change is better served when it comes from the heart rather than from brute force and decree by self serving politicians (tyrants)
I've done too much of a history lesson already, but I want to illustrate that centralizing the government was and is a disaster and that states and local regions and communities can and have made changes. You can expect perfection from neither a centralized or autonomous system, but the states and communites can much better understand and handle problems themselves if left to their own. A centralized government handling things is only a virus spreading.
The Second Amendment is necessary to the security of a FREE State from a central government seizing power or an invading foreign army. The 14th Amendment, while cloaked in righteousness, changed the very nature of our system for the worse and it, and all centralizing legislation following, made slaves of us all. (Look at all the Federal laws against YOU owning a gun or a certain kind of gun)
I don't want to get into a War Between the States debate either (it is kind of hard when discussing the 14th and 2cond amendment), but as I've said you are trying to oversimplify a complicated part of history that involves many different people and has many different variables. First of all, slavery had existed for 200 prior to this in the United States and even longer in the rest of the world. 50 more years, granting that is an accurate figure (Brazil did away with it peacefully 1885, I think), is a drop of water compared to the history of slavery in the Western world as a whole. Second, there was a lot of critizism for slavery in the South, ESEPCIALLY prior to the Radical Abolitionist fanatics and terrorists starting to stir the pot in the 1830s (3/4ths of the anti-slavery societies were in South prior to 1830) and even after 1830 and up into the War there were many people who, if they weren't against slavery in and of itself, they were against the way slavery functioned at many points (it's numerous abuses). British traveler during the war Arthur Freemantle was quitely told by several people that many people either found slavery distasteful or at least didn't like the way it operated on many points. Many believed that it would have been at least amended in the way it functioned and probably eventually ended if the States were left peacfully to handle their own problems. Most, if not all, the original 13 States (Virginia being the first) outlawed the international importation of slaves prior to the federal government in 1808. The Confederacy's own Constitution outlawed the slave trade. Most Americans, North and South, in one way or another knew that slavery was not good and it was not going to last and recognized it was an abusive and even inefficient system. Slavery became the weapon more than the issue when the Abolitionists and Republicans started using it as a political vehicle and even terror tactic for power in the mid 19th century. It was then that it became a principle and any talk about ending it became a sensitive subject on the political level.
Had it been allowed to die peacefully and gradually with wise consideration to all concerned, we wouldn't have the Federal government having all centralizing power that we do today controlling our land, guns, lives, fortunes, etc. Ex-Slaves and their decendants wouldn't have been used for generations by politicians for votes and been kept dependant in on false promises in slums for generations. Ex-Slaves and their decendants and their white counterparts wouldn't have had a wedge of bitterness on both sides and oppression that lasted for another 100 years and in many ways continues to this day. Like I said, change is better served when it comes from the heart rather than from brute force and decree by self serving politicians (tyrants)
I've done too much of a history lesson already, but I want to illustrate that centralizing the government was and is a disaster and that states and local regions and communities can and have made changes. You can expect perfection from neither a centralized or autonomous system, but the states and communites can much better understand and handle problems themselves if left to their own. A centralized government handling things is only a virus spreading.
The Second Amendment is necessary to the security of a FREE State from a central government seizing power or an invading foreign army. The 14th Amendment, while cloaked in righteousness, changed the very nature of our system for the worse and it, and all centralizing legislation following, made slaves of us all. (Look at all the Federal laws against YOU owning a gun or a certain kind of gun)
Last edited:
Absolutely no excuse. A single extra day of slavery would not have been excusable.
And entire generations of blacks would still have been owned by a few white masters. Again, the extra effort that I and others of my generation have to put forth is certainly worth it.
Yes they would. That wedge exists today because many of the majority still see the minorities as inferior.There are some things that have to be forced upon the states. The 14th is as good of an example as the 15th.
Hugh Damright
New member
That is not our Constitution. It does not say that sometimes things just have to be forced upon the states using military force, but rather it says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State. And it doesn't say that the Constitution must be balanced with pragmatism, it says that the Constitution is the supreme law. And it doesn't guarantee everyone their human rights, it guarantees each State a republican form of government.
How is what y'all describe any different from jihad? If yankees have a religion of egalitarianism, and they believe that God has chosen them to force their religion on everyone, despite the Constitution and rule of law and things of that nature ... doesn't that take us from the civilization of constitutionalism and into the barbarity of jihad?
And the Constitution is not perfect otherwise we wouldn't have those amendments we hold so dear.
And that's one of its most glaring problems.
Well it's not so much the "yankees" that want to wage a Christian jihad - a Yeehawd, if you will - upon the rest of the nation.
Either way the point remains that the federal government exists to protect the rights of the people, rights that the states should not be allowed to infringe upon. Birthright citizenship, voting for all genders and not being someone else's property are among those essential rights that must be protected.Hugh Damright
New member
I don't think that is correct ... I believe that the federal government was created to handle certain enumerated powers, and that "protector of rights" is much to broad and general a power for a limited federal government.
so then what's the point of the constitution?To limit the powers of the Federal Government. It's supposed to protect the rights of the States and people within from the Federal government. The Federal Government was a creation of the States. So how can the created have power over the creator? It was a compact between states to work together in a voluntary Union.
Notice the 1 amendment says "Congress shall not..." Not "Congress and the State of Alabama or Texas or South Carolinia or Rhode Island, etc."
That's where State Constitutions come in
Notice the 1 amendment says "Congress shall not..." Not "Congress and the State of Alabama or Texas or South Carolinia or Rhode Island, etc."
That's where State Constitutions come in
Last edited:
Hugh Damright
New member
The point of the US Constitution is to bind the States together in limited ways, to have open borders, common weights and measures, a common defense, a common interface with foreign States ... while preserving the sovereignty of each State with regard to its own internal affairs. The US Constition does not frame a national/state government with jurisdiction over "rights", it frames a limited federal government.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." -Federalist 45
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." -Federalist 45