Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I take you at your word that you understand both sides of the question, however you only presented one. Perhaps you would like to balance it with a brief statement of the other?The question begs to be asked: Does a state have the right to dissolve its ties to a union that it willingly joined in the first place? For the confederacy, the answer was 'yes.' For President Lincoln and the north, the answer was a resounding 'no.' I have heard it asked more than once, if I am truly FREE, can I not leave the same way that I came into this union? As a free man?
I do not know the definitive answer to this. I actually and truly understand both points of view. Still a very sore subject.
Actually, the direct question of unilateral secession - when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:
"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."
A vote was taken, and it was negatived.
Elliot s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History
Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:
"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?
Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."
At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.
In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.
Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."
Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."
Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary - Yale Law School
Are you saying that without the emancipation proclamation that the Union would have kept the Blacks as slaves? Under whose ownership?The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky were exempted and D.C. had already abolished slavery in 1861.Lincoln proposed no such thing when he was elected. The sole platform of the Republicans was preventing spread of Slavery into the territories. There was no official push for uncompensated emancipation before the South rebelled.
He definitely did so AFTER the Southern States asserted their Rights.
Emancipation was more of a political issue than moral.
It freed thousands of slaves
Look at the slaves who followed Sherman as he liberated the south
Are you saying that without the emancipation proclamation that the Union would have kept the Blacks as slaves? Under whose ownership?The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky were exempted and D.C. had already abolished slavery in 1861.Lincoln proposed no such thing when he was elected. The sole platform of the Republicans was preventing spread of Slavery into the territories. There was no official push for uncompensated emancipation before the South rebelled.
He definitely did so AFTER the Southern States asserted their Rights.
Emancipation was more of a political issue than moral.
It freed thousands of slaves
Look at the slaves who followed Sherman as he liberated the south
Actually, the direct question of unilateral secession - when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:
"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."
A vote was taken, and it was negatived.
Elliot s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History
Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:
"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?
Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."
At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.
In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.
Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."
Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."
Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary - Yale Law School
If the Constitution allowed secession, they would have defined terms of secession and how property and debt would be resolved
Our southern apologists have to realize.....
You were the Bad Guys
You were wrong
History hates you
You created a nation whose sole purpose was to enslave four million humans. The Confederacy was not noble......it was evil
Our southern apologists have to realize.....
You were the Bad Guys
You were wrong
History hates you
You created a nation whose sole purpose was to enslave four million humans. The Confederacy was not noble......it was evil
The generation of the Americans who defeated the Confederates seemed to disagree with you on that, considering the ease of terms, the lack of legal punishments, and the many joint Union Confederate Army reunions.
Did you know that there is a Confederate Soldiers Memorial at Arlington? Obama sent a wreath there one Veterans Day.
Is he an apologist?
Yes, it did. But it did not set them free,.Are you saying that without the emancipation proclamation that the Union would have kept the Blacks as slaves? Under whose ownership?The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky were exempted and D.C. had already abolished slavery in 1861.Lincoln proposed no such thing when he was elected. The sole platform of the Republicans was preventing spread of Slavery into the territories. There was no official push for uncompensated emancipation before the South rebelled.
He definitely did so AFTER the Southern States asserted their Rights.
Emancipation was more of a political issue than moral.
It freed thousands of slaves
Look at the slaves who followed Sherman as he liberated the south
It provided former slaves with legal standing, allowed them to join the Union Army and pissed the Confederates off to no end
Yes, it did. But it did not set them free,.Are you saying that without the emancipation proclamation that the Union would have kept the Blacks as slaves? Under whose ownership?The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky were exempted and D.C. had already abolished slavery in 1861.He definitely did so AFTER the Southern States asserted their Rights.
Emancipation was more of a political issue than moral.
It freed thousands of slaves
Look at the slaves who followed Sherman as he liberated the south
It provided former slaves with legal standing, allowed them to join the Union Army and pissed the Confederates off to no end
The question begs to be asked: Does a state have the right to dissolve its ties to a union that it willingly joined in the first place? For the confederacy, the answer was 'yes.' For President Lincoln and the north, the answer was a resounding 'no.' I have heard it asked more than once, if I am truly FREE, can I not leave the same way that I came into this union? As a free man?
I do not know the definitive answer to this. I actually and truly understand both points of view. Still a very sore subject.
To me its like most contracts, if it is to be nullified, all parties have to agree to nullify it. In the case of actual contracts, lack of this results in lawsuits and courts figuring it out. When it comes to governments and people, Civil war is the result when one side decides to act unilaterally.
So lets kill 850,000 Americans and destroy half the nation to enforce the contract.The question begs to be asked: Does a state have the right to dissolve its ties to a union that it willingly joined in the first place? For the confederacy, the answer was 'yes.' For President Lincoln and the north, the answer was a resounding 'no.' I have heard it asked more than once, if I am truly FREE, can I not leave the same way that I came into this union? As a free man?
I do not know the definitive answer to this. I actually and truly understand both points of view. Still a very sore subject.
To me its like most contracts, if it is to be nullified, all parties have to agree to nullify it. In the case of actual contracts, lack of this results in lawsuits and courts figuring it out. When it comes to governments and people, Civil war is the result when one side decides to act unilaterally.
"Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?"
150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. It was at this location where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to the Union forces, commanded by General Grant. This signaled the end of the Confederacy.
A sad day in history? A great victory for the union? An affirmation of President Lincoln's views that the union was and is inviolate? And if Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, what would have been different?
Being a student of the American Civil War, I cannot help but feel the great sadness felt by many on the side of the south at this defeat. Yet at the same time, I understand and feel the great jubilation felt by the north. A sense of relief felt by all that this massacre and long nightmare was finally over. Or was it?
Please try and refrain from making this an ignorant commentary on some political point that you want to make like in the previous thread by Ravi. Ignorance of the time, the reasons for and the situations of the combatants and participants show only your sad state of intelligence.
One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.
