Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have a feeling you and I are not going to come to much of an agreement on this issue. So it's probably not worth my time to make much of a response, but I will.
1. You are correct, my mistake.
2. The Kentucky Resolve was cited by New Englanders when they refused to abide by the embargo act President Jefferson enacted in 1807. Considering that they did in fact seriously consider seceding just 7 years later, it is obvious to me that it was common knowledge at the time that they had the right to do so.
3. "It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."
Taken directly from Madison's letter. Don't think that I am advocating that any state should secede just to do it. I am merely stating that the states have the right to do so if they are being mistreated by the federal government, as Madison's letter clearly states. The south had the right to secede from the union, and President Lincoln had no right to stop them. He should have been diplomatic rather than tyrannical in his approach.
4. The founders believed in checks and balances, and knew that the states would have to overrule the federal government from time to time. When they refused to abide by President Jefferson's embargo, the Connecticut state assembly had this to say:
"But it must not be forgotten that the state of Connecticut is a free sovereign and independent State; that the United States are a confederated and not a consolidated republic."
Obviously Lincoln did not attack personally, but you know what I mean.
Then you will have to quibble because I am using the term for both meanings. The result of the Civil War was unnecessary bloodshed, and an extermination of the sovereignty and independence of the States.
There were men in that period that had no problems with black people and helped them to freedom, rather than try to force them out of the country into a new environment that they probably would not have been able to survive in.
No love for Adolph Rupp?
Your utter lack of knowledge in American history and current events is so appalling whacked that it is laughable.Lee was a traitor and should have been hanged after a quick trial for treason! The Freedom Fighters in Iraq are fighting FOR their country, Not against it like Lee was doing!
No, it is not. Do you know who Shelby Foote is? He was professor of history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, and author of the three volume set entitled Civil War among other books on the subject, until his recent death. He most clearly makes this very point in several books and the PBS series about the war. He says that prior to the war it was correct say"...the United States are such and such or so and so." It is only after the war does that change to "...the United States is such and such or so and so..." Hence, it is only a change in attitude toward the federal government that justifies this now use of improper grammar. In our contemporary setting, a majority takes this change for granted, but it was not always the consensus view in the early 1800's.This is utter hogwash.
No, it is not. Do you know who Shelby Foote is? He was professor of history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, and author of the three volume set entitled Civil War among other books on the subject, until his recent death. He most clearly makes this very point in several books and the PBS series about the war. He says that prior to the war it was correct say"...the United States are such and such or so and so." It is only after the war does that change to "...the United States is such and such or so and so..." Hence, it is only a change in attitude toward the federal government that justifies this now use of improper grammar. In our contemporary setting, a majority takes this change for granted, but it was not always the consensus view in the early 1800's.
Who was the President after Lincoln's assassination? Any idea? Does the name Andrew Johnson ring a bell? What you propose is exactly what he, and many members of Congress, wanted to do.
Do you have any idea why it was not done? Rhetorical question because it is obviously that you do not know.
The answer President Lincoln had opposed such retribution and said it would prolong the hostilities. To insure that his wishes were implemented Lincoln shared his wishes with General Grant and Sherman and gave them authority to grant pardons on the battlefield. So when President Johnson sought go after Lee and others, Grant wrote a strong letter that basically said he would not support such trails and that Lincoln had granted him the authority to pardon Lee--which he had done. His reasoning, Grant said was to quickly end the hostilities and heal the nation's wounds.
President Johnson recessed his authority to override Lincoln's order and wishes. It became painfully evident he could not win this fight with Grant: legally or politically. Hence, President Johnson did not pursue a trail of Lee and others any further.
.
So, in the minds of you folks who feel that secession was the right of every state, I am curious...
Most of you seem to hate the nation, where it's going, who runs it and so forth.
Should the South secede now?
Why or why not?
I think you have Shelby Foote confused with Jeff Shaara.I know who Shelby Foote was...