Southern history and the truth

Conservatives and liberals might be kinda pissed that you are shoring them up with a permanent party, seeing as how they switched parties a few decades ago.
 
Ok, there are people on here who want to claim libs are responsible for everything good since marshmallow creme, but the truth is, the Democratic party in the south, NOT the Republican party, is the party that fought civil rights for so long.

it shows stupidity to equate liberalism and the democratic party... just like it shows stupidity to equate conservatism with the republican party.

In fact, parties have, can and do change and shift their philosophical underpinnings. In America, liberalism and conservativism are political philosophies, not political parties.
 
it shows stupidity to equate liberalism and the democratic party... just like it shows stupidity to equate conservatism with the republican party.

In fact, parties have, can and do change and shift their philosophical underpinnings. In America, liberalism and conservativism are political philosophies, not political parties.

You're not as stupid as you act. Still need to work on your manners though.
 
Actually, since the North won the war, I don't think that the southerners you are referring to would be classified as "traitors." Maybe all the other southerners, but not them.

Actually, it is ONLY because the North won the war that ANY Southerners are labeled "traitors" by yankees.

The Southern states each legally disolved their affiliation with the US. A union that they joined freely as an "experiment", and a union that no legislation in 1860 prohibited any state from leaving as freely as it entered.

Abraham Lincoln TRAMPLED the US Constitution in order to unlawfully invade and subjugate a sovereign nation.
 
Actually, it is ONLY because the North won the war that ANY Southerners are labeled "traitors" by yankees.

Even if the South had won, those southerners that supported the Union would have been "traitors." Either way, somebody was fucked.

The Southern states each legally disolved their affiliation with the US. A union that they joined freely as an "experiment", and a union that no legislation in 1860 prohibited any state from leaving as freely as it entered.

While true that no legislation prohibited it, nothing in the Constitution that I am aware of provides for the secession of any member. It would be an interesting question what the legalities may be. I think BrianH may have recently posted a thread on just this topic.
 
The logic is specious.

Allie, you keep interchanging the term "Republicans" with "conservatives." They are not the same.

Republicans were the party of abolitionists, but southern conservatives - the ones that dominate the Republican party today - were not, and fought all the way against emancipation, from the ending of slavery to civil rights. Conservatives used to dominate the southern Democratic party.

Several years ago, I heard Newt Gingrich say that conservatives were wrong to oppose the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Gingrich said "conservatives," not Republicans.

Most Republicans and conservatives are not racists - on this board, RGS has been very vocal calling out some of the racist posts that get on this board for example - but the Republican party has played footsies with racists here in the south. Reagan, a President I generally admire, announced his candidacy in Philadelphia MS, the town where the events depicted in the movie, Mississippi Burning, took place. Bush II gave a speech at Bob Jones University when he was running for the nomination, a university that forbade interracial dating. Remember the vociferous opposition of the South Carolina Republicans to the removal of the Confederate flag from the legislature (compared to when Jeb Bush removed the flag from the Florida legislature without any fanfare)?

So saying that "conservatives" fought to end slavery and racism here in the South is simply wrong.

Please don't put it in proper context. Those "conservatives" you say that used to dominate the Democrat party were at the time called liberals and progressives. The shift of both parties to the left on the political spectrum is the only thing that makes them "conservatives" by today's standards.

The Republican party was NOT the party of abolitionists. It was the part abolitionists supported. Lincoln was MORE than willing to allow slavery to continue to exist if the Southern states would just toe the line, and he even offered such as a political attempt to avoid war.
 
Actually, it is ONLY because the North won the war that ANY Southerners are labeled "traitors" by yankees.

The Southern states each legally disolved their affiliation with the US. A union that they joined freely as an "experiment", and a union that no legislation in 1860 prohibited any state from leaving as freely as it entered.

Abraham Lincoln TRAMPLED the US Constitution in order to unlawfully invade and subjugate a sovereign nation.
I agree, but not all aspects of succession were black and white. That Lincoln gave the Constitution scant attention during the War years is quite clear. But should the Constitution have been ignored in order to preserve the Union is another question. There was of course plenty of legal wrangling; it is what lawyers do. It can be maintained, for example, that South Carolina started the War by attacking Federal soldiers and property. Was that a justification for invasion of the South? Such has been debated for almost 150 years. The fact is that the Civil War period was the most significant in American history. As Shelby Foote observed, the Civil War turned the sentence "The United States are..." into the sentence "The United States is..." I recommend the Mississippian's three volume "The Civil War: A Narrative." Foote writes with a profound respect for the towering historical figures that populated both sides of the divide. But he does not hold back criticism when justified. Also he relates the stories of many ordinary citizens and immigrants whose lives were forever changed, and sometimes ended, by the greatest struggle in the history of the Western Hemisphere. To see a brilliant light cast upon the lives of ordinary people during the Reconstruction era find a copy of William Faulkner's "The Unvanquished."
 
Even if the South had won, those southerners that supported the Union would have been "traitors." Either way, somebody was fucked.

It was not really all that uncommon for Southerners, especially in border states, to support the Union. Of course, the exact same argument can be made for the Tories during the American Revolution, and "traitor" was a term relative to who was using it.

While true that no legislation prohibited it, nothing in the Constitution that I am aware of provides for the secession of any member. It would be an interesting question what the legalities may be. I think BrianH may have recently posted a thread on just this topic.

True, there is no specific wording that provides for secession. However, there is no specific wording that prohibits secession. IMO, it is a logical assumption that if I enter something freely on a voulnteer and experimental basis, and no language is included in the contract that precludes my leaving on the same terms, I am free to do as I please should the relationship turn out to be something less than either party desires.

IMO, the legalities are not an "interesting question," because I see no question. From a legal standpoint based on the law at that time, the South had every legal right to secede.

It is only a "question" for those who wish to try and justify the unlawful actions taken by the US to retain by force that which they could not keep by political intimidation.
 
I agree, but not all aspects of succession were black and white. That Lincoln gave the Constitution scant attention during the War years is quite clear. But should the Constitution have been ignored in order to preserve the Union is another question. There was of course plenty of legal wrangling; it is what lawyers do. It can be maintained, for example, that South Carolina started the War by attacking Federal soldiers and property. Was that a justification for invasion of the South? Such has been debated for almost 150 years. The fact is that the Civil War period was the most significant in American history. As Shelby Foote observed, the Civil War turned the sentence "The United States are..." into the sentence "The United States is..." I recommend the Mississippian's three volume "The Civil War: A Narrative." Foote writes with a profound respect for the towering historical figures that populated both sides of the divide. But he does not hold back criticism when justified. Also he relates the stories of many ordinary citizens and immigrants whose lives were forever changed, and sometimes ended, by the greatest struggle in the history of the Western Hemisphere. To see a brilliant light cast upon the lives of ordinary people during the Reconstruction era find a copy of William Faulkner's "The Unvanquished."

Should the Constitution have been ignored to preserve the Union? The preservation of the Union is a contrived, ideological argument that was not established by any legal basis.

It is quite interesting how the political sides line up on the issue. IMO, the left holds their usual double-standard where the US Civil War and Lincoln's disregard for the Constitution are concerned, as compared to current events.
Not to mention the general ignorance and blind beliefs held concerning the reasons for the war.

The same people who contend the end justified the means in regard to Lincoln's actions, have general heart failure every time Bush so much as opens his mouth.

Does the end justify the means? If it does as it pertains to the US Civil War, why does it not on controversial issues such as the Patriot Act, NSA Wiretapping -- actions that are supposedly taken in the overall defense of and for the good of the Nation, that push the limit on government control and infringing on Constitutional rights?

The argument of the South firing on Ft Sumter is another one that depends on one's point of view. After seceding from the US, South Carolina demanded the US withdraw from all SC territory that it occupied.
The premise of this argument attempting to compare the political parties of the Civil War era to today is fallacious. A general observation would be that from that time to this, the Republican party and the Democrat have each gone 180 degrees on what they supposedly represent.
 
Ok, there are people on here who want to claim libs are responsible for everything good since marshmallow creme, but the truth is, the Democratic party in the south, NOT the Republican party, is the party that fought civil rights for so long.

The Republican Party was created for abolitionists, by abolitionists. The Democratic Party was responsible for the "Redemption" of 1873-77, where white Southern Democrats ("Redeemers") defeated Republicans, took control of the Southern states, and began to take away rights from blacks.

Democrats were pro-slavery, democrats then (as now) objected to equality, and were responsible for Jim Crow.

Democrats are the reason the south was such a mess in the 60s, when Martin Luther King, Jr. and activists began their protests.

With regards to "black rule", here is the history of that:

When the South was conquered, and supported by the Military Reconstruction Act (1867) the southern state governments were replaced based on a Republican coalition of freedmen...."carpetbaggers and scalaways" per Wiki.

Carpetbaggers were Northerners who moved to the South between 1865-77. They formed a coalition with freed slaves and "scalawags" (Southern whites who espoused the reconstruction) and in turn controleed the confederate states.

Are you getting a picture? People were kicked out of southern political and economic offices, and positions of power were filled by northerners, southern traitors and blacks. The south retaliated with the KKK and the "Redeemers" and again took rights away from blacks in those states.

If they were terrorists, some would say they were justified!

Now you know, and you'll know better than to scoff at historical references when you have no knowledge of what you're scoffing at.

Let me put it to you this way.

The south was a traitorous, rebellious government against the United States of America. Anyone who served in it's government, recognized it's government, served in its military was a traitor, legally and figuratively.

Were the United States ANY other nation on the planet at that time which could have dealt with rebellion, mass executions of soldiers and members of the Confederate government would have followed. The south was not an ethnic or religious minority that was being repressed by a big mean United States. They were a whiny self-centered, post-feudal society. They made rules when the country was founded and when it turned out that the North was always going to have more people, got their slaves to get counted, but not vote, essentially getting free seats in congress. When that didn't even work (and even the total slave population had been counted they would still be outnumberd in congress 2 to 1) they revolted, claiming states rights, when in reality they had lost a game that they'd agreed to play, even changing some rules to favor them. They got a relatively nice smackdown. They were allowed to keep a good portion of their culture (the fact that you are posting this is proof of that). If the North had wanted war more or more generals like sherman and grant had existed from the get go, there would have been massive depopulation of southern whites. The south got a really nice deal for a rebellion.
 
Let me put it to you this way.

The south was a traitorous, rebellious government against the United States of America. Anyone who served in it's government, recognized it's government, served in its military was a traitor, legally and figuratively.

Were the United States ANY other nation on the planet at that time which could have dealt with rebellion, mass executions of soldiers and members of the Confederate government would have followed. The south was not an ethnic or religious minority that was being repressed by a big mean United States. They were a whiny self-centered, post-feudal society. They made rules when the country was founded and when it turned out that the North was always going to have more people, got their slaves to get counted, but not vote, essentially getting free seats in congress. When that didn't even work (and even the total slave population had been counted they would still be outnumberd in congress 2 to 1) they revolted, claiming states rights, when in reality they had lost a game that they'd agreed to play, even changing some rules to favor them. They got a relatively nice smackdown. They were allowed to keep a good portion of their culture (the fact that you are posting this is proof of that). If the North had wanted war more or more generals like sherman and grant had existed from the get go, there would have been massive depopulation of southern whites. The south got a really nice deal for a rebellion.

The premise of your argument is fallacious, and obviously you have done no actual research on the legalities involved.

There was no "rebellion." Southern states legally terminated a contract they entered into voluntarily. That contract did NOT include any language to the effect that once in, there was no out. It did however include language to the effect that any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution fell to the states. The only language contained in the Constitution that pertains to the suject of membership is to the effect that the states joined as an experiment to form a union.

In any other facet of life, when an experiment does not produce the desired results, what happens? You move on.
 
Let me put it to you this way.

The south was a traitorous, rebellious government against the United States of America. Anyone who served in it's government, recognized it's government, served in its military was a traitor, legally and figuratively.

Were the United States ANY other nation on the planet at that time which could have dealt with rebellion, mass executions of soldiers and members of the Confederate government would have followed. The south was not an ethnic or religious minority that was being repressed by a big mean United States. They were a whiny self-centered, post-feudal society. They made rules when the country was founded and when it turned out that the North was always going to have more people, got their slaves to get counted, but not vote, essentially getting free seats in congress. When that didn't even work (and even the total slave population had been counted they would still be outnumberd in congress 2 to 1) they revolted, claiming states rights, when in reality they had lost a game that they'd agreed to play, even changing some rules to favor them. They got a relatively nice smackdown. They were allowed to keep a good portion of their culture (the fact that you are posting this is proof of that). If the North had wanted war more or more generals like sherman and grant had existed from the get go, there would have been massive depopulation of southern whites. The south got a really nice deal for a rebellion.

Actually, Abraham Lincoln discarded the Constitution for the duration of the war, put people in jail for no reason, suspended most civil rights and forced the South into staying in a union that they had every legal right to leave. The Civil War outcome was a major blow to Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights and has resulted in an ever expanding federal government that threatens to consume us to this day.
 
The premise of your argument is fallacious, and obviously you have done no actual research on the legalities involved.

There was no "rebellion." Southern states legally terminated a contract they entered into voluntarily. That contract did NOT include any language to the effect that once in, there was no out. It did however include language to the effect that any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution fell to the states. The only language contained in the Constitution that pertains to the suject of membership is to the effect that the states joined as an experiment to form a union.

In any other facet of life, when an experiment does not produce the desired results, what happens? You move on.

There was no legal termination of contract. The south said "see you later, we don't want to play any more". There was no act of congress that said "O well if we don't want a state anymore we can vote it off the island." No such vote occured, and if it had, the south would have lost anyway. I'm sick of apologist with their "OOO it was legal. The south had a right to it." No they didn't have a right. Sorry. They lose.

In addition had the south wanted some legal precedent for sucession they shouldn't have attacked and siezed federal forts. Than in an of itself is an act of war. You attack federal property, the fed shoots you up. Sorry, they lose again.

Swamp Fox said:
Actually, Abraham Lincoln discarded the Constitution for the duration of the war, put people in jail for no reason, suspended most civil rights and forced the South into staying in a union that they had every legal right to leave. The Civil War outcome was a major blow to Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights and has resulted in an ever expanding federal government that threatens to consume us to this day.

Necessary evils to preserve the union. And they didn't force the the south. You want to leave, take it up with congress. If congress says no, sit down and shut up.
 
There was no legal termination of contract. The south said "see you later, we don't want to play any more". There was no act of congress that said "O well if we don't want a state anymore we can vote it off the island." No such vote occured, and if it had, the south would have lost anyway. I'm sick of apologist with their "OOO it was legal. The south had a right to it." No they didn't have a right. Sorry. They lose.

In addition had the south wanted some legal precedent for sucession they shouldn't have attacked and siezed federal forts. Than in an of itself is an act of war. You attack federal property, the fed shoots you up. Sorry, they lose again.

Incorrect. Each state drew up Declarations of Secession. That's called legal documentation. They presented them to the US government that they no longer wanted to be in their club.

Necessary evils to preserve the union. And they didn't force the the south. You want to leave, take it up with congress. If congress says no, sit down and shut up.

Only problem with your argument is it assumes there was any legal mandate to preserve the Union above and beyond even the law itself. There was none.

The Southern states had no reason to take it up with Congress since once they drew their terms of secession they no longer recognized the US Congress's authority. The issue of unequal representation in Congress was part of the basis of the South's argument and reason for secession. Seems rather ridiculous that they would then turn to that same Congress and ask for anything.

Basically your argument is that Federal authority is absolute and cannot be questioned even where legislation does not preclude such.

Our own legislation says otherwise:

10 Amendment: "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

then there's this little tidbit ...

On March 2, 1861 – the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate – another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo37.html

Then there's "merely" one of the main Founding Father's opinions ...

In the North, secession is still seen as a regional “Southern” issue, inseparable from, and therefore discredited by, slavery. But this is not so at all. At various times, Northern states had threatened to secede for various reasons. On one occasion, Thomas Jefferson said they should be allowed to “go in peace.” After all, the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was that these “are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States.” Not, as Lincoln later said, a single “new nation,” but (to quote Willmoore Kendall) “a baker’s dozen of new sovereignties.”

And the Articles of Confederation reinforced the point right at the beginning: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” And at the end of the Revolutionary War, the British specifically recognized the sovereignty of all 13 states! This is flatly contrary to Lincoln’s claim that the states had never been sovereign.

But didn’t the Constitution transfer sovereignty from the states to the Federal Government, outlawing secession? Not at all. The Constitution says nothing of the kind. And as Davis wrote, sovereignty cannot be surrendered by mere implication. In fact, several states ratified the Constitution on the express condition that they reserved the right to “resume” the powers they were “delegating” — that is, secede. And if one state could secede, so could the others. A “state” was not a mere province or subdivision of a larger entity; it was sovereign by definition.

Claiming sovereignty for the Federal Government, Lincoln felt justified in violating the Constitution in order to “save the Union” — by which he meant “saving” Federal sovereignty. One of the best-kept secrets of American history is that many if not most Northerners thought the Southern states had the right to secede. This is why Lincoln shut down hundreds of newspapers and arrested thousands of critics of his war. He had to wage a propaganda war against the North itself.

more ...http://www.buchanan.org/blog/?p=623
 
Incorrect. Each state drew up Declarations of Secession. That's called legal documentation. They presented them to the US government that they no longer wanted to be in their club.

They were documents that were not approved by the congress of the nation that they were sending them too. Using the same logic I could come up with a legal document saying that I have the right to punch peoples tires and I am no longer a citizen of the United States and can do whatever I want. If a court or congress doesn't recognize it, my point it moot.


GunnyL said:
Only problem with your argument is it assumes there was any legal mandate to preserve the Union above and beyond even the law itself. There was none.

Using the same argument one could say that there was no legal mandate for secession. And since secession including seizure of federal property they were either A) Traitors as still being citizens of the US B) Comitting acts of war by damaging federal property.

GunnyL said:
The Southern states had no reason to take it up with Congress since once they drew their terms of secession they no longer recognized the US Congress's authority. The issue of unequal representation in Congress was part of the basis of the South's argument and reason for secession. Seems rather ridiculous that they would then turn to that same Congress and ask for anything.

It doesn't matter whether or not they recognized it. It had already been established. Likewise I could do the same thing and say I didn't recognize the authority of the US and do as I pleased and would suffer the consequences. This is what happened to the south.

GunnyL said:
Basically your argument is that Federal authority is absolute and cannot be questioned even where legislation does not preclude such.

Our own legislation says otherwise:

10 Amendment: "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Likewise in the same amendment
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Their declaration (if you assume it to be equal to a law) said they were no longer bound to their obligations of their contract of statehood and of having accepting the constitution. Had they possibly pursued a legal course saying that the US government had failed on its obligations and had in fact won their case in the Supreme court then their secession would have been legal. But that didn't happen, and if it did, they probably would have lost. Tough noogies. You shouldn't have played if you didn't like the rules.

On March 2, 1861 – the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate – another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it.

Coulda woulda shoulda mighta happened. Nice. It's not solid. Personally I'd interpret it as leaving the constitution to appear open enough for secession while leaving it internally against it giving congress the ability to squash secession if it were occur but leaving the constitution appearing open enough that if a state thought it might want to secede in the future it would have the "freedom" to. I don't think the 13 would have ratified the constitution it hadn't had this rather wishy washy quality to it.


Then there's "merely" one of the main Founding Father's opinions ...
In the North, secession is still seen as a regional “Southern” issue, inseparable from, and therefore discredited by, slavery. But this is not so at all. At various times, Northern states had threatened to secede for various reasons. On one occasion, Thomas Jefferson said they should be allowed to “go in peace.” After all, the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was that these “are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States.” Not, as Lincoln later said, a single “new nation,” but (to quote Willmoore Kendall) “a baker’s dozen of new sovereignties.”

And the Articles of Confederation reinforced the point right at the beginning: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” And at the end of the Revolutionary War, the British specifically recognized the sovereignty of all 13 states! This is flatly contrary to Lincoln’s claim that the states had never been sovereign.

But didn’t the Constitution transfer sovereignty from the states to the Federal Government, outlawing secession? Not at all. The Constitution says nothing of the kind. And as Davis wrote, sovereignty cannot be surrendered by mere implication. In fact, several states ratified the Constitution on the express condition that they reserved the right to “resume” the powers they were “delegating” — that is, secede. And if one state could secede, so could the others. A “state” was not a mere province or subdivision of a larger entity; it was sovereign by definition.

Claiming sovereignty for the Federal Government, Lincoln felt justified in violating the Constitution in order to “save the Union” — by which he meant “saving” Federal sovereignty. One of the best-kept secrets of American history is that many if not most Northerners thought the Southern states had the right to secede. This is why Lincoln shut down hundreds of newspapers and arrested thousands of critics of his war. He had to wage a propaganda war against the North itself.

There was a national emergency and Lincoln acted to preserve the union. Jeffersons thoughts were nice are largely ineffectual because no one actually put this on paper and into law. Interestingly the Declaration of Independence really doesn't have weight in my mind (at least when it was implimented). It wasn't a legal document, though it did have signers since no court could recognize it. Admittedly it was signed by a bunch of rogues who rebelled. The fact that they won their war and established their authority gave them their right to exist.

The articles of confederation were null and void once the constitution was ratified.

The next paragraph essentially repeats what I said before. The constitution was intentionally made to be ambigious. No one was going to say "States can secede" just like no one was going to say "States can't secede" if it happened the fed would determine what it thought was the meaning of its constitution. Turned out it didn't think states had the right to secede and it showed it had the authority to enforce that. The states are sovereign unto themselves under the sovereignty of the federal government.

Last bit is true. Lincoln did suspend constitutional rights during the war. But he got his hands dirty doing what he needed to do to get the job done.
 
They were documents that were not approved by the congress of the nation that they were sending them too. Using the same logic I could come up with a legal document saying that I have the right to punch peoples tires and I am no longer a citizen of the United States and can do whatever I want. If a court or congress doesn't recognize it, my point it moot.

Show me the part of the Constitution that says a state can't leave.



Their declaration (if you assume it to be equal to a law) said they were no longer bound to their obligations of their contract of statehood and of having accepting the constitution. Had they possibly pursued a legal course saying that the US government had failed on its obligations and had in fact won their case in the Supreme court then their secession would have been legal. But that didn't happen, and if it did, they probably would have lost. Tough noogies. You shouldn't have played if you didn't like the rules.

Never got a chacne to go to the Supreme Court because Lincoln declared war and started fighting.


Coulda woulda shoulda mighta happened. Nice. It's not solid. Personally I'd interpret it as leaving the constitution to appear open enough for secession while leaving it internally against it giving congress the ability to squash secession if it were occur but leaving the constitution appearing open enough that if a state thought it might want to secede in the future it would have the "freedom" to. I don't think the 13 would have ratified the constitution it hadn't had this rather wishy washy quality to it.

If you read the notes on the debates of the federal convention you'll see that the Founding Fathers were very concerned about the federal government becoming too strong and wanted to allow the states a way to leave the union if that happened.


There was a national emergency and Lincoln acted to preserve the union. Jeffersons thoughts were nice are largely ineffectual because no one actually put this on paper and into law. Interestingly the Declaration of Independence really doesn't have weight in my mind (at least when it was implimented). It wasn't a legal document, though it did have signers since no court could recognize it. Admittedly it was signed by a bunch of rogues who rebelled. The fact that they won their war and established their authority gave them their right to exist.

So, a little bit of trouble and the Constitution gets tossed? Isn't that the same thing people are complaining about today?

Last bit is true. Lincoln did suspend constitutional rights during the war. But he got his hands dirty doing what he needed to do to get the job done.

The job that needed to be done, according to who? All depends on your point of view. Lincoln kept the Union together but also made the federal government more powerful then it had been before. This laid the ground work for FDR's "New Deal" which has really turned states rights into a joke and the federal government into the 800 pound gorilla.
 
Show me the part of the Constitution that says a state can't leave.

My exact argument is show me where is says they can. I did emphasize in my last post the bit about reneging on a contract as it refers to the states which could be used to refute their right. However at the time the constitution was sufficiently ambigious on the matter that it could have gone either way. When the states did secede congress decided to act on the matter and said it was illegal.


Never got a chacne to go to the Supreme Court because Lincoln declared war and started fighting.

You don't quit first then ask if you can quit. They should have pursued their case in a far more legal fashion that was not subject to the ambiguities of the constitution. They didn't. They started siezing federal forts and stores. They committed acts of war and gave Lincoln the US a casus belli. He didn't need to wait for them. He and the congress had the authority to act and they did.

If you read the notes on the debates of the federal convention you'll see that the Founding Fathers were very concerned about the federal government becoming too strong and wanted to allow the states a way to leave the union if that happened.

What they debated about doesn't mean jack. What got put on paper and became the laws of the country does.


So, a little bit of trouble and the Constitution gets tossed? Isn't that the same thing people are complaining about today?

It wasn't a "little bit of trouble". The southern states had comitted acts of war against the union, their secession not withstanding. The border states were about to go. Riots were springing up due to drafting. Now compared to then would be like saying a social cat fight between two cheerleaders in beverly hills is equatable to sets of crips and bloods in compton having a gang fight.


The job that needed to be done, according to who? All depends on your point of view. Lincoln kept the Union together but also made the federal government more powerful then it had been before. This laid the ground work for FDR's "New Deal" which has really turned states rights into a joke and the federal government into the 800 pound gorilla.

It's not an opinion. As president lincolns job was to assert the authority of the federal government. The president isn't about the states. He's about the country as a whole and primarily about the fed. His job was to keep the country together, maintain the feds authority (the expansion thereof a side effect), and protect Americas soverignty over it's states. He did that. Whether or not people liked the fact that that was his job is open to opinion. But his job was his job and he did what he needed to do. The fact that congress, and the judiciary didn't stop him (attempts to notwithstanding) just means that in the end his mission as president was more important to them too.
 
They were documents that were not approved by the congress of the nation that they were sending them too. Using the same logic I could come up with a legal document saying that I have the right to punch peoples tires and I am no longer a citizen of the United States and can do whatever I want. If a court or congress doesn't recognize it, my point it moot.

Again, you are incorrect and your analogy is nonsense. Obviously you did not read the links, and again, you obviously have not researched the topic very well.

Until the Southern states were subjugated by force of arms, even yankees believed states had the right to secede, and several northern states even threatened to at times prior to the US Civil War.

Using the same argument one could say that there was no legal mandate for secession. And since secession including seizure of federal property they were either A) Traitors as still being citizens of the US B) Comitting acts of war by damaging federal property.

The tactic of backwards logic doesn't play with me.

The South did not seize Federal property. South Carolina seized SC property.

It doesn't matter whether or not they recognized it. It had already been established. Likewise I could do the same thing and say I didn't recognize the authority of the US and do as I pleased and would suffer the consequences. This is what happened to the south.

You are incorrect. Congress's authority over the states had NOT been established or there would have been no war. Get it?

Likewise in the same amendment
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Nice try. No sale. I don't see where it says a state that voluntarily entered the Union could not leave in the same manner if it deemed it in its best interest.

Their declaration (if you assume it to be equal to a law) said they were no longer bound to their obligations of their contract of statehood and of having accepting the constitution. Had they possibly pursued a legal course saying that the US government had failed on its obligations and had in fact won their case in the Supreme court then their secession would have been legal. But that didn't happen, and if it did, they probably would have lost. Tough noogies. You shouldn't have played if you didn't like the rules.

You just don't get it, do you? NOTHING precluded states from seceding from the United States. Your ultimate Federal authority is an assumption on your part, and ignores the facts that have been presented.


Coulda woulda shoulda mighta happened. Nice. It's not solid. Personally I'd interpret it as leaving the constitution to appear open enough for secession while leaving it internally against it giving congress the ability to squash secession if it were occur but leaving the constitution appearing open enough that if a state thought it might want to secede in the future it would have the "freedom" to. I don't think the 13 would have ratified the constitution it hadn't had this rather wishy washy quality to it.



There was a national emergency and Lincoln acted to preserve the union. Jeffersons thoughts were nice are largely ineffectual because no one actually put this on paper and into law. Interestingly the Declaration of Independence really doesn't have weight in my mind (at least when it was implimented). It wasn't a legal document, though it did have signers since no court could recognize it. Admittedly it was signed by a bunch of rogues who rebelled. The fact that they won their war and established their authority gave them their right to exist.

The articles of confederation were null and void once the constitution was ratified.

The next paragraph essentially repeats what I said before. The constitution was intentionally made to be ambigious. No one was going to say "States can secede" just like no one was going to say "States can't secede" if it happened the fed would determine what it thought was the meaning of its constitution. Turned out it didn't think states had the right to secede and it showed it had the authority to enforce that. The states are sovereign unto themselves under the sovereignty of the federal government.

Last bit is true. Lincoln did suspend constitutional rights during the war. But he got his hands dirty doing what he needed to do to get the job don

I see no point in responding to the rest. You are being obtuse. You have presented nothing to sustain your argument but your opinion the the Federal government has and had ultimate and unlimited power; which, it did not until it subjugated the Southern states by force and usurped those powers from all states by that precedent.

Do some research and get back to me.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top