The Confederacy and States' Rights

The southern states fought for their independence. To say that they fought to defend slavery would be saying that the northern states were fighting to end slavery, which is absolutely not the case whatsoever.

Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.

You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.

Of course. Simple (rhetorical) question. If secession wasn't about slavery, how was it that only slave states seceded? Some sort of extraordinary coincidence?

Yet if it was solely about slavery why did five slave states remain in the Union?
 
The southern states fought for their independence. To say that they fought to defend slavery would be saying that the northern states were fighting to end slavery, which is absolutely not the case whatsoever.

Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.

You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.

They also left the Union for the high tariffs that Lincoln promised to enact, which is why he had absolutely no support in the south and high support in states like Pennsylvania. However, we're not talking about why they seceded. You said they fought for slavery, which is not the case. They fought for their independence. One of the reasons they seceded was slavery, though not the only reason. However, they intended to secede peacefully. It was Lincoln that made that impossible.

Slavery was indeed the cause from which all other secondardy causes flowed.

And the South fired on Old Glory at Ft Sumter.

Stay in reality, KK.
 
Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.

You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.

Of course. Simple (rhetorical) question. If secession wasn't about slavery, how was it that only slave states seceded? Some sort of extraordinary coincidence?

Yet if it was solely about slavery why did five slave states remain in the Union?

Easy enough. Delaware's slave population was very, very small. Kentucky tried to play neutral until both North and South invaded it. Maryland was swamped by Lincoln with federal troops. Missouri's rebels got their ass kicked when the rose up. Give us the other state, please.
 
Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.

You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.

They also left the Union for the high tariffs that Lincoln promised to enact, which is why he had absolutely no support in the south and high support in states like Pennsylvania. However, we're not talking about why they seceded. You said they fought for slavery, which is not the case. They fought for their independence. One of the reasons they seceded was slavery, though not the only reason. However, they intended to secede peacefully. It was Lincoln that made that impossible.

Slavery was indeed the cause from which all other secondardy causes flowed.

And the South fired on Old Glory at Ft Sumter.

Stay in reality, KK.

The south did fire on Fort Sumter, after they tried to purchase all federal property in the south and pay their portion of the national debt and Lincoln refused to even meet their delegation. Lincoln knew that the south didn't want a Union fort within their borders, and the fact that they didn't fire on Fort Sumter until Lincoln tried to re-supply it shows that they were content to let it stand until it ran out of supplies and had to be abandoned. However, they were not willing to allow a permanent Union base on their soil.
 
Of course. Simple (rhetorical) question. If secession wasn't about slavery, how was it that only slave states seceded? Some sort of extraordinary coincidence?

Yet if it was solely about slavery why did five slave states remain in the Union?

Easy enough. Delaware's slave population was very, very small. Kentucky tried to play neutral until both North and South invaded it. Maryland was swamped by Lincoln with federal troops. Missouri's rebels got their ass kicked when the rose up. Give us the other state, please.

West Virginia is the fifth border state.
 
Yet if it was solely about slavery why did five slave states remain in the Union?

Easy enough. Delaware's slave population was very, very small. Kentucky tried to play neutral until both North and South invaded it. Maryland was swamped by Lincoln with federal troops. Missouri's rebels got their ass kicked when the rose up. Give us the other state, please.

West Virginia is the fifth border state.

WV seceded from Virginia and was accepted into the Union by Congress as a state. This is really your only case under statute and law for the legality of secession, though I happen to agree with you that it was legal. We just can't build a compelling enough case.
 
Easy enough. Delaware's slave population was very, very small. Kentucky tried to play neutral until both North and South invaded it. Maryland was swamped by Lincoln with federal troops. Missouri's rebels got their ass kicked when the rose up. Give us the other state, please.

West Virginia is the fifth border state.

WV seceded from Virginia and was accepted into the Union by Congress as a state. This is really your only case under statute and law for the legality of secession, though I happen to agree with you that it was legal. We just can't build a compelling enough case.

Accepted into the Union as a slave-state. We can't build a compelling enough case that secession is legal? How about the fact that the Constitution allows for the states to secede from the Union? Sounds pretty compelling to me.
 
Point out in the Constitution where it says states can secede. You can't. And if you want to do it by inference, then you just affirmed Lincoln's wartime actions.

Can't have it both ways. WV was a part of Virginia. It did not become a slave state until the North accepted it as a state, which has nothing to with the discussion.

To remind you: slavery was the compelling reason for secession. Your counter arguments, respectfully, have been compellingly weak and ineffective.
 
Point out in the Constitution where it says states can secede. You can't. And if you want to do it by inference, then you just affirmed Lincoln's wartime actions.

Can't have it both ways. WV was a part of Virginia. It did not become a slave state until the North accepted it as a state, which has nothing to with the discussion.

To remind you: slavery was the compelling reason for secession. Your counter arguments, respectfully, have been compellingly weak and ineffective.

The Constitution does not have to spell out the powers of the states for them to be legitimate powers of the states. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says this. Since the Constitution does not prohibit the states from seceding, they have the right to secede.

It has much to do with the discussion. It proves that slavery couldn't have been the only issue on the table since the Union had slave states.

Slavery was a reason for secession. Lincoln's promise of higher tariffs was another reason.
 
Not true at all. The Supremacy Clause only applies to those laws which the government is enacting in accord with the Constitution, but the majority of federal laws are unconstitutional. Since the Constitution doesn't prohibit secession then secession is clearly a legitimate power of the states.

The states under the Constitution don't have the authority to decide which laws are or aren't constitutional. If a state thinks a law is unconstitutional their constitutional recourse is to challenge it in the courts, not secede.

Secession is prohibited de facto because secession requires breaking federal laws.
The 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.

That includes the right to tell the fed to fuck off and die. Only slaves are denied the right to leave. The right to secede is summed up in the need to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Refresh the tree of liberty by armed rebellion to preserve slavery. Now there's a cat 5 irony moment for you.

First of all, better grow some bigger tougher boys the next time you try to secede or we'll kick your sorry asses again.

Secondly, there is no 'right' for states to secede. Any more than there's any right for counties to secede from states, or towns to secede from counties, or you and your half acre to secede from your town.

It's the kind of cartoonish imbecility that only the right can produce and perform with such entertaining alacrity.
 
Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.

You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.

Of course. Simple (rhetorical) question. If secession wasn't about slavery, how was it that only slave states seceded? Some sort of extraordinary coincidence?

Yet if it was solely about slavery why did five slave states remain in the Union?

They were far enough north to have some sense??
 
The states under the Constitution don't have the authority to decide which laws are or aren't constitutional. If a state thinks a law is unconstitutional their constitutional recourse is to challenge it in the courts, not secede.

Secession is prohibited de facto because secession requires breaking federal laws.
The 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.

That includes the right to tell the fed to fuck off and die. Only slaves are denied the right to leave. The right to secede is summed up in the need to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Refresh the tree of liberty by armed rebellion to preserve slavery. Now there's a cat 5 irony moment for you.

First of all, better grow some bigger tougher boys the next time you try to secede or we'll kick your sorry asses again.

Secondly, there is no 'right' for states to secede. Any more than there's any right for counties to secede from states, or towns to secede from counties, or you and your half acre to secede from your town.

It's the kind of cartoonish imbecility that only the right can produce and perform with such entertaining alacrity.

Where does the Constitution prohibit the states from seceding?

Since you say there's no right for counties or cities to secede from states are you willing to say that it was illegal for West Virginia to secede from Virginia and join the Union?
 
Of course. Simple (rhetorical) question. If secession wasn't about slavery, how was it that only slave states seceded? Some sort of extraordinary coincidence?

Yet if it was solely about slavery why did five slave states remain in the Union?

They were far enough north to have some sense??

In other words, there was more to it than just slavery. Such as Lincoln promising high tariffs during his campaign that would benefit the north at the expense of the south.
 
The 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.

That includes the right to tell the fed to fuck off and die. Only slaves are denied the right to leave. The right to secede is summed up in the need to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Refresh the tree of liberty by armed rebellion to preserve slavery. Now there's a cat 5 irony moment for you.

First of all, better grow some bigger tougher boys the next time you try to secede or we'll kick your sorry asses again.

Secondly, there is no 'right' for states to secede. Any more than there's any right for counties to secede from states, or towns to secede from counties, or you and your half acre to secede from your town.

It's the kind of cartoonish imbecility that only the right can produce and perform with such entertaining alacrity.

Where does the Constitution prohibit the states from seceding?

Since you say there's no right for counties or cities to secede from states are you willing to say that it was illegal for West Virginia to secede from Virginia and join the Union?

That's the only point pro-secession folks have. The 10th Amendment is not interpreted as you wish.
 
Refresh the tree of liberty by armed rebellion to preserve slavery. Now there's a cat 5 irony moment for you.

First of all, better grow some bigger tougher boys the next time you try to secede or we'll kick your sorry asses again.

Secondly, there is no 'right' for states to secede. Any more than there's any right for counties to secede from states, or towns to secede from counties, or you and your half acre to secede from your town.

It's the kind of cartoonish imbecility that only the right can produce and perform with such entertaining alacrity.

Where does the Constitution prohibit the states from seceding?

Since you say there's no right for counties or cities to secede from states are you willing to say that it was illegal for West Virginia to secede from Virginia and join the Union?

That's the only point pro-secession folks have. The 10th Amendment is not interpreted as you wish.

Not interpreted as it says you mean.
 
What everyone's ignoring is that slavery, which was considered repugnant even 150 years ago, was not nearly as big an issue as COTTON.

New England's economy at the time was very heavily dependent on its textile mills, along with cheap cotton from the south. An independent confederacy would have been devastating to them economically: they would have to bid against the English mills for higher-priced material.

They didn't call it "King Cotton" for nothing.
 
What everyone's ignoring is that slavery, which was considered repugnant even 150 years ago, was not nearly as big an issue as COTTON.

New England's economy at the time was very heavily dependent on its textile mills, along with cheap cotton from the south. An independent confederacy would have been devastating to them economically: they would have to bid against the English mills for higher-priced material.

They didn't call it "King Cotton" for nothing.

Are you saying that since the New England states needed cheap cotton the southern states had no right to secede?

There's no reason why the Confederate States and United States couldn't have had free trade with each other, however. It obviously would have been beneficial to both.
 
What everyone's ignoring is that slavery, which was considered repugnant even 150 years ago, was not nearly as big an issue as COTTON.

New England's economy at the time was very heavily dependent on its textile mills, along with cheap cotton from the south. An independent confederacy would have been devastating to them economically: they would have to bid against the English mills for higher-priced material.

They didn't call it "King Cotton" for nothing.

Are you saying that since the New England states needed cheap cotton the southern states had no right to secede?
Not at all: I'm just explaining the Union's motivation for going to war to keep the southern states from seceding.
There's no reason why the Confederate States and United States couldn't have had free trade with each other, however. It obviously would have been beneficial to both.
Nothing obvious about it at all. If English mills bid higher, the confederacy would simply have sold to the highest bidder. That's the free market we all love so much...
 

Forum List

Back
Top