Discussion in 'History' started by PoliticalChic, Sep 9, 2014.
Which then reduces the argument to slavery as the root cause for all symptoms for secession.
And the resulting Civil War.
Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Yes. And that isn't to say all the southerners wanted to keep Blacks enslaved. Rather, I suspect the majority were apathetic as to the institution of slavery, but they didn't "cotton to" competing with then economically, and they sure didn't want something like 7 million of them armed and on the loose.
And I'm quite sure the majority of northern immigrants who served had no interest in emancipation either.
An irony, imo.
If the people are sovereign how can they be traitor against themselves. Are you going to say that a state is not sovereign unit of government. Benjamin Franklin once said that a man can only be traitor to his own country. Once the states seceded they are no longer American citizens. I believe that power, that is sovereignty, come from the People; a stateist believes political comes from the barrel of a gun.
This post makes no sense, particularly the bolded.
One may not have his American citizenship taken from him against his will solely as a consequence of his state of residence wishing to 'secede.'
We are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where the states are subordinate to that; the states have no authority to take from an American citizen his citizenship, just as the states may not violate a citizen's civil liberties.
The American people created one Nation, where they are subject to one National government, as the states are permanently and inexorability part of one Union:
“A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it. It must be remembered that the National Government too is republican in essence and in theory. John Jay insisted on this point early in The Federalist Papers, in his comments on the government that preceded the one formed by the Constitution.
To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people; each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. . . .
In one sense it is true that "the people of each State retained their separate political identities," post, at 5, for the Constitution takes care both to preserve the States and to make use of their identities and structures at various points in organizing the federal union. It does not at all follow from this that the sole political identity of an American is with the State of his or her residence. It denies the dual character of the Federal Government which is its very foundation to assert that the people of the United States do not have a political identity as well, one independent of, though consistent with, their identity as citizens of the State of their residence.”
U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 1995 .
Again, the very fact that some people are trying to relitigate all of this is just plain old sad.
I might be giving the wrong impression; I am not in favor of the idea secession. I agree with Robert E Lee. He said something to the effect of, If you win you lose by becoming a weaker country than the one you once had. If in the future a Hispanic southwest decides to secede and join Mexico, we must do whatever it takes to stop it, even if it is worse than Sherman.
The point I was making is that the People of a state ( the state) is sovereign( the king). The king can not commit treason.
Ah, but if secession were not a constitutional remedy, the state has no power as sovereign because the state ceded sovereignty when it ratified the constitution.
I have no interest in relitigating the cause of the lost cause (-: An ironic term if there ever was one. LOL
I posted to Jake, basically to say I agree if he was saying the differences boiled down to slaves. Perhaps even in 1780, the culture of agriculture labor done by slaves on a large scale was effectively uncompromisingly dissimilar to the Yankee colonists.
Imo, discussing the rational, and legal basis, for believing secession is a remedy, or nullification a remedy, is useful. Logically, I don't think one can make a case for either.
The South seceded because they had every right to do so.
Madison said different things at different times about the right of secession and nullification, but there were times when he spoke in favor of both.
Jefferson was clear on his support for the right of secession. So were Timothy Pickering and John Quincy Adams. One fact is clear beyond dispute: The records of the constitutional convention and the various state ratification conventions make it clear that the Union was not supposed to be maintained by force.
Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary
As for the war being "all about slavery," I just don't see that, especially given the Confederate debate on emancipation, which began in 1863 and which ended with the Confederacy moving toward gradual emancipation.
The Confederate emancipation debate revealed a wide gulf between average Southerners and plantation slaveholders. When emancipation was put to a vote in Confederate army units, including Lee's army, it won handily. Southern newspaper editors reported that their mail was running strongly in favor of emancipating slaves in exchange for military service. Most Southerners, including Jefferson Davis, viewed independence as the main goal of the war, not the preservation of slavery. When push came to shove, they were entirely willing to end slavery to keep the South independent.
What I find especially revealing are Southern private letters, which were not intended to be read by others, in which Southerners expressed outrage at the charge that the South was fighting merely to preserve slavery. For example, when Joseph Davis wrote to his brother, Jefferson Davis, he voiced his disgust and dismay that Union soldiers in his area were claiming that the South was only fighting to protect slavery. He regarded that charge as scurrilous and absurd.
Separate names with a comma.