Are you ashamed of your heritage?

[TNHarley]

Yes, I did. Again.

His own words mean more than yours, dummy.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

My mother's side was a proud confederate mom and a Jewish daddy from Chicago. The confederates were a slave holding family. My father's side is Iroquois. Again, a people known for holding slaves. In those bitter north winters when the snow is deep and game gone, the Iroquois ate the slaves, even before the dogs. My southern ancestors never ate their slaves.

 

[braalian]

Its a separation powers. It means the fed govs powers are restricted and the states can govern themselves how they see fit. As long as it doesnt go against the constitution or federal law.
Secession wasnt illegal in the constitution or federal law.

Well, I’d argue that the lack of any legal or legislative mechanism for secession proves that it was not a legal action

 

[TNHarley]

We didn’t need a “test case”

The supreme court explicitly confirmed that it was illegal

After the fact. If i do something that has no law against it, and i get illegally arrested, and the SC says it should be illegal, will i be punished for it? No. Thats not how shit works in this country.

 

[Unkotare]

Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass: Inside Their Complicated Relationship | HISTORY

The two 19th century leaders had deep respect for each other. But one was openly—and harshly—critical.

www.history.com

 

[TNHarley]

Well, I’d argue that the lack of any legal or legislative mechanism for secession proves that it was not a legal action

LOL There never is until its brought up and discussed.
If something is not illegal, it is LEGAL. Thats how our system works.

 

[BackAgain]

Which would no longer include housing, clothing and feeding George, so the Dick would probably come out ahead.

If that were true, common sense would have led Dick to emancipate George all on his own before the constitution compelled it.

 

[rightwinger]

Half a million slaves were in the North at the start of the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation 'freed" slaves in the South but kept them enslaved in the North.

So much for moral superiority.

The North did not secede to protect slavery.
The South seceded specifically to preserve slavery

​

 

[sparky]

Don't put down heritage for it's political stripe.....it's admitting you're a small, self serving bigot.....~S~

 

[BackAgain]

I know but the legality is in question because they seceded.

Nope. They seceded first. No action was taken by the North. Then came the attack on Ft. Sumter. That’s when military action was undertaken.

It was an act of war by a Southern State (or seceded State) which led to reprisal. Then, other rebel states chose to secede and engage in war against the Union.

The legality or illegality of state secession was not the question. And it isn’t what led to the war. It was an act of war that led to the Civil War. And the QUESTION about the legality or illegality of secession may never have come to a head but-for that initial act of war.

 

[rightwinger]

Right,... Have U got a link/Ref. for that?

Cornerstone Speech

In his March 21, 1861, Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens presents what he believes are the reasons for what he termed was...

www.battlefields.org

Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.

 

[TNHarley]

Nope. They seceded first.

Yes, I know. Thats what I said. So if they were seceded, how was the attack on the fort "illegal?"

 

[braalian]

My southern ancestors never ate their slaves.

You say it like it’s something to brag about….

 

[TNHarley]

You say it like it’s something to brag about….

She just wants to make the indians look bad. She hates everyone thats not white.

 

[Unkotare]

If that were true, common sense would have led Dick to emancipate George all on his own before the constitution [sic] compelled it.

Slavery is stupid.

 

[Mr Natural]

Those who fought for the Confederacy fought for a society that was 40 percent slave and was formed to ensure slavery existed forever

Not something to be proud of

Neither is starting a war to prove that you're better than the slaves and lose.

 

[braalian]

If that were true, common sense would have led Dick to emancipate George all on his own before the constitution compelled it.

even putting aside the moral aspects, slavery in the south was never a “smart” socioeconomic system.

It concentrated the wealth in the hands of a tiny, lazy slave-holding minority. It discouraged industrialization and urbanization. It discouraged innovation.

It encouraged an over reliance on agriculture and led to the lack of economic diversification that put the southern states decades behind the north in terms of development.

“Common sense” was never a factor

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, I know. Thats what I said. So if they were seceded, how was the attack on the fort "illegal?"

It was an act of war. Accordingly, the U.S. had a right to respond militarily. Then the other secessionist States joined in. It became a civil war. One of the terms of the eventual surrender was conditional re-entry into the union.

Thus, the original secession was recognized as illegitimate.

Why the question? If secession were considered “legal,” then, at some times after the Civil War, many States would have tried it again (without engaging in war against the U.S.).

I believe Unk cites the SCOTUS decision declaring “secession” to be unconstitutional.

Whether that decision had a firm foundation in the law or the Constitution, itself, may be debatable. But it is still precedent.

 

[BackAgain]

even putting aside the moral aspects, slavery in the south was never a “smart” socioeconomic system.

It concentrated the wealth in the hands of a tiny, lazy slave-holding minority. It discouraged industrialization and urbanization. It discouraged innovation.

It encouraged an over reliance on agriculture and led to the lack of economic diversification that put the southern states decades behind the north in terms of development.

“Common sense” was never a factor

That’s a facile analysis.

They may have mis-perceived the economic reality, but it was still seen (then) as being economically necessary.

 

[BackAgain]

Slavery is stupid.

That’s not in dispute.