If I Had Been President of the Confederacy. . . .

[Quantrill]

The case of Texas vs. White that Unkatore cited

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)

Texas v. White: States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.

supreme.justia.com

I have now linked the actual opinion.

Texas vs White was not about the Union being Perpetual. That has never been argued before the Supreme Court.

Don't follow @Unkatore. He is just an emoji queen.

The Union was declared 'perpetual' under the 'Articles of Confederation'. But In 1787, those were thrown out the window, along with the 'perpetual union'.

And because they threw those out the window, they knew better than to declare the Union perpetual in the Constitution of 1787.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

The case of Texas vs. White that Unkatore cited

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)

Texas v. White: States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.

supreme.justia.com

I have now linked the actual opinion.

^^^

 

[JoeB131]

If I had been president of the Confederacy, instead of Jefferson Davis, here is what I would have done differently:

Did you even read the OP? Did you not notice the repeated statements about calling for a gradual emancipation program?

Why "gradual"? How about "Slavery is an affront to humanity and it ends TOMORROW".

Oh, wait, Trump was one of three countries that refused to vote for a UN resolution declaring the TransAtlantic slave trade a crime against humanity.

The other, no surprise, was Israel.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why "gradual"? How about "Slavery is an affront to humanity and it ends TOMORROW".

Oh, wait, Trump was one of three countries that refused to vote for a UN resolution declaring the TransAtlantic slave trade a crime against humanity.

The other, no surprise, was Israel.

did any of the nation's currently involved in the slave trade vote to end it?

 

[JoeB131]

did any of the nation's currently involved in the slave trade vote to end it?

Um, yeah, all of them did.

Only countries to vote against this.. .US, Israel, and Argentina.

 

[Quantrill]

Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781:

"Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, did on the 15th day of November, in the Year of Our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.....in the words following, viz. 'Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states....."

Articles of Confederation: Article XIII: "...And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state."

So, what happened to that 'perpetual union'? Answer: it got tossed out the window in Philadelphia in 1787.

Point being: 'perpetual union' is bullshit.

Quantrill

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Um, yeah, all of them did.

Only countries to vote against this.. .US, Israel, and Argentina.

and yet slavery is still practiced across the world by the countries voting against it go figure

 

[mikegriffith1]

JoeB131 said:
Oh, wait, Trump was one of three countries that refused to vote for a UN resolution declaring the TransAtlantic slave trade a crime against humanity.

The other, no surprise, was Israel.

did any of the nation's currently involved in the slave trade vote to end it?

Save your breath, Gunny. As usual, JoeB131 is peddling far-left trash and has only read one side of the story. Regarding that UN resolution on the trans-Atlantic slave trade, he didn't mention--probably because he didn't know--that the resolution contained numerous objectionable statements, among other problems, as the State Department and our UN ambassador explained in their explanations on why the U.S. voted no. For example, Ambassador Negrea explained the following:

The United States remains steadfast in its opposition to and condemnation of the historic wrongs that resulted from the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the trans-Saharan slave trade, and all other forms of slavery. We remain committed to the acknowledgement that these are historical wrongs. Despite this, the United States observes that the text of this resolution remains highly problematic in countless respects. Consequently, the United States cannot support the adoption of this resolution.

We regret that the United States must once again remind this body that the United Nations exists to maintain international peace and security. It was not founded to advance narrow, specific interests and agendas, to establish niche international days, or to create new costly meeting and reporting mandates. This resolution does all three. (Technical Difficulties)

JoeB131 said:
Why "gradual"? How about "Slavery is an affront to humanity and it ends TOMORROW".

JoeB131 should pose this question to Abraham Lincoln, who detested slavery but who repeatedly advocated gradual emancipation, even as late as February 1865. He should also ask himself why all the Northern slave states that abolished slavery before the war did so with gradual emancipation programs.

And allow me to remind everyone that JoeB131 has no problem with human bondage when it's done by Communist regimes. He admires and defends Mao Tse-Tung, Joseph Stalin, and Le Duan, who each sent hundreds of thousands of people to brutal concentration camps for decades.

Nor does JoeB131 give a hoot about human rights when it comes to Red China, Stalinist Russia, Le Duan-led North Vietnam, and Jihadist regimes such as Hamas-run Gaza. Did you notice his quip about Israel and the no vote on the UN resolution: "the other, no surprise, was Israel." Joe has actually said in this very forum that Hamas-run Gaza is more democratic and humane than Israel. Yes, he's talking about the same Hamas government that hasn't held an election in over a decade, that enforces Sharia law (especially on women), that outlaws homosexuality, that controls all news outlets in Gaza, etc., etc.

This is not surprising, given that JoeB131 has declared that "Hitler wasn't the problem" and continues to peddle the Nazi/neo-Nazi/Jihadist lies that the Jews wrecked Germany after WWI and that the Nazis, and indeed all Germans, had valid reasons to hate the Jews. Just keep these facts in mind when you read his replies.

 

[JoeB131]

Save your breath, Gunny. As usual, JoeB131 is peddling far-left trash and has only read one side of the story. Regarding that UN resolution on the trans-Atlantic slave trade, he didn't mention--probably because he didn't know--that the resolution contained numerous objectionable statements, among other problems, as the State Department and our UN ambassador explained in their explanations on why the U.S. voted no. For example, Ambassador Negrea explained the following:

Yes, he blustered and screamed, but what was so "objectionable"?

Oh, it hurt our feelings.

JoeB131 should pose this question to Abraham Lincoln, who detested slavery but who repeatedly advocated gradual emancipation, even as late as February 1865. He should also ask himself why all the Northern slave states that abolished slavery before the war did so with gradual emancipation programs.

Because they were terrible people.

Not sure what your point is here, Mikey. America is a country that was built on slavery and genocide. That no one likes us talking about it is our hangup, not the rest of the world, which voted overwhelmingly to say the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was wrong.

This is not surprising, given that JoeB131 has declared that "Hitler wasn't the problem" and continues to peddle the Nazi/neo-Nazi/Jihadist lies that the Jews wrecked Germany after WWI and that the Nazis, and indeed all Germans, had valid reasons to hate the Jews. Just keep these facts in mind when you read his replies.

Yes, how dare I give history context?

For the record, it's the CHRISTIANS who created 2000 years of "anti-Semitism". The Nazis were just the final conclusion of it.

It started when they expropriated Jewish Fairy Tales, and then said the Jews killed their imaginary God-Man.

Of course, the fact that the Jews overthrew the Kaiser in the middle of a war and then proceeded to take advantage of the economic shit-show that was the Weimar Regime didn't do much to endear them to anyone.

But this is about how you would have won the Civil War, because you are just so much darned smarter than those Southern Inbreds who tried to destroy the union so a few rich assholes could keep owning slaves.

 

[cnm]

I agree, but my point is that Davis should have begun pushing for emancipation much earlier instead of waiting until late 1864.

I suppose that was because their new government was based on the inferiority of the Black man.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781:

"Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, did on the 15th day of November, in the Year of Our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.....in the words following, viz. 'Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states....."

Articles of Confederation: Article XIII: "...And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state."

So, what happened to that 'perpetual union'? Answer: it got tossed out the window in Philadelphia in 1787.

Point being: 'perpetual union' is bullshit.

Quantrill

Means nothing. Thats not even the Constitution. SCOTUS decision holds. SCOTUS decision based on four year war holds. This thread is about if you were the traitor President, what would you do.

 

[cnm]

What I would have done is politely tipped my hat and sought advantageous terms for resupplying Fort Sumter.

 

[Quantrill]

Means nothing. Thats not even the Constitution. SCOTUS decision holds. SCOTUS decision based on four year war holds. This thread is about if you were the traitor President, what would you do.

Sorry dumbass. It means everything. Go back to post #(50) where you brought up the so-called 'perpetual union'. That was under our first Constitution, which was our Constitution at the beginning.

Then, after they threw that Constitution and the 'perpetual union' out the window in Philadelphia in 1787, we were under a totally new Costitution.

So, dumbass, show me in our Constitution of 1787 where 'perpetual union' is mentioned. It isn't. Why? Because at least they had the balls to not mention 'perpetual' when they knew they just shit on that union.

Point being: Your and others argument about any 'perpetual union' is just perpetual bullshit. Which means 'perpetual union' has no say as to the right of secession.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

to whit:
No legal secession. No right to secession.

^

 

[Quantrill]

Zincwarrior

And to enlarge upon the points I made in post #(73), in your post #(71) you said the Articles of Confederation are not the Constitution. Well, not now they are not. But they were at one time.

And our Union at that time was based upon that Constitution, and the States needed to ratify that Constitution in order to be part of that Union. Unanimity was required by all 13 States. And, unanimity was required to 'amend' any article in that Union. "...and the union shall be perpetual: nor shall any alteration at any time herafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state." (Articles Of Confederation, #(XIII)) That was 1781.

Now, supposedly, that was what this group in Philadelphia, in 1787, were wanting to do, revise the Articles. But Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation wouldn't let them. Why? Because every state had to agree. Unanimity. That Union, that perpetual Union, would not allow it unless all agreed. And they knew that wasn't going to happen.

What was the answer? Secession. Come out of that Union into a new one we are creating. (Article VII) of our Constitution of 1787. "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same."

They only needed nine states to secede from our first union and create a new union.

"Article Seven assaults the established revisionary process...First, it invited secession, rejecting the Articles assertion that 'the Union shall be perpetual' and authorizing a walkout of nine states. As we shall see, this threat of secession was crucial in pushing states like New York and Virginia to give the Constitution their reluctant endorsement." (We The People, Bruce Ackerman, The Belknap Press Of Harvard University Press, 1998, p. 34)

The Union of 1787, and the Constitution it created, is based upon secession from our first perpetual union.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

I suppose that was because their new government was based on the inferiority of the Black man.

Well, I think it's going a bit far to say their government was "based on" black inferiority. Belief in black inferiority was also very common in the North at the time. This was hardly something unique to the South.

Plus, we need to keep in mind that the Confederacy began a program of emancipation in March 1865. When that program began, no one knew yet that the war would be over one month later. At the time, Lincoln himself believed the war would last until the end of the year. The Confederacy still had a firm grip on Texas and western Louisiana, wit over 50,000 well-supplied troops there. Federal incursions into Texas had all been repulsed. In fact, as of early 1865, Confederate forces had pushed Union forces out of Brownsville and all the way back to the mouth of the Rio Grande. This enabled CSA forces in Texas to get all the supplies and weapons they needed through the Mexican port of Matamoros, which was right across the river from Brownsville.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Zincwarrior

And to enlarge upon the points I made in post #(73), in your post #(71) you said the Articles of Confederation are not the Constitution. Well, not now they are not. But they were at one time.

And our Union at that time was based upon that Constitution, and the States needed to ratify that Constitution in order to be part of that Union. Unanimity was required by all 13 States. And, unanimity was required to 'amend' any article in that Union. "...and the union shall be perpetual: nor shall any alteration at any time herafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state." (Articles Of Confederation, #(XIII)) That was 1781.

Now, supposedly, that was what this group in Philadelphia, in 1787, were wanting to do, revise the Articles. But Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation wouldn't let them. Why? Because every state had to agree. Unanimity. That Union, that perpetual Union, would not allow it unless all agreed. And they knew that wasn't going to happen.

What was the answer? Secession. Come out of that Union into a new one we are creating. (Article VII) of our Constitution of 1787. "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same."

They only needed nine states to secede from our first union and create a new union.

"Article Seven assaults the established revisionary process...First, it invited secession, rejecting the Articles assertion that 'the Union shall be perpetual' and authorizing a walkout of nine states. As we shall see, this threat of secession was crucial in pushing states like New York and Virginia to give the Constitution their reluctant endorsement." (We The People, Bruce Ackerman, The Belknap Press Of Harvard University Press, 1998, p. 34)

Quantrill

1.All of that is stupid.
2. It has nothing to do with the thread.
3. Do you post anything besides apologies for you traitor ancestors who should have been hung? Fail harder.

 

[Unkotare]

The case of Texas vs. White that Unkatore cited

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)

Texas v. White: States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.

supreme.justia.com

I have now linked the actual opinion.

^^^

 

[mikegriffith1]

^^^

I'll take William Rawle, George Tucker, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison over the five justices in the 5-3 Texas v. White decision any day. The author of the decision, Salmon Chase, was a political hack who didn't even know basic constitutional history. He erroneously argued that the Constitution made the federal union "perpetual," ignoring the fact that the framers removed that very term from all the sections they borrowed from the Articles of Confederation, and that there is not one single statement in the Constitution that says the union it was forming was to be "perpetual" (nor permanent, never-ending, etc.).

Chase also ignored the fact that the founding fathers and other Patriot leaders said the American Colonies had the "natural right" to peacefully separate from England and that the British attempt to force the Colonies to remain part of the empire was immoral and unnatural.

None other than Ulysses S. Grant, the commanding general of the Union army for much of the Civil War and later a president of the United States, admitted he believed that if any of the original thirteen states had wanted to secede in the early days of the Union, it was unlikely the other states would have challenged that state’s “right” to do so. Grant also conceded that he believed the founding fathers would have sanctioned the right of secession rather than see a war “between brothers.” Said Grant,

If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. . . .

If they [the founding fathers] had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers. (The Personal Memoirs Of Ulysses S. Grant, Old Saybrook, Connecticut: Konecky & Konecky, 1992, reprint of original edition, pp. 130-131)

 

[Unkotare]

I'll take William Rawle, George Tucker, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison over the five justices in the 5-3 Texas v. White decision any day. ...

The decision stands nonetheless.