Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[bripat9643]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

It's the same principle as a franchise.

You can open a McDonald's in your town and manage it the way you see fit, but you can't just start selling pizzas and tacos when you feel like it. There are rules to follow, since you're under the umbrella of 'McDonalds'.

The South loved making people do things for them without paying them. The North realized (better late than never) that black people are people, and therefore protected by the Constitution. The South refused to adapt to the American law.

Morally, it's as simple as that. The south was wrong in their cause. The real debate is over whether they had the right to secede the way they did.

You can however let your franchise lapse, take down the McDonalds sign and start selling pizzas and tacos.

-S- would have us believe that once you become a McDonald's franchise you can never leave. You have to keep selling Big Macs until you drop.

 

[bripat9643]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

It's the same principle as a franchise.

You can open a McDonald's in your town and manage it the way you see fit, but you can't just start selling pizzas and tacos when you feel like it. There are rules to follow, since you're under the umbrella of 'McDonalds'.

The South loved making people do things for them without paying them. The North realized (better late than never) that black people are people, and therefore protected by the Constitution. The South refused to adapt to the American law.

Morally, it's as simple as that. The south was wrong in their cause. The real debate is over whether they had the right to secede the way they did.

It's already been prove at least a dozen times in this thread that Lincoln did not invade Virginia to free the slaves. In typical liberal fashion, you simply ignore the facts and say whatever supports the narrative.

In typical conservative Dixiecrat fashion, you still think Lincoln started the war..

No, that's in the fashion of irrefutable truth. Furthermore, I didn't say he started the war in that post. I said he invaded Virginia. I know you're stupid, but I doubt your stupid enough to deny that.

 

[bripat9643]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

Abe Lincoln had quite a bit of other ways to define it. Indeed, for quite a while he denied that he was looking to free the slaves.

Because he knew the Constitution did not allow him that option.

It also didn't allow him the option of raising an army without Congress's approval and then invading a state with it.

 

[paperview]

QUOTE="Skylar: "Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position."


Great post.

"expressly understood"?

So, they did not put in any language to put their position into the Constitution.

And, then years later, an organ of the government ruled to increase their own power...


This is not convincing to me.

A contract that once entered, you cannot revoke under penalty of war, that point should be very clearly spelled out.

Article VI, Clause 2. :

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3 of Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [My emphasis]

State officers have to swear an oath (or affirmation) to support the federal Constitution. State sovereignty is subordinate to the federal government.

And in the words of James Madison himself:

“[T]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.

I like what Madison said. That was very, very clear. "In toto, and for ever".

If that was in the Constitution, then the ramifications would have been clear to those that signed it.

There is no such language in your excerpt from the Constitution.

I can see how such language COULD BE interpreted to support the idea that the states legislators, would be required to resist any session movement.

But, it is still implied, at best, and a matter of judgement as to whether it means that.

The quote from Madison was in direct reply to the question if a state could secede.

NY wanted that provision to be written in at the time of the Constitutional Ratification.

Answer: NO.

“[T]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." - James Madison, affirmed by Hamilton.


I really don't care if you're "unconvinced" -- the Civil War answered the question. Soundly.

If Madison's opinion had the force of law, then you might have a point. Unfortunately for your lame opinion, it doesn't.

The states reserved the right to secede when they passed their ratification documents. If those are valid, then every state has a right to secede.

I'll trot it out here again, as many times as I need to -- you won't care, as we know you're a neo-confederate window licker, but for the others:


The direct question of unilateral secession - when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary - Yale Law School

 

[Syriusly]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.
.

I disagree. Yes there was a North South divide that was about more than slavery- but Slavery was the single issue that really divided the country at that time, and it was the issue of the election that elected Lincoln.

Remember- the main sticking points prior to that election was the question of expansion of slavery into new states- not the question of whether states could allow slavery- which would be a 'States Rights' issues.

The Southern States seceded to protect their right to own slaves. The State 'right' issue that the Southern States were united about was slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

Rights are a creation of human beings, as are governments.

Then you disagree with the poster who said "They simply cannot justify slavery though for it is morally, ethically, and legally wrong and always has been?"

Rights are a creation of human beings, as are governments.

Then you disagree with the poster who said "They simply cannot justify slavery though for it is morally, ethically, and legally wrong and always has been?"

Liberal logic. Lol

A perpetual Union was what was established. It is therefore clear that leaving the Union was not part of the deal

Where does the Constitution say either of those?

So can a man force a woman to have sex with him because she once married him even though she wants a divorce? I know you wont' get this point, it's butt obvious, but you are a liberal and liberals never get points. The will of the rest of the States continues to be imposed on the people of a State without consent of the governed.

Your reply will not show you don't agree with what I just said, it will show you didn't grasp what I just said

After reading through all of this, it seems that the people most likely to defend the Confederacy are:

*Conservative
*Southern

I get that no one actually wants to support slavery, they just want to support the act of rebellion, because they feel that it's an American principle or something.

I guess myself, and the other moderates/liberals/anti-Confederate conservatives, don't look at it the same way.


I am VERY pro-equality, regardless of what's in or isn't in the Constitution. I don't look at the Confederacy as a rag tag group of rebels fighting for American values, I see a group of people that couldn't socially progress at the same rate as the other regions in the nation, and paid the price for their ignorance. I don't see anything to celebrate. If I want to celebrate American rebellion, I'll read about the Revolutionary War

So slaughtering 850,000 people is a proper punishment for not progressing sufficiently rapidly to satisfy you?

That's true idiocy right there.

If you support the American Revolution, then you should support the Confederacy. They are based on the same principles - exactly.

You aren't blaming all those deaths on one side are you? Knowing you, that is exactly what you are trying to do. But you didn't stop there... Saying that the Revolutionary War and the Civil War were based on the same principles is Clannish nonsense. The colonists rebelled and sparked the revolutionary War due to being subjected to the British version of slavery themselves. The Civil War was driven by the megalomaniacal Southern plantation owners who were politically out maneuvered by the brighter Northerners during the Industrial Revolution. The Southern boys were not enthusiastic about "letting go" of the agrarian traditions that made up the social fabric of Southern society. Jumping onto the Progressive's technological bandwagon was anathema to Southern gentility and they made sure their White underlings understood that. Chattel Slavery was doomed by automation but the "Conservative" plantation owners were addicted to profit made by slaves and resisted any threat to it: to include the ensuing bloodbath commonly known as the Civil War!

Oh yes- Brit believes that every death in the Civil War was the fault of Lincoln and Lincoln alone.

Southerners were just misunderstood innocents who didn't do a thing to anyone- at least from Brits point of view.

 

[-S-]

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

It's the same principle as a franchise.

You can open a McDonald's in your town and manage it the way you see fit, but you can't just start selling pizzas and tacos when you feel like it. There are rules to follow, since you're under the umbrella of 'McDonalds'.

The South loved making people do things for them without paying them. The North realized (better late than never) that black people are people, and therefore protected by the Constitution. The South refused to adapt to the American law.

Morally, it's as simple as that. The south was wrong in their cause. The real debate is over whether they had the right to secede the way they did.

It's already been prove at least a dozen times in this thread that Lincoln did not invade Virginia to free the slaves. In typical liberal fashion, you simply ignore the facts and say whatever supports the narrative.

In typical conservative Dixiecrat fashion, you still think Lincoln started the war..

..I doubt your stupid enough..

 

[mikegriffith1]

Have you read the secession papers? Every last one of them stated slavery as the reason for secession.

Wrong. Four of the 11 Southern states that seceded did not cite slavery as a reason for secession in their secession declarations. These were the four Upper South states of the Confederacy. When they initially voted on secession, they rejected separation (and by fairly wide margins) because they did not believe that slavery and the tariff were sufficient reasons to leave the Union. Those states only decided to leave the Union when Lincoln made it clear that was going to invade the South.

Moreover, four of the seven Deep South states of the Confederacy mentioned the tariff and other economic issues as major reasons for secession in their secession documents, as I document in The Tariff and Secession. Concerns relating to slavery were the biggest reasons the Deep South states seceded, but the tariff was the second biggest reason they seceded.

Furthermore, I might add that the Confederate Constitution allowed for the admission of free states into the Confederacy and banned the overseas slave trade. Additionally, in late 1864 the Confederacy began to move toward gradual emancipation, and in early 1865 the Confederate Congress passed a hotly debated bill that began the process of emancipation. If that bill had had time to have its full effect, it would have spelled the end of slavery, but the war ended a couple months after the bill was passed.

 

[paperview]

A Superb Essay:

There is No Right to Unilateral Secession

Even to this day we hear from neoconfederates the patently absurd assertion that there is a right of a state to unilaterally secede from the Union. This is settled law. There is no such right. While the illegality of secession isn’t really a question most historians care much about, it’s something I’ve looked into. I think it ‘s more proper for constitutional scholars to explore than historians. After all, historians seek to understand what happened. Whether secession is legal or not does not affect that understanding. Constitutional scholars are more concerned with what is possible under the Constitution.

Entire books can be written to fully cover this issue, but here I’ll give a more bare-bones discussion.

I won’t get into the arguments specifically pertaining to secession that were thrown about by constitutional theorists and others. There are so many theorists around that one can find a theorist supporting virtually any facet of any position you’d like to find. So this is not intended as a look at both sides of the issue, merely as the official pronouncements of those with the authority to pronounce on the subject and have legal force behind what they say.
Let’s look at:
1. Official Government Statements
2. Case Law Before the War
3. Case Law During the War
4. Case Law After the War
—————
1. Official Government Statements
Secession was only seriously considered in such a manner to bring out an official statement of some kind from the Federal Government twice–in the Nullification Crisis and in the 1860 crisis. Three sitting presidents and two attorneys-general have made official statements on secession [Former presidents had also made statements while they were not in office. Since they were not speaking as the sitting presidents, I’m not including them.] The attorneys-general agreed with the presidents, so I’ll just show what the presidents said:

a. Andrew Jackson:
[begin quote]
The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.

Because the Union was formed by compact, it is said the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they cannot. A compact is an agreement or binding obligation. It may by its terms have a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it may not. If it contains no sanction, it may be broken with no other consequence than moral guilt; if it have a sanction, then the breach incurs the designated or implied penalty. A league between independent nations, generally, has no sanction other than a moral one; or if it should contain a penalty, as there is no common superior, it cannot be enforced. A government, on the contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied; and, in our case, it is both necessarily implied and expressly given.

<snip>
[Proclamation Regarding Nullification, 10 Dec 1832]
b. James Buchanan:

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution.
<snip>

2. Case Law Before the War. While secession never came up in Court cases prior to the war, there were cases that dealt with the relations of states with each other and with the Federal government. If secession was a legal thing to do, it would be inconsistent with this body of case law.
In Fletcher v. Peck, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, “But Georgia cannot be viewed as a single, unconnected, sovereign power, on whose legislature no other restrictions are imposed than may be found in its own constitution. She is a part of a large empire; she is a member of the American union; and that union has a constitution the supremacy of which all acknowledge, and which imposes limits to the legislatures of the several states, which none claim a right to pass.” [10 U.S. 87, 136]

“From these conventions, the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people. . . . *The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties.*” [17 U.S. 316, 402-404]

Marshall further ruled, “The government of the Union, then, is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form, and in substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.” [17 U.S. 316, 404-405]
And, “If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this–that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action.” [17 U.S. 316, 405]

The makeup of the Union, without doubt, is within the sphere of action of the Federal Government. We can see this from the fact that Congress admits new states into the Union, and the Federal law admitting those new states is signed by the President.


In Gibbons v. Ogden <cited earlier>

And in Cohens v. Virginia the Court ruled, “That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. . .. [19 US 264, 389]

3. Case Law During the War:
The prime example here is The Prize Cases:

“Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government. A civil war is never solemnly declared; it becomes such by its accidents — the number, power, and organization of the persons who originate and carry it on. When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory, have declared their independence, have cast off their allegiance, have organized armies, have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest a war. They claim to be in arms to establish their liberty and independence, in order to become a sovereign State, while the sovereign party treats them as insurgents and rebels who owe allegiance, and who should be punished with death for their treason.
“The laws of war, as established among nations, have their foundation in reason, and all tend to mitigate the cruelties and misery produced by the scourge of war. Hence the parties to a civil war usually concede to each other belligerent rights. They exchange prisoners, and adopt the other courtesies and rules common to public or national wars.

“A civil war,” says Vattel,

breaks the bands of society and government, or at least suspends their force and effect; it produces in the nation two independent parties, who consider each other as enemies and acknowledge no common judge. Those two parties, therefore, must necessarily be considered as constituting, at least for a time, two separate bodies, two distinct societies. Having no common superior to judge between them, they stand in precisely the same predicament as two nations who engage in a contest and have recourse to arms.
“This being the case, it is very evident that the common laws of war — those maxims of humanity, moderation, and honor — ought to be observed by both parties in every civil war. Should the sovereign conceive he has a right to hang up his prisoners as rebels, the opposite party will make reprisals, &c., & c.; the war will become cruel, horrible, and every day more destructive to the nation.
“As a civil war is never publicly proclaimed, eo nomine, against insurgents, its actual existence is a fact in our domestic history which the Court is bound to notice and to know.

“The true test of its existence, as found in the writings of the sages of the common law, may be thus summarily stated:

“When the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the Courts of Justice cannot be kept open, civil war exists, and hostilities may be prosecuted on the same footing as if those opposing the Government were foreign enemies invading the land.” [67 US 635, 666-668]

“This greatest of civil wars was not gradually developed by popular commotion, tumultuous assemblies, or local unorganized insurrections. However long may have been its previous conception, it nevertheless sprung forth suddenly from the parent brain, a Minerva in the full panoply of war. The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact.

“It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an “insurrection” by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors. It is not necessary that the independence of the revolted province or State be acknowledged in order to constitute it a party belligerent in a war according to the law of nations. Foreign nations acknowledge it as war by a declaration of neutrality. The condition of neutrality cannot exist unless there be two belligerent parties.” [67 US 635, 668-669]

In upholding Lincoln’s actions against the rebels, calling the war a “civil war,” calling the rebellion an “insurrection,” and labeling the rebels as “rebels or traitors,” the Supreme Court was implicitly denying the legality of secession.
4. Case Law after the war:
The first chance the Supreme Court got to speak directly on the question of secession was Texas v. White.

“The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

....
In Williams v. Bruffy, the Court ruled that the confederacy had no legal existence. It said, “The pleas aver that a confederation was formed by Virginia and other States, called the Confederate States of America, and that under a law of this confederation, enforced in Virginia, the debt due to the plaintiffs was sequestrated. Now, the Constitution of the United States prohibits any treaty, alliance, or confederation by one State with another. The organization whose enactment is pleaded cannot, therefore, be regarded in this court as having any legal existence.” [96 US 176, 182]

In Lamar v. Micou, the Court ruled, “The so-called Confederate government was in no sense a lawful government, but was a mere government of force, having its origin and foundation in rebellion against the United States.” [112 US 452. 476]
...
<snip>

The matter of secession has been clarified and is settled law, and no serious legal scholar supports the idea that unilateral secession is a right any state possesses. At best, one could say it wasn’t a completely settled question until the Supreme Court ruled on it after the war; however, anyone familiar with case law prior to the war would know that the idea it was legal would be inconsistent with what the Court had already ruled. Today’s neoconfederates who make the claim that unilateral secession was a right the states possessed are merely showing their ignorance.

There is No Right to Unilateral Secession Student of the American Civil War

 

[paperview]

Have you read the secession papers? Every last one of them stated slavery as the reason for secession.

Furthermore, I might add that the Confederate Constitution allowed for the admission of free states into the Confederacy and banned the overseas slave trade. ...

Total bullshit from the man who is famously quoted as saying "people never talk about the "good aspects" of slavery."


Sure free States Could join the the Union -- as SLAVE STATES. Slavery was a guarantee in the CSA.

The Confederates Constitution ensured slavery in perpetuity.

 

[bripat9643]

"expressly understood"?

So, they did not put in any language to put their position into the Constitution.

And, then years later, an organ of the government ruled to increase their own power...


This is not convincing to me.

A contract that once entered, you cannot revoke under penalty of war, that point should be very clearly spelled out.

Article VI, Clause 2. :

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3 of Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [My emphasis]

State officers have to swear an oath (or affirmation) to support the federal Constitution. State sovereignty is subordinate to the federal government.

And in the words of James Madison himself:

“[T]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.

I like what Madison said. That was very, very clear. "In toto, and for ever".

If that was in the Constitution, then the ramifications would have been clear to those that signed it.

There is no such language in your excerpt from the Constitution.

I can see how such language COULD BE interpreted to support the idea that the states legislators, would be required to resist any session movement.

But, it is still implied, at best, and a matter of judgement as to whether it means that.

The quote from Madison was in direct reply to the question if a state could secede.

NY wanted that provision to be written in at the time of the Constitutional Ratification.

Answer: NO.

“[T]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." - James Madison, affirmed by Hamilton.


I really don't care if you're "unconvinced" -- the Civil War answered the question. Soundly.

If Madison's opinion had the force of law, then you might have a point. Unfortunately for your lame opinion, it doesn't.

The states reserved the right to secede when they passed their ratification documents. If those are valid, then every state has a right to secede.

I'll trot it out here again, as many times as I need to -- you won't care, as we know you're a neo-confederate window licker, but for the others:


The direct question of unilateral secession - when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary - Yale Law School

Unfortunately for your litany of bullshit, the New York ratification document says the following:

New York s Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness"​

Virginia's ratification document says the following:

"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States"​

To sum up, you're just plain full of shit.

 

[Syriusly]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

Abe Lincoln had quite a bit of other ways to define it. Indeed, for quite a while he denied that he was looking to free the slaves.

Because he knew the Constitution did not allow him that option.

It also didn't allow him the option of raising an army without Congress's approval and then invading a state with it.

The Constitution gave that power to Congress- and Congress passed the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795- which did allow the President to call out the militias as Lincoln did

"It rested with Congress, too, to determine upon the means proper to be adopted to fulfil this guarantee. They might, if they had deemed it most advisable to do so, have placed it in the power of a court to decide when the contingency had happened which required the federal government to interfere. But Congress thought otherwise, and no doubt wisely, and, by the act of February 28, 1795, provided that,
"in case of an insurrection in any State against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such State or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to sufficient to suppress such insurrection."

By this act, the power of deciding whether the exigency had arisen upon which the government of the United States is bound to interfere is given to the President. He is to act upon the application of the legislature or of the executive, and consequently he must determine what body of men constitute the legislature, and who is the governor, before he can act. The fact that both parties claim the right to the government cannot alter the case, for both cannot be entitled to it. If there is an armed conflict like the one of which we are speaking, it is a case of domestic violence, and one of the parties must be in insurrection against the lawful government. And the President must, of necessity, decide which is the government and which party is unlawfully arrayed against it before he can perform the duty imposed upon him by the act of Congress."

Luther v. Borden 48 U.S. 1 1849 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

 

[bripat9643]

A Superb Essay:

There is No Right to Unilateral Secession

Even to this day we hear from neoconfederates the patently absurd assertion that there is a right of a state to unilaterally secede from the Union. This is settled law. There is no such right. While the illegality of secession isn’t really a question most historians care much about, it’s something I’ve looked into. I think it ‘s more proper for constitutional scholars to explore than historians. After all, historians seek to understand what happened. Whether secession is legal or not does not affect that understanding. Constitutional scholars are more concerned with what is possible under the Constitution.

Entire books can be written to fully cover this issue, but here I’ll give a more bare-bones discussion.

I won’t get into the arguments specifically pertaining to secession that were thrown about by constitutional theorists and others. There are so many theorists around that one can find a theorist supporting virtually any facet of any position you’d like to find. So this is not intended as a look at both sides of the issue, merely as the official pronouncements of those with the authority to pronounce on the subject and have legal force behind what they say.
Let’s look at:
1. Official Government Statements
2. Case Law Before the War
3. Case Law During the War
4. Case Law After the War
—————
1. Official Government Statements
Secession was only seriously considered in such a manner to bring out an official statement of some kind from the Federal Government twice–in the Nullification Crisis and in the 1860 crisis. Three sitting presidents and two attorneys-general have made official statements on secession [Former presidents had also made statements while they were not in office. Since they were not speaking as the sitting presidents, I’m not including them.] The attorneys-general agreed with the presidents, so I’ll just show what the presidents said:

a. Andrew Jackson:
[begin quote]
The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.

Because the Union was formed by compact, it is said the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they cannot. A compact is an agreement or binding obligation. It may by its terms have a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it may not. If it contains no sanction, it may be broken with no other consequence than moral guilt; if it have a sanction, then the breach incurs the designated or implied penalty. A league between independent nations, generally, has no sanction other than a moral one; or if it should contain a penalty, as there is no common superior, it cannot be enforced. A government, on the contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied; and, in our case, it is both necessarily implied and expressly given.

<snip>
[Proclamation Regarding Nullification, 10 Dec 1832]
b. James Buchanan:

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution.
<snip>

2. Case Law Before the War. While secession never came up in Court cases prior to the war, there were cases that dealt with the relations of states with each other and with the Federal government. If secession was a legal thing to do, it would be inconsistent with this body of case law.
In Fletcher v. Peck, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, “But Georgia cannot be viewed as a single, unconnected, sovereign power, on whose legislature no other restrictions are imposed than may be found in its own constitution. She is a part of a large empire; she is a member of the American union; and that union has a constitution the supremacy of which all acknowledge, and which imposes limits to the legislatures of the several states, which none claim a right to pass.” [10 U.S. 87, 136]

“From these conventions, the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people. . . . *The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties.*” [17 U.S. 316, 402-404]

Marshall further ruled, “The government of the Union, then, is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form, and in substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.” [17 U.S. 316, 404-405]
And, “If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this–that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action.” [17 U.S. 316, 405]

The makeup of the Union, without doubt, is within the sphere of action of the Federal Government. We can see this from the fact that Congress admits new states into the Union, and the Federal law admitting those new states is signed by the President.


In Gibbons v. Ogden <cited earlier>

And in Cohens v. Virginia the Court ruled, “That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. . .. [19 US 264, 389]

3. Case Law During the War:
The prime example here is The Prize Cases:

“Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government. A civil war is never solemnly declared; it becomes such by its accidents — the number, power, and organization of the persons who originate and carry it on. When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory, have declared their independence, have cast off their allegiance, have organized armies, have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest a war. They claim to be in arms to establish their liberty and independence, in order to become a sovereign State, while the sovereign party treats them as insurgents and rebels who owe allegiance, and who should be punished with death for their treason.
“The laws of war, as established among nations, have their foundation in reason, and all tend to mitigate the cruelties and misery produced by the scourge of war. Hence the parties to a civil war usually concede to each other belligerent rights. They exchange prisoners, and adopt the other courtesies and rules common to public or national wars.

“A civil war,” says Vattel,

breaks the bands of society and government, or at least suspends their force and effect; it produces in the nation two independent parties, who consider each other as enemies and acknowledge no common judge. Those two parties, therefore, must necessarily be considered as constituting, at least for a time, two separate bodies, two distinct societies. Having no common superior to judge between them, they stand in precisely the same predicament as two nations who engage in a contest and have recourse to arms.
“This being the case, it is very evident that the common laws of war — those maxims of humanity, moderation, and honor — ought to be observed by both parties in every civil war. Should the sovereign conceive he has a right to hang up his prisoners as rebels, the opposite party will make reprisals, &c., & c.; the war will become cruel, horrible, and every day more destructive to the nation.
“As a civil war is never publicly proclaimed, eo nomine, against insurgents, its actual existence is a fact in our domestic history which the Court is bound to notice and to know.

“The true test of its existence, as found in the writings of the sages of the common law, may be thus summarily stated:

“When the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the Courts of Justice cannot be kept open, civil war exists, and hostilities may be prosecuted on the same footing as if those opposing the Government were foreign enemies invading the land.” [67 US 635, 666-668]

“This greatest of civil wars was not gradually developed by popular commotion, tumultuous assemblies, or local unorganized insurrections. However long may have been its previous conception, it nevertheless sprung forth suddenly from the parent brain, a Minerva in the full panoply of war. The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact.

“It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an “insurrection” by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors. It is not necessary that the independence of the revolted province or State be acknowledged in order to constitute it a party belligerent in a war according to the law of nations. Foreign nations acknowledge it as war by a declaration of neutrality. The condition of neutrality cannot exist unless there be two belligerent parties.” [67 US 635, 668-669]

In upholding Lincoln’s actions against the rebels, calling the war a “civil war,” calling the rebellion an “insurrection,” and labeling the rebels as “rebels or traitors,” the Supreme Court was implicitly denying the legality of secession.
4. Case Law after the war:
The first chance the Supreme Court got to speak directly on the question of secession was Texas v. White.

“The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

....
In Williams v. Bruffy, the Court ruled that the confederacy had no legal existence. It said, “The pleas aver that a confederation was formed by Virginia and other States, called the Confederate States of America, and that under a law of this confederation, enforced in Virginia, the debt due to the plaintiffs was sequestrated. Now, the Constitution of the United States prohibits any treaty, alliance, or confederation by one State with another. The organization whose enactment is pleaded cannot, therefore, be regarded in this court as having any legal existence.” [96 US 176, 182]

In Lamar v. Micou, the Court ruled, “The so-called Confederate government was in no sense a lawful government, but was a mere government of force, having its origin and foundation in rebellion against the United States.” [112 US 452. 476]
...
<snip>

The matter of secession has been clarified and is settled law, and no serious legal scholar supports the idea that unilateral secession is a right any state possesses. At best, one could say it wasn’t a completely settled question until the Supreme Court ruled on it after the war; however, anyone familiar with case law prior to the war would know that the idea it was legal would be inconsistent with what the Court had already ruled. Today’s neoconfederates who make the claim that unilateral secession was a right the states possessed are merely showing their ignorance.

There is No Right to Unilateral Secession Student of the American Civil War

Lincoln cult propaganda.

 

[toxicmedia]

Southerners......

Known best for segregation, Jim Crowe, the KKK, and now, Republicans, Tea Partiers, and evangelicals

That list can just be called 'Social Conservatism' for short

Of course they were
The traitors also attacked their own country

Got what they deserved

Hey kiddo, the Union was saved, but far more yankees were killed during the war than Confederates, and after the war supposedly ended many more yankees , black and white were killed than Confederates. I'm not grieving for the Confederate States Of America, that's settled, but what it proved was that the United States Of America is an Empire, held together by force, same as the Soviet Union, and the present day Russian Confederacy.

Name me one country that is not held together by force? Name me one country that has EVER won an armed conflict that can't be characterized as an "empire"?

1. The American Revolution
2. Battle of the Teutoburg Forest - The Germans defeated the Roman General Varus on the German side of the Rhine river.
   
3. Israel's numerous victories over its Arab enemies.
4. The Greek victories over the Persians at Thermopolae, Salamis and elsewhere.
5. The Visigoths sack Rome.
6. The Mujahadeem in Afghanistan defeats the Soviet Union.

I could go on and one, but that's enough to show that it does occur. However, the other way around happens much more often.

Are you saying those countries are not empires? Or those countries are not held together by force?

Was America an Empire prior to winning the Revolution? How about the Germanic tribes who beat general Varus? The Greek city states? The Visigoths? The Mujahadeem? Is Israel an empire?

Wow, you've taken a yes or no question, and bored me to death with it.

I can't possibly care anymore.

 

[-S-]

Have you read the secession papers? Every last one of them stated slavery as the reason for secession.

Furthermore, I might add that the Confederate Constitution allowed for the admission of free states into the Confederacy and banned the overseas slave trade. ...

Total bullshit from the man who is famously quoted as saying "people never talk about the "good aspects" of slavery."


Sure free States Could join the the Union -- as SLAVE STATES. Slavery was a guarantee in the CSA.

The Confederates Constitution ensured slavery in perpetuity.

"People never talk about the good aspects of slavery."

What...?

What kind of asshole would say something like that?
I wish I could see that post in context with what was being said. It would be an, eh.. interesting read, to say the least.

 

[paperview]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

Abe Lincoln had quite a bit of other ways to define it. Indeed, for quite a while he denied that he was looking to free the slaves.

Because he knew the Constitution did not allow him that option.

It also didn't allow him the option of raising an army without Congress's approval and then invading a state with it.

Killz ya, doesn't it?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

Abe Lincoln had quite a bit of other ways to define it. Indeed, for quite a while he denied that he was looking to free the slaves.

Because he knew the Constitution did not allow him that option.

It also didn't allow him the option of raising an army without Congress's approval and then invading a state with it.

The Constitution gave that power to Congress- and Congress passed the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795- which did allow the President to call out the militias as Lincoln did

The 75,000 man army Lincoln raised was not the state militias. It was paid by the Federal government and reported to the federal government. It was a federal army raised without the permission of Congress and it was sent to invade a state of the union, which is an act of treason.

 

[paperview]

Have you read the secession papers? Every last one of them stated slavery as the reason for secession.

Furthermore, I might add that the Confederate Constitution allowed for the admission of free states into the Confederacy and banned the overseas slave trade. ...

Total bullshit from the man who is famously quoted as saying "people never talk about the "good aspects" of slavery."


Sure free States Could join the the Union -- as SLAVE STATES. Slavery was a guarantee in the CSA.

The Confederates Constitution ensured slavery in perpetuity.

"People never talk about the good aspects of slavery."

What...?

What kind of asshole would say something like that?
I wish I could see that post in context with what was being said. It would be an, eh.. interesting read, to say the least.

S- meet Mike Griffith. He. He would say something like that.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

Abe Lincoln had quite a bit of other ways to define it. Indeed, for quite a while he denied that he was looking to free the slaves.

Because he knew the Constitution did not allow him that option.

It also didn't allow him the option of raising an army without Congress's approval and then invading a state with it.

Killz ya, doesn't it?

Yes, it's feels just like someone in Poland or Hungary looking at a giant statue of Stalin in the middle of his capital city.

 

[paperview]

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith

Google it.