Neo-Confederate libertarians are not conservatives.

[paperview]

Note, too, at that point, the south had already commenced hostilities. They were bound and determined to go to war and nothing was going to stop them.

yes, hostile towards northern aggressions of/for war.

The only thing hostile the Northerners did was elect a president (who had zero power when hostilities started).
Lincoln made it clear he & his party were against expansion of slavery in the territories.

This scared the ever loving shit out of the South, who though they lived for authoritarian and idiotic Slavocracy, and cared little for education - had the ability to count.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The union refused to surrender lands that did not rightfully belong to them. Then proceeded to blockade confederate ports, causing crippling economic effects throughout the developing world. Forcing teh confederates into war.

You can keep saying the south is responsible, but the evidence doesn't really provide that distortion as true.

 

[JWBooth]

If a people are going to allow themselves to be bullied without striking back, what is the point of seeking independence?

 

[paperview]

The union refused to surrender lands that did not rightfully belong to them. Then proceeded to blockade confederate ports, causing crippling economic effects throughout the developing world. Forcing teh confederates into war.

You can keep saying the south is responsible, but the evidence doesn't really provide that distortion as true.

You can keep squawking till you're blue in the face, but the argument was answered decisively by the results of the rebellion, what happened at the Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, and later, by the SCOTUS ruling in White v Texas.

The land did not "belong to them." States do not have a right to secede, except the way they came in -- by consent of the other states.

Even the pro-slavery Judge Dred (Taney - of the Dred Scott decision) and the Southern sympathizing Buchanan said states do not have a right to secede.

 

[paperview]

Lincoln, to a special session of Congress, on July 4, 1861 gives his smackdown:

“Our States have neither more, nor less power, than that reserved to them, in the Union, by the Constitution—no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union.

The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State.”

 

[paperview]

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney::

"The South contends that a state has a constitutional right to secede from the Union formed with her sister states. In this I submit the South errs. No power or right is constitutional but what can be exercised in a form or mode provided in the constitution for its exercise. Secession is therefore not constitutional, but revolutionary; and is only morally competent, like war, upon failure of justice."

Taney's views as to the constitutionality of secession were expressed in an untitled, eight-page memorandum in his own handwriting that was donated to the Library of Congress in 1929. This memorandum has been labeled (apparently by a library archivist) "Fragment of a Manuscript Relating to Slavery in the United States," RBTP-LC. Although the memorandum is undated, internal evidence indicates that it was written between January 26 and February 1, 1861. It was Taney's practice during the war to set forth his views on controversial constitutional issues for possible use in Supreme Court opinions, if and when those issues should come before the Court. For description and discussion of this memorandum, see Fehrenbacher, Dred Scott Case, 554-555, 7IIn.5.

Source: Lincoln & The Court, by Brian McGinty.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And as a result, the original union founded in this country was destroyed. In its place we instilled a despotic federal government that would make the most pro-federalist Dullard blush.

Lincoln, when proclaiming the blockade, also de facto recognized the Confederate States of America as an independent entity. So apparently before 1865, states could, in fact, secede from the non-voluntary "union". Meaning he was also the aggressor against a sovereign entity. Lincon caused the war.

 

[paperview]

Now you're just Lost Cause babbling. If it makes you feel better blabber on. Won't change the fact of history.

Nor the fact had we not succeeded in keeping the Union together, you wouldn't be here right now, able to babble about what has become the greatest and most powerful country in the world.

 

[paperview]

Let's hear from another leader at the time:

" I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am will to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.

The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will.

It is intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled.

It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison and all the other patriots of the Revolution."

That leader?


Robert E. Lee.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The war could have been avoided by simply overturning the dred scott decision. But war was much more to the point. Because it was about consoolidation of federal power and perogative, not slavery. The true nature of the war was over removing the idea, through example, that states had the right to leave the union. This idea of State perogative needed to be removed once and for all. So that the federal government wouldn't have to contend with States again. Lincoln caused, and then won his war.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Now you're just Lost Cause babbling. If it makes you feel better blabber on. Won't change the fact of history.

Nor the fact had we not succeeded in keeping the Union together, you wouldn't be here right now, able to babble about what has become the greatest and most powerful country in the world.

Logical fallacy. They are fun though, aren't they?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Let's hear from another leader at the time:

" I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am will to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.

The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will.

It is intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled.

It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison and all the other patriots of the Revolution."

That leader?


Robert E. Lee.

Anarchy?

Is that why the confederate states formed a new constitution?



When you have to resort to hyperbole, logical fallacy and cherry picked quotes, you know you've exhausted your argument.

 

[paperview]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Exactly. But by all means, keep the hyperbole and logical fallacies rolling. It's entertaining.

 

[paperview]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Cocksure, undermanned, underarmed, lacking infrastructure and integrity for an honorable cause, the confederacy died, as Jeff Davis said, of a theory.

Good point.

Had the Confederacy succeeded in the war, and won independence; they would not have lasted a decade. They utterly lacked any sort of industrial base. They had a poor infrastructure, as you noted, with no hope of developing further railroads without the aid of the industrial North. They faced a hostile Southern neighbor in Mexico - who would not have hesitated in seizing the opportunity to regain lost territory.

All of this begs the question of why the North did not simple let the South secede? It was doomed to failure and the South would have been crawling back sooner, rather than later.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This thread just wouldn't be complete without this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc]Nullification: Interview with a Zombie - YouTube[/ame]

 

[thanatos144]

The war could have been avoided by simply overturning the dred scott decision. But war was much more to the point. Because it was about consoolidation of federal power and perogative, not slavery. The true nature of the war was over removing the idea, through example, that states had the right to leave the union. This idea of State perogative needed to be removed once and for all. So that the federal government wouldn't have to contend with States again. Lincoln caused, and then won his war.

it would have been avoided had the CSA hadn't started it.

 

[paperview]

Cocksure, undermanned, underarmed, lacking infrastructure and integrity for an honorable cause, the confederacy died, as Jeff Davis said, of a theory.

Good point.

Had the Confederacy succeeded in the war, and won independence; they would not have lasted a decade. They utterly lacked any sort of industrial base. They had a poor infrastructure, as you noted, with no hope of developing further railroads without the aid of the industrial North. They faced a hostile Southern neighbor in Mexico - who would not have hesitated in seizing the opportunity to regain lost territory.

All of this begs the question of why the North did not simple let the South secede? It was doomed to failure and the South would have been crawling back sooner, rather than later.

Bad precedent.

Besides, you can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they siezed before Lincoln was inaugurated. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go **** yourselves.

 

[thanatos144]

Cocksure, undermanned, underarmed, lacking infrastructure and integrity for an honorable cause, the confederacy died, as Jeff Davis said, of a theory.

Good point.

Had the Confederacy succeeded in the war, and won independence; they would not have lasted a decade. They utterly lacked any sort of industrial base. They had a poor infrastructure, as you noted, with no hope of developing further railroads without the aid of the industrial North. They faced a hostile Southern neighbor in Mexico - who would not have hesitated in seizing the opportunity to regain lost territory.

All of this begs the question of why the North did not simple let the South secede? It was doomed to failure and the South would have been crawling back sooner, rather than later.

Bad precedent.

Besides, you can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they siezed before Lincoln was inaugurated. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go **** yourselves.

It is almost as if the see the confederates as robin hood fighting against a evil tyrant.....Except the confederates were not doing anything for the people. They were doing it to keep AMERICANS in bondage.