The Confederacy and States' Rights

[☭proletarian☭]

False conclusion, proletarian. Leaving the Union was breaking it up. The War of Independence was not about breaking up the Empire. The Royal Peace Commission of 1778 understood that entirely in its offer for American autonomy within the empire. The Americans wisely rejected the commission and its offer.

How is it different? If a few states leaving the Union was breaking up the Union, then how are the colonies leaving the empire not breaking it up?

The US never tried to "crush" the British Empire.

-and the Confederacy never tried to destroy the Union.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Only Texas permitted its citizens to vote on the secession ordinance.

I'm sorry didn't you just say the states were the agents of the will of the people? If they didn't want to secede then secession wouldn't have happened. Look at West Virginia for example.

Interesting. I've never heard someone pro-Confederacy argue that the division of Virginia was legal.

If the People have a right to self-governance, wouldn't that right outweigh any 'law' which restricts it, just as the right to liberty and freedom from bondage outweighs any laws which declare a man lesser than his neighbor and seek to deny him equal rights?

That's what I don't get about people who claim that the Confederate secession was 'illegal' yet support the American War for Independence and consider the United States a 'legal' ir 'rightful' nation.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin. The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages. The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced. That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution.

Wait so a 'more perfect union' is an oppressive state that recognizes no right to self-determination?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution.

Exactly. That the states lose their sovereign functions in the transition from the Articles to the Constitution is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the union's eternal bond.

Amen!

Does the term 'statist' mean anyything to you?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I guess the guy who actually wrote the Constitution was completely ignorant too.

He did not believe secession was constitutional.

No one person wrote the Constitution.

No, KK, but who is referred to as the principle author...you know,
the person who is called the "Father of the Constitution?"

I think you know the answer.

Well there are two or three people who are among the principle architects, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison are the two most prominent. James Madison is called the father of the Constitution, and he would not have supported the notion that the states are not sovereign and independent. Hamilton would have supported that, but of course he wouldn't have supported it until after the Constitution was ratified. Hamilton may have been the first "flip flopper" of our nation now that I think about it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Only Texas permitted its citizens to vote on the secession ordinance.

I'm sorry didn't you just say the states were the agents of the will of the people? If they didn't want to secede then secession wouldn't have happened. Look at West Virginia for example.

Interesting. I've never heard someone pro-Confederacy argue that the division of Virginia was legal.

It wasn't legal by the Constitution, the federal government is explicitly banned from creating a new territory or state from an existing territory or state without consent of that state's government. I doubt Virginia was asked permission. However, I also believe in the right of self-government. So I have no problem with the people of West Virginia refusing to join the rest of their state in the Confederacy and joining the Union instead.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In time of war, Kevin, and that in no way excuses the South trying to illegally leave the Union.

Kevin, all you are doing is looking immorally stubborn now. The weight of evidence is against you.

So freedoms can be suppressed during war? What kind of freedom is it if it can be suppressed whenever a government goes to war? I'd have to say it's not freedom at all.

What nation under war occupation has not been denied freedom? That's the nature of war = "Hell" in the words of our national hero - Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman.

Sherman isn't a national hero. If we had any sense we'd look at him as a national disgrace.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.

The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.

I disagree with the premise the war was unconstitutional. At no point does the Constitution of the United States give states the right to unilaterally exit.

See the 10th Amendment. Not to mention that the Constitution defines treason as waging war against the states. Lincoln was also guilty of treason, under the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

False conclusion, proletarian. Leaving the Union was breaking it up. The War of Independence was not about breaking up the Empire. The Royal Peace Commission of 1778 understood that entirely in its offer for American autonomy within the empire. The Americans wisely rejected the commission and its offer.

How is it different? If a few states leaving the Union was breaking up the Union, then how are the colonies leaving the empire not breaking it up?

The US never tried to "crush" the British Empire. The US was too weak to do so. We needed the French as demonstrated in the War of 1812 when we got our tails kicked and our capital burned to the ground.

The Confederacy never tried to "crush" the United States. They simply wanted to be left alone.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin. The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages. The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced. That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution.

The Constitution simply made a stronger federal government. It didn't usurp the sovereignty of the states. Why would the states have voted away their sovereignty to ratify the Constitution? And what of the three states that explicitly reserved the right, upon their ratification, to exit the Union should it become destructive of their liberty? It certainly was not interpreted as usurping the independence of the states when it was ratified by the states. You can't change the meaning of a contract after the contract is signed and claim the moral high ground.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Funny how the right wingers who always talk about rights ignore them when it comes to the Confederacy

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No one has said they weren't, Kevin! But that does not excuse the South for treason and trying to break up the Union. For that is was murdered and slavery ended. Good riddance, say I, to both.

The south was not guilty of treason or trying to break up the Union. The south was "guilty" only of trying to practice their right to self government as espoused in the Declaration of Independence.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Confederacy did nothing more than our founders did when they seceded from Great Britain. It was the Confederacy that was fighting for traditional American values, and Lincoln destroyed those values.

You forget that the US Declartion of Independence predated the first government under the Articles of "Confederation," which was a failure. That is why the US's second government came about under the Constitution which ceeded rights of sovereign states under a Federal government.

First off, the federal government existed under the Articles as well. All the Constitution did was restructure the government, and give them more powers. It did not change the status of the independent states whatsoever. Also, the Declaration of Independence has been law since the founding of this nation, whether under the Articles or the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Maybe the difference is, the southerners could do it legally.

Whether it could be done legally or not makes no difference. If you're opposed to rape then you should condemn it whether it was southern slaveowners or northern soldiers committing the act, not rationalize for one and condemn the other.

If the Rebs didn't want to get raped, then they should have thought about that prior to attacking Sumter. Unfortunately "War is Hell" and the Rebs choose HELL! Notwithstanding, I do condemn rape, whoever comits it. I know many Vietnam Vets who admit to rape, genocide, torture, etc. Although I condemn their evil, I don't condemn them. Do you? I forgive them. It's relatively easy for me since they didn't rape, torture, or commit genocide to me or anyone whom I directly knew.

No, I don't forgive them. They didn't rape me so I have nothing to forgive. What about all the slaves that were raped by northern troops? Did they get what they deserved since the "rebs" "attacked" Fort Sumter? I mean, they lived in the south right? They must be guilty.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How do you figure? The Union didn't war against Brittan nor fight a war to preserve slavery like the racist treasonist Rebs.

I was referring to the fact that the Union had slavery during the Civil War. So if you defend them you're defending slavery. But the case could be made for the Revolutionary War as well. The British offered freedom to any slaves that joined them against the U.S. So maybe they did have the moral high ground?

Wrong! The US didn't secede from England over slavery as the Rebs stated that they did in their Declaration of Causes of Secession .

And yet the British offered freedom to slaves who fought for them, while the colonies would have kept them in servitude. So it would seem the British had the moral high ground, and we never should have been an independent confederation in the first place.

 

[JW Frogen]

Interesting. I've never heard someone pro-Confederacy argue that the division of Virginia was legal.

Check for share purchases in coal. Economics usually trumps ideology.

See China for further details.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Funny how the right wingers who always talk about rights ignore them when it comes to the Confederacy

Statism is a bipartisan disease.

 

[Polk]

I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.

The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.

I disagree with the premise the war was unconstitutional. At no point does the Constitution of the United States give states the right to unilaterally exit.

See the 10th Amendment. Not to mention that the Constitution defines treason as waging war against the states. Lincoln was also guilty of treason, under the Constitution.

10th Amendment only applies in the case of a power not delegated the national government by the Constitution. The power at play here would be sovereignty, which the Constitution does vest in the national government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I disagree with the premise the war was unconstitutional. At no point does the Constitution of the United States give states the right to unilaterally exit.

See the 10th Amendment. Not to mention that the Constitution defines treason as waging war against the states. Lincoln was also guilty of treason, under the Constitution.

10th Amendment only applies in the case of a power not delegated the national government by the Constitution. The power at play here would be sovereignty, which the Constitution does vest in the national government.

No, the power at play here is secession, which the Constitution doesn't mention at all. Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, secession is perfectly legal.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

10th Amendment only applies in the case of a power not delegated the national government by the Constitution.

now read the rest of the sentence...

 

[Polk]

See the 10th Amendment. Not to mention that the Constitution defines treason as waging war against the states. Lincoln was also guilty of treason, under the Constitution.

10th Amendment only applies in the case of a power not delegated the national government by the Constitution. The power at play here would be sovereignty, which the Constitution does vest in the national government.

No, the power at play here is secession, which the Constitution doesn't mention at all. Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, secession is perfectly legal.

Secession is only possible if the states are sovereign, which they are not.