The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Equat]

KK: You asked me if I thought the Union were evil. Sure! All societies of evil men are and always have been evil. The Union is no exception. That isn't the point of your premise. Your point was to assert the righteousness of the Confederacy. The Confederates weren't righteous, morally or legally. Their assertions were flagrantly hypocritical, which made the Union "saviors" of oppressed people. In the Civil War, the Union had the moral high ground more than the British did in our revolution. As stated previously, the US didn't revolt against England over slavery as the Confederates seceded (as stated in their Declaration of Causes of Secession ) from the Union.

Well at least you're not a hypocrite. At any rate, never have I claimed that the Confederacy was righteous. You can go ahead and try to attribute that belief to me, but ultimately you can really only go by what I actually say. My claim is that the Confederate States, and any states for that matter, have the natural and constitutional right to secession and self-government.

You are claiming the righteousness of the Confederacy to secede and self-govern.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Supporting the right to self-governance doesn't mean one supports anything else any other party might do. KK and I are also defending your right to self governance and that of the FF.

 

[Equat]

I agree with Polk's post On 19 Dec 09.

Quote: Originally Posted by Equat:
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.

Quote by Polk:
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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KK: You asked me if I thought the Union were evil. Sure! All societies of evil men are and always have been evil. The Union is no exception. That isn't the point of your premise. Your point was to assert the righteousness of the Confederacy. The Confederates weren't righteous, morally or legally. Their assertions were flagrantly hypocritical, which made the Union "saviors" of oppressed people. In the Civil War, the Union had the moral high ground more than the British did in our revolution. As stated previously, the US didn't revolt against England over slavery as the Confederates seceded (as stated in their Declaration of Causes of Secession ) from the Union.

Well at least you're not a hypocrite. At any rate, never have I claimed that the Confederacy was righteous. You can go ahead and try to attribute that belief to me, but ultimately you can really only go by what I actually say. My claim is that the Confederate States, and any states for that matter, have the natural and constitutional right to secession and self-government.

You are claiming the righteousness of the Confederacy to secede and self-govern.

I am claiming that the right to secession and self-government is righteous I suppose. But no government is righteous.

 

[Equat]

Well at least you're not a hypocrite. At any rate, never have I claimed that the Confederacy was righteous. You can go ahead and try to attribute that belief to me, but ultimately you can really only go by what I actually say. My claim is that the Confederate States, and any states for that matter, have the natural and constitutional right to secession and self-government.

You are claiming the righteousness of the Confederacy to secede and self-govern.

I am claiming that the right to secession and self-government is righteous I suppose. But no government is righteous.

Righteous in what way and according to whom? One's moral righteousness is diminished in proportion to his hypocrisy. Society's morality is no different. Moral authority is earned, not to be demanded.

Something to think about. Have a good night's sleep. I hope to.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are claiming the righteousness of the Confederacy to secede and self-govern.

I am claiming that the right to secession and self-government is righteous I suppose. But no government is righteous.

Righteous in what way and according to whom? One's moral righteousness is diminished in proportion to his hypocrisy. Society's morality is no different. Moral authority is earned, not to be demanded.

Something to think about. Have a good night's sleep. I hope to.

Righteous in the sense that people have the right to their own self-government, and if the people of any state decide they'd be better off outside of the Union we should not be using force of arms to suppress their natural rights and force them to remain.

 

[Equat]

I am claiming that the right to secession and self-government is righteous I suppose. But no government is righteous.

Righteous in what way and according to whom? One's moral righteousness is diminished in proportion to his hypocrisy. Society's morality is no different. Moral authority is earned, not to be demanded.

Something to think about. Have a good night's sleep. I hope to.

Righteous in the sense that people have the right to their own self-government, and if the people of any state decide they'd be better off outside of the Union we should not be using force of arms to suppress their natural rights and force them to remain.

How can hypocritical Confederates that secede to protect racism and slavery ( according to Declaration of Causes of Secession) claim righteousness?

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
Samuel Johnson

"Slavery is now nowhere more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty." Samuel Johnson

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Righteous in what way and according to whom? One's moral righteousness is diminished in proportion to his hypocrisy. Society's morality is no different. Moral authority is earned, not to be demanded.

Something to think about. Have a good night's sleep. I hope to.

Righteous in the sense that people have the right to their own self-government, and if the people of any state decide they'd be better off outside of the Union we should not be using force of arms to suppress their natural rights and force them to remain.

How can hypocritical Confederates that secede to protect racism and slavery ( according to Declaration of Causes of Secession) claim righteousness?

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
Samuel Johnson

"Slavery is now nowhere more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty." Samuel Johnson

You keep saying that, but you give the U.S. pass on that very subject. If you condemn the Confederacy for slavery and say they have no right to self-government because of that, you have to condemn the U.S. and say that they had no right to self-government from the British. You say, "Well they didn't secede over slavery," but what difference does it make? The south didn't secede over just slavery, if you read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address he doesn't mention slavery one time. He does, however, mention tariffs. The U.S. seceded while practicing slavery, and so did the Confederacy. If you condemn one you must condemn the other.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Righteous in the sense that people have the right to their own self-government, and if the people of any state decide they'd be better off outside of the Union we should not be using force of arms to suppress their natural rights and force them to remain.

How can hypocritical Confederates that secede to protect racism and slavery ( according to Declaration of Causes of Secession) claim righteousness?

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
Samuel Johnson

"Slavery is now nowhere more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty." Samuel Johnson

You keep saying that, but you give the U.S. pass on that very subject. If you condemn the Confederacy for slavery and say they have no right to self-government because of that, you have to condemn the U.S. and say that they had no right to self-government from the British. You say, "Well they didn't secede over slavery," but what difference does it make? The south didn't secede over just slavery, if you read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address he doesn't mention slavery one time. He does, however, mention tariffs. The U.S. seceded while practicing slavery, and so did the Confederacy. If you condemn one you must condemn the other.

You don't understand the hypocritical stance of the opposing posters. For them might makes right, because the Confederacy was crushed they must have been unrepentant evil and hence (in their tiny brains) all acts of seceding from "the freest country evah" are also evil.

 

[midcan5]

Egads does this debate never end. The South signed on to the Union, they agreed to be a part of that union, the fact they wanted to secede because they found slavery to their liking is hardly an argument for them dropping out. But scholars argue both ways as the links below demonstrate.

But this is an interesting twist as the [many of] same wingnuts who argue we had a right to invade Iraq because it was bad, see no evil in the slavery reason for the civil war, instead like all revisionists they now stress state rights and ignore the key reason for the civil war.

Southern Arguments for and Against Secession from the Union - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Argument v Lincoln's position
http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?


"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War

court ruling on secession
Texas v. White

admission of state to union
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18


John C. Calhoun's Speech: Slavery, a Positive Good

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?


"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act “entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support “this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from first url)

 

[☭proletarian☭]

the northern leaders went to war for economic reasons

 

[Charles Stucker]

Egads does this debate never end. The South signed on to the Union

Blah, Blah, Blah.

So because someone voted for something generations ago, the people alive today cannot make their own decisions?
Yet you have the unmitigated gall to claim you favor freedom.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Egads does this debate never end. The South signed on to the Union, they agreed to be a part of that union, the fact they wanted to secede because they found slavery to their liking is hardly an argument for them dropping out. But scholars argue both ways as the links below demonstrate.

But this is an interesting twist as the [many of] same wingnuts who argue we had a right to invade Iraq because it was bad, see no evil in the slavery reason for the civil war, instead like all revisionists they now stress state rights and ignore the key reason for the civil war.

Southern Arguments for and Against Secession from the Union - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Argument v Lincoln's position
http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?


"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War

court ruling on secession
Texas v. White

admission of state to union
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18


John C. Calhoun's Speech: Slavery, a Positive Good

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?


"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act “entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support “this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from first url)

If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.

 

[midcan5]

If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.

I would then suggest removing slavery from the topic. See where you can go with that. Read a bit about the times and read the link I boldfaced. Politics is always balance, Lincoln's actions like every political act since is a balancing act.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Egads does this debate never end. The South signed on to the Union

Blah, Blah, Blah.

So because someone voted for something generations ago, the people alive today cannot make their own decisions?
Yet you have the unmitigated gall to claim you favor freedom.

Just so it's not ignored

 

[Equat]

If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.

I would then suggest removing slavery from the topic. See where you can go with that. Read a bit about the times and read the link I boldfaced. Politics is always balance, Lincoln's actions like every political act since is a balancing act.

The Confederates didn't remove racist slavery from their reasons for seceding. Why should we remove this singular and central issue?

 

[Equat]

Egads does this debate never end. The South signed on to the Union, they agreed to be a part of that union, the fact they wanted to secede because they found slavery to their liking is hardly an argument for them dropping out. But scholars argue both ways as the links below demonstrate.

But this is an interesting twist as the [many of] same wingnuts who argue we had a right to invade Iraq because it was bad, see no evil in the slavery reason for the civil war, instead like all revisionists they now stress state rights and ignore the key reason for the civil war.

Southern Arguments for and Against Secession from the Union - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Argument v Lincoln's position
http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?


"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War

court ruling on secession
Texas v. White

admission of state to union
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18


John C. Calhoun's Speech: Slavery, a Positive Good

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?


"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act “entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support “this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from first url)

If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.

False conclusion. Because someone doesn't want to be punished by joining a gang of rebels that share similar interests doesn't mean that the gang doesn't rebel for the shared reasons.

You ignored all the evidence above.

First of all, as Polk pointed out Missouri & Kentucky were prevented from seceding my military occupation.

The others non-seceding rebels weren't gluttons for punishment like those that seceded and those that joined the Confederacy and who believed that the US should allow its military installations to be overrun by rebels.

 

[Charles Stucker]

The Confederates didn't remove racist slavery from their reasons for seceding. Why should we remove this singular and central issue?

Because it is not an issue in the modern question of secession.
Yet again what the would be Tyrants ignore is that Popular self Determination is a central theme to the modern US Democracy. We have pushed this theme on other countries (for example communist Russia) and yet it is not allowed for our own population based on the Moronic principle that since someone once voted for something generations ago, their descendants are forever barred from voting differently.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.

I would then suggest removing slavery from the topic. See where you can go with that. Read a bit about the times and read the link I boldfaced. Politics is always balance, Lincoln's actions like every political act since is a balancing act.

The Confederates didn't remove racist slavery from their reasons for seceding. Why should we remove this singular and central issue?

You can parrot this talking point if you like, but it's not going to make it true.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Egads does this debate never end. The South signed on to the Union, they agreed to be a part of that union, the fact they wanted to secede because they found slavery to their liking is hardly an argument for them dropping out. But scholars argue both ways as the links below demonstrate.

But this is an interesting twist as the [many of] same wingnuts who argue we had a right to invade Iraq because it was bad, see no evil in the slavery reason for the civil war, instead like all revisionists they now stress state rights and ignore the key reason for the civil war.

Southern Arguments for and Against Secession from the Union - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Argument v Lincoln's position
http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?


"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War

court ruling on secession
Texas v. White

admission of state to union
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18


John C. Calhoun's Speech: Slavery, a Positive Good

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?


"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act “entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support “this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from first url)

If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.

False conclusion. Because someone doesn't want to be punished by joining a gang of rebels that share similar interests doesn't mean that the gang doesn't rebel for the shared reasons.

You ignored all the evidence above.

First of all, as Polk pointed out Missouri & Kentucky were prevented from seceding my military occupation.

The others non-seceding rebels weren't gluttons for punishment like those that seceded and those that joined the Confederacy and who believed that the US should allow its military installations to be overrun by rebels.

Since Lincoln had no problem with militarily forcing states to remain in the Union then why didn't he militarily force those states to end slavery? I mean if his goal was to end slavery then why didn't he do it in the states he could have easily achieved that goal in?