The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War

[JakeStarkey]

Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.

The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.

JAKESTARKEY, You state....
"The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860."
Why did the U.S. not continue its crusade to end slavery by invading Cuba and Brazil?

They were sovereign nations, and the CSA was not. The Civil War, although its the root cause was American chattel slavery, was no moral crusade until November 1862, which was aimed at suppressing the rebellious organizations in the Union

Your false equivalence of comparing Negro oppression with the oppression of other despised populations in America is noted and rejected.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of James' points have been noted and easily refuted.

 

[James Everett]

The Southern leaders would not accept constitutional, electoral procedure.

South Carolina had seceded months before Lincoln was inaugurated.

The CSA fired on US ships under Buchanan and Lincoln's administrations.

No where does the 10th Amendment, much less the Constitution, permit states to secede.

Slavery was well off and protected, with 90% of the economy vested directed and indirectly in the cotton empire.

Southerners could (1) no longer stand being called immoral, and (2) not live on an equal basis with the slaves. They are much like our far right conservatives.

The Old South deserved to die.

JakeStarkey,
You write....
"The CSA fired on US ships under Buchanan and Lincoln's administrations."
Buchanan attempted to send a supply ship to the Yankee soldiers at Fort
Sumter, In order to reach Fort Sumter, that supply ship would violate the sovereign State of South Carolina's territorial waters in CHARLESTON HARBOR: The invasion of South Carolina/CHARLESTON HARBOR by this supply ship was an act of War, when the U.S. was forbidden to enter South Carolina's territorial waters. A U.S. Ship cannot simply waltz into any Harbor in the world if the Country wherein the harbor lies forbids its entrance. Such would constitute an act of War, this is why today, if a U.S. Air Force plane enters Russian airspace it will likely be met with force and be shot down.
Next you state....
"No where does the 10th Amendment, much less the Constitution, permit states to secede."
The simple fact that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution does not address the subject of secession, means that it is a POWER reserved by each State INDIVIDUALLY....READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT....
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

JAKE STARKEY, You also state.....
"Southerners could (1) no longer stand being called immoral, and (2) not live on an equal basis with the slaves. They are much like our far right conservatives."
How about I ask you a question here to show your hypocrisy....
Could the U.S. stand to live on an equal basis with the Native American Indian in 1860?
How were the free Slaves in the North Treated? Or the Irish for that matter? Were they treated as equals?
The reason I ask is that I am confused when I read these Northern States Jim Crow laws....
Pennsylvania
1869: Education [Statute] Black children prohibited from attending Pittsburgh schools.
1956: Adoption [Statute] Petition must state race or color of adopting parents.

Rhode Island
1872: Miscegenation [State Code] Prohibited intermarriage. Penalty: $1,000 fine, or up to six months' imprisonment.

Ohio
Enacted a miscegenation statute in 1877 and a school segregation law in 1878. Segregation of public facilities was barred in 1884
Illinois
1927: Housing [Municipal Code]
Chicago adopted racially restrictive housing covenants beginning in 1927.

Indiana
Enacted seven Jim Crow laws in the areas of education and miscegenation between 1869 and 1952.

South Caroina had no sovereign authority to resist federal travel missions to federal installations, which had been ceded decades earlier by South Carolina to the national government. South Carolina committed an act of violent treason firing on Ft. Sumter.

The false equivalency is noted of comparing the bad treatment of First Peoples or Irish or other despised people in the North to Negro Chattel slaves. None of the excuses slavery.

Try this a normal history class in college and you will fail the assignment.

Jake starkly,
South Carolina legally seceded from the union, hence it's citizens were no longer u.s.citizens, therefore could not be guilty of treason. And while the U.S. May have owned the shoal on which Sumter sat, they did not own the territorial waters around the Fort, therefore had no lawful access to it, once South Carolina ceased its membership status. As for Your ancestors, and your governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian, you introduced the debate over morals in a attempt to divert from the legality if secession, therefore it is an open debate on morals at this point. I am sorry if you are uncomfortable defending your government and your ancestors immorality. We can stick to the legal issue of secession if you wish. Of course that is up to you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, your assertion is false, cannot be substantiated in law and fact, and the South was lawfully executed by the South. Only by the mercy and grace of the US leaders were the CSA leaders not executed.

 

[James Everett]

All of James' points have been noted and easily refuted.

JakeStarkey, you write....."All of James' points have been noted and easily refuted."
Sir, not one of my points have been refuted, but rather met with very lame gratuitous assertions presented without factual evidence. I have defeated every one of your pseudo intellectual Yankee partners using facts, truth, and evidence thereof. Anyone who witnesses this thread can see that. You have yet even days after the deadline I posted, have yet to cite the law that states that secession is an unlawful or illegal act.

 

[James Everett]

James, your assertion is false, cannot be substantiated in law and fact, and the South was lawfully executed by the South. Only by the mercy and grace of the US leaders were the CSA leaders not executed.

I have substantiated my assertion using the law time and again, READ the tenth amendment! You however have yet to cite the law that states that secession is an unlawful or illegal act. Please do so now! The fact that you cannot is why I continue to smile.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your evidence is flawed, and your assertions cannot be substantiated satisfactorily.

Smile all you want at the F you have earned. You are simply witless.

 

[James Everett]

Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.

The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.

JAKESTARKEY, You state....
"The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860."
Why did the U.S. not continue its crusade to end slavery by invading Cuba and Brazil?

They were sovereign nations, and the CSA was not. The Civil War, although its the root cause was American chattel slavery, was no moral crusade until November 1862, which was aimed at suppressing the rebellious organizations in the Union

Your false equivalence of comparing Negro oppression with the oppression of other despised populations in America is noted and rejected.

Each Confederate was a sovereign nation. I have posted several times that rebellion means to go against lawful authority, yet you have yet to cite any lawful authority that states that secession is an illegal or unlawful act. Hence you are posting fiction. It is you who keep introducing morality in a legal discussion, therefore you cannot reject moral equivelence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are acting liking a mindless chattering chipmunk.

No, the states were not sovereign. Once entering the Union, which was indivisible except by joint consent, the states were subject to federal law. In no way, shape, or form did federalism recognize the several states equal to the national government.

You may chatter all you want, but your argument always fails here as elsewhere.

 

[James Everett]

Your evidence is flawed, and your assertions cannot be substantiated satisfactorily.

Smile all you want at the F you have earned. You are simply witless.

You state that the truth and evidence that I have posted is flawed? Please show how any of it is flawed. You simply reject these truths that I have posted because you reject the truth. The truth is that you and your pseudo intellectual Yankee brothers have been defeated by the truth, therefore all that is left to you is to reject the truth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, you keep repeating your failed positions. You may call false true or light dark, yet that changes nothing.

You have been p'wnd in your own thread.

 

[James Everett]

You are acting liking a mindless chattering chipmunk.

No, the states were not sovereign. Once entering the Union, which was indivisible except by joint consent, the states were subject to federal law. In no way, shape, or form did federalism recognize the several states equal to the national government.

You may chatter all you want, but your argument always fails here as elsewhere.

Mr. Starkey,
You state.....
"
No, the states were not sovereign. Once entering the Union, which was indivisible except by joint consent, the states were subject to federal law. In no way, shape, or form did federalism recognize the several states equal to the national government.

You may chatter all you want, but your argument always fails here as elsewhere"
I will defeat to here once again using truth and factual evidence unlike you with your gratuitous assertions. Here are the words of one of YOUR own U.S. Presidents who stated it for YOU.....
James K Polk.....
"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States. Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. "
Mr. Starkey, what does the tenth amendment state???
Let us review.....
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Continuing James K Polk's words....
"The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States."
Those, Mr. JAKESTARKEY ARE THE FACTS!!!!

 

[James Everett]

James, you keep repeating your failed positions. You may call false true or light dark, yet that changes nothing.

You have been p'wnd in your own thread.

Again I am Smiling I am posting facts backed by truth and have cited every fact. You Sir, have made nothing more than pathetic gratuitous assertions such as the one here....
"James, you keep repeating your failed positions. You may call false true or light dark, yet that changes nothing."
I have asked you time and again to post your evidence which clearly you cannot.

 

[James Everett]

Awww, JakeStarkey don't go away, I was having such wonderful fun.

 

[Unkotare]

Texas v. White LII Legal Information Institute

 

[James Everett]

Texas v. White LII Legal Information Institute

Unkotare,
Texas v white was not a ase about secession, it was a case about ownership of bonds. The dicta has no bearing on the case of secession. Also even the opinion rendered was based on the perpetuity stated in the Articles of Confederation, S. a constitution that was no longer in effect, unless of course one considers Article III, and then the legity of the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution comes into question. The SCOTUS opinions are limited to cases concerning the U.S. CONstitution, not the Articles.

 

[Rogue 9]

Texas v. White LII Legal Information Institute

Unkotare,
Texas v white was not a ase about secession, it was a case about ownership of bonds. The dicta has no bearing on the case of secession. Also even the opinion rendered was based on the perpetuity stated in the Articles of Confederation, S. a constitution that was no longer in effect, unless of course one considers Article III, and then the legity of the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution comes into question. The SCOTUS opinions are limited to cases concerning the U.S. CONstitution, not the Articles.

Please. You base your entire argument on Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, which was not a case about secession; it was a case about land use rights for building a canal. Your grounds for rejection of Texas v. White also invalidates your own premise if applied evenly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James is simply loony; his material is not new or relevant; but he is fun to watch on his hamster wheel, spinning and spinning and spinning.

 

[Discombobulated]

Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.

The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.

I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully? War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power. If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.

Disbo,
That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.

I have absolutely no idea what Indians have to do with slavery and secession.

I have no idea what slavery has to do with the legality of secession either, yet you keep throwing it in the conversation, I can only assume you are attempting to divert from the legal issue, (which is the only relevant issue concerning secession), by introducing slavery in a feeble attempt at gaining the distorted view that Northerners hold some sort of moral superiority, therefore your governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian becomes relevant in the moral discussion that YOU introduced. Stick to the only relevant issue of the legality of secession, and you will not be required to defend your government concerning the Native American Indian. The author of the article which spawned this thread complained that his article was not about the legality of secession, however he introduced it when he falsely charged the Southerners of "insurrection". In doing so he entered the legal question concerning insurrection to which I posted the definition thereof, and gave proof that there was NO insurrection from the Southerners, yet clearly there was an insurrection by Lincoln and the Northerners, as they were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions' tenth amendment.

Again, you have failed completely to substantiate your premise. There exist no constitutionally legal basis for secession. End of story.

 

[James Everett]

Texas v. White LII Legal Information Institute

Unkotare,
Texas v white was not a ase about secession, it was a case about ownership of bonds. The dicta has no bearing on the case of secession. Also even the opinion rendered was based on the perpetuity stated in the Articles of Confederation, S. a constitution that was no longer in effect, unless of course one considers Article III, and then the legity of the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution comes into question. The SCOTUS opinions are limited to cases concerning the U.S. CONstitution, not the Articles.

Please. You base your entire argument on Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, which was not a case about secession; it was a case about land use rights for building a canal. Your grounds for rejection of Texas v. White also invalidates your own premise if applied evenly.

Rogue9.
You state....
"Please. You base your entire argument on Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, which was not a case about secession; it was a case about land use rights for building a canal. Your grounds for rejection of Texas v. White also invalidates your own premise if applied evenly."
Rogue9, we have already covered this once, and I apologize that I was unable to help you understand the first time, however, I will attempt again.
First, please read both cases so that you may grasp how Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, DOES PERTAIN TO STATES MUNICIPAL SOVEREIGNTY, AND THAT CASE WAS ENTIRELY ABOUT STATES MUNICIPAL SOVEREIGNTY AND THAT THE U.S. HELD NO SUCH MUNICIPAL SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN A DEFINED STATE. Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, YOUR SCOTUS DOES NOT CITE ANY OTHER SOURCE IN THAT CASE OTHER THAN THAT OF YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONSTITUTION IN THE RENDERING OF ITS OPINION.
The United States as a collective of States in union, cannot OWN OR HOLD MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION OVER ANY SOIL OUTSIDE THE 10 MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC, EXCEPT FOR TEMPORARY PURPOSES. YOUR SCOTUS cited.....Article I, section 8, clause 17 of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution in Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan.
Texas v White was a case concerning U.S. Bonds, NOT MUNICIPAL SOVEREIGNTY.
Further....
U.S. SCOTUS Justice Chase places a clumsy weld between the old Articles of Confederation and the United State Constitution. He notes that the Union "received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.''
He then attempts to tie the Articles to the Constitution but in so doing contradicts himself:
"when these Articles were found to be inadequate . . . the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.'"

Chase is implying that somehow a portion of the Articles survived the ratification of the Constitution. Yet this introduces another contradiction:
If the Articles were "perpetual" then how could they have been replaced by the Constitution?
Are the Articles still in force? Are they in full force, or did only two words -- "be perpetual" -- survive?

These questions take on a new dimension when we consider that Texas was never a party to the Articles; by the time Texas joined the Union the Articles had been replaced by the Constitution. If Texas was somehow bound by the 'perpetual' Articles of Confederation, could it then secede from the Union formed by the Constitution but remain bound to the other states by the Articles of Confederation?
Salmon P Chase was a U.S. Senator from Ohio and the 23rd Governor of Ohio; as U.S. Treasury Secretary under President Abraham Lincoln; and as the sixth Chief Justice of the United States, hardly one to even be considered as one who held a conflict of interest.
Rogue9, I hope this serves to educate you on this subject.
Thanks, for your post. You may also find more truth at CSAgov.org