Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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 UnionJAKESTARKEY, You state....Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.
The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.
"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?
Jake starkly,JakeStarkey,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.
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.
JakeStarkey, you write....."All of James' points have been noted and easily refuted."All of James' points have been noted and easily refuted.
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.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.
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.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 UnionJAKESTARKEY, You state....Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.
The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.
"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?
Your false equivalence of comparing Negro oppression with the oppression of other despised populations in America is noted and rejected.
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.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.
Mr. Starkey,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.
Again I am SmilingJames, 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.
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....
Unkotare,
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.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.
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.Disbo,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.
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.
Rogue9.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.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.
