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

[JakeStarkey]

James, you have been posting over and over the same stuff, have been competently rebutted by your superiors, and keep saying "uh uh."

You are not four but you are not stable.

 

[James Everett]

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.

rddean,
I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.

Texas is not a sovereign state. Where's their navy? Who's their ambassador to China?

Discombobulated,
Texas in under current occupation by the U.S. National government, an has been since 1865. FYI, I am NOT a Texan.
When the occupation has ended, then Texas resumes its place as a member State within the Confederate States of America, its ambassador would be the CSA ambassador unless Texas were to decide to secede from the CSA. However, the ultimate goal is simply to use the restored CSA Confederacy as a means for our Southern Confederate States to return to a wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation.
Thanks again for your post, I hope I have helped you gain knowledge.
James Everett....
CSAgov.org

I see. So in the final analysis you don't really believe in the principle of self determination. Your only interest is some fantasy about reconstituting the Confederacy.

Discombobulated,,
A county is not a Country. It first must become a State before it can as such seek self determination.
Thanks again for your post....
James Everett....
CSAgov.org

 

[James Everett]

James, you have been posting over and over the same stuff, have been competently rebutted by your superiors, and keep saying "uh uh."

You are not four but you are not stable.

JakeStarkey,
I have been defeating you all at every turn, I continue to post the facts, the truth, and back it by citing from whence it is derived, you and your pathetic Yankee Pseudo intellectual comrades post nothing but the same as you have stated herein....
"James, you have been posting over and over the same stuff, have been competently rebutted by your superiors, and keep saying "uh uh."
Where are the facts, where is the evidence, as you may note, your buddies are disappearing in their embarrassment.
"Superiors"????
NOW I'm REALLY SMILING
You nor your lil group of Yankee Pseudo
intellectuals ever rose to my challenge, therefore you lost this debate last Friday evening at 9pm..........
CSAgov.org

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most importantly, Lincoln was big govt liberal who sought to impose his despotic liberal ideas on the South. Conservatives believe in slow change, not civil war.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most importantly, Lincoln was big govt liberal who sought to impose his despotic liberal ideas on the South. Conservatives believe in slow change, not civil war, and in this case not civil war, Jim Crow and Hip Hop.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The states gave up sovereign power when they joined union.

Show me where in the Constitution they could secede.

Implied general welfare powers trumps anything else in the charter.

 

[James Everett]

The states gave up sovereign power when they joined union.

Show me where in the Constitution they could secede.

Implied general welfare powers trumps anything else in the charter.

JakeStarkey
You state that....
"The states gave up sovereign power when they joined union."
Need I post this again???.....
Alexander Hamilton's assurances to the State governments if they ratified the proposed 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution....
The Constitutional debates #32....
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.
James Madison states in the Constitutional debates #62,,,,
"In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty."
James K Polk, one of YOUR U.S. Presidents stated....
"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. 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."
The first clause of Article I, Section 8,reads,
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes,Duties,Imposts and Excises,to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
This clause,called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause,does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country;that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather,it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare.The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.
Mr. Starkey, I hope this helps you move beyond your indoctrinational fog.
Thanks for your post,
James Everett,,,,,
CSAgov.org

 

[James Everett]

The states gave up sovereign power when they joined union.

Show me where in the Constitution they could secede.

Implied general welfare powers trumps anything else in the charter.

JakeStarkey,
Are you in any way related to Charlie Sheen? Your silly claims of victory are reminiscent to his claim of....."WINNING".

 

[Unkotare]

The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny.

Unkotare,
You Yankee Pseudo intellectuals are so inept that it makes my job too easy.....

If your job is making an ass of yourself, you're really on top of things, wannabe.



"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union.""


"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."


"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."

 

[James Everett]

The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny.

Unkotare,
You Yankee Pseudo intellectuals are so inept that it makes my job too easy.....

If your job is making an ass of yourself, you're really on top of things, wannabe.



"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union.""


"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."


"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.
Unkotare,
Article I sec 2. Clearly states....
Section 2.
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."
YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution has NO Article within, NO amendment to, and NO LAW that states that Secession is an unlawful or illegal act. No law means....."There is nothing within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution in which YOUR SCOTUS can base an opinion.
YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution makes NO mention of "PERPETUAL" anything. Also if the State of Texas, or any other State that seceded from the union was as YOUR SCOTUS states...."The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union"
Then why were the Seceded States Governments and Constitutions replaced and these new governments required to meet certain conditions for "READMITTANCE" , and why were the Constitutions replaced. Constitutions are the blueprints that establish government".
Sir. Do you know the definition of DICTA? Look it up. The Texas V White opinion has nothing to do with Secession.
My job is to educate the ignorant. Yet Working with those such as you who suffer from total indoctrination is likely an impossible feat, yet you as a Yankee is irrelevant to our cause, YOU are simply a tool to be used in educating our own people. You are what we refer to as a useful idiot.
Thanks for your post.
James Everett.....
CSAgov.org

 

[James Everett]

The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny.

Unkotare,
You Yankee Pseudo intellectuals are so inept that it makes my job too easy.....

If your job is making an ass of yourself, you're really on top of things, wannabe.



"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union.""


"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."


"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."

Unkotare,
Article I sec 2. Clearly states....
Section 2.
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."
YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution has NO Article within, NO amendment to, and NO LAW that states that Secession is an unlawful or illegal act. No law means....."There is nothing within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution in which YOUR SCOTUS can base an opinion.
YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution makes NO mention of "PERPETUAL" anything. Also if the State of Texas, or any other State that seceded from the union was as YOUR SCOTUS states...."The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union"
Then why were the Seceded States Governments and Constitutions replaced and these new governments required to meet certain conditions for "READMITTANCE" , and why were the Constitutions replaced. Constitutions are the blueprints that establish government".
Sir. Do you know the definition of DICTA? Look it up. The Texas V White opinion has nothing to do with Secession.
My job is to educate the ignorant. Yet Working with those such as you who suffer from total indoctrination is likely an impossible feat, yet you as a Yankee is irrelevant to our cause, YOU are simply a tool to be used in educating our own people. You are what we refer to as a useful idiot.
Thanks for your post.
James Everett.....
CSAgov.org

 

[Unkotare]

"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."

Wannabe reb nitwit wants to argue with a Supreme Court ruling from over a century ago. I wonder what wannabe reb imagines his credentials to be as a constitutional scholar.

 

[James Everett]

"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."

Wannabe reb nitwit wants to argue with a Supreme Court ruling from over a century ago. I wonder what wannabe reb imagines his credentials to be as a constitutional scholar.

Wannabe Jack Sparrow,
I'm arguing with your entire national govt system, and the idiots who blindly follow it like sheep. Your SCOTUS is no more infallible than your Congress, or Your President Reagan, Lincoln, Clinton, Wilson Eisenhauer, or YOU intellectual wannabes.
Read your own CONstitution!!!
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law.
You must cite the law that states that a State cannot secede from the union. Your SCOTUS is bound by it, and cannot legally give an opinion based outside of it. To do so is a rebellious act against the lawful authority of YOUR U.S. CONstitution.
Did you find the definition of DICTA, or do I need to post it for you?

 

[Unkotare]

I wonder what the pathetic wannabe reb means by all this "your" stuff. What could wannabe reb's nationality be?

 

[Discombobulated]

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.

rddean,
I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.

Texas is not a sovereign state. Where's their navy? Who's their ambassador to China?

Discombobulated,
Texas in under current occupation by the U.S. National government, an has been since 1865. FYI, I am NOT a Texan.
When the occupation has ended, then Texas resumes its place as a member State within the Confederate States of America, its ambassador would be the CSA ambassador unless Texas were to decide to secede from the CSA. However, the ultimate goal is simply to use the restored CSA Confederacy as a means for our Southern Confederate States to return to a wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation.
Thanks again for your post, I hope I have helped you gain knowledge.
James Everett....
CSAgov.org

I see. So in the final analysis you don't really believe in the principle of self determination. Your only interest is some fantasy about reconstituting the Confederacy.

Discombobulated,,
A county is not a Country. It first must become a State before it can as such seek self determination.
Thanks again for your post....
James Everett....
CSAgov.org

Yes I understand that you favor totalitarian dictatorship over self determination.

 

[James Everett]

Its YOUR government, because YOU give YOUR voluntary CONSENT to it.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Do you voluntarily grant your consent to it?
If yes, then its YOUR government.

rddean,
I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.

Texas is not a sovereign state. Where's their navy? Who's their ambassador to China?

Discombobulated,
Texas in under current occupation by the U.S. National government, an has been since 1865. FYI, I am NOT a Texan.
When the occupation has ended, then Texas resumes its place as a member State within the Confederate States of America, its ambassador would be the CSA ambassador unless Texas were to decide to secede from the CSA. However, the ultimate goal is simply to use the restored CSA Confederacy as a means for our Southern Confederate States to return to a wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation.
Thanks again for your post, I hope I have helped you gain knowledge.
James Everett....
CSAgov.org

I see. So in the final analysis you don't really believe in the principle of self determination. Your only interest is some fantasy about reconstituting the Confederacy.

Discombobulated,,
A county is not a Country. It first must become a State before it can as such seek self determination.
Thanks again for your post....
James Everett....
CSAgov.org

Yes I understand that you favor totalitarian dictatorship over self determination.

Discombobulated,
You state...
"I understand that you favor totalitarian dictatorship over self determination"
Yet it is you who support, and defend the national government system, which is YOUR U.S. Government.
Lets see what James Madison had to say about YOUR National government system during the 1787 CONstitutional debates #39....
"The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things"
"The proposed Constitution, therefore is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both."
Lincoln and the Northern States ushered in the destruction of the Federal portion of YOUR U.S. Government.
Sadly you and 98% of the sheeeepole, do not understand the system that was established, and live in an illusion, accepting a fiction.
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."

 

[Discombobulated]

The government of the Confederacy was corrupt, ineffectual, and oppressive, democracy existed in name only. Virginia was the one state that allowed it's citizens to determine their own fate by holding county wide referendums on the question of secession. The result was West Virginia.

 

[Discombobulated]

Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus before President Lincoln.

 

[Rogue 9]

Also instituted the draft first and was far more aggressive about it, not to mention used it as a punitive measure aimed at Unionists.

Though I gather from Mr. Everett's posts that what he really wants is a return to the Articles of Confederation and is simply using the failed Confederate secession as grounds to claim territory to do it in. The Confederate Constitution, after all, gave significantly more power to the national government in several areas.

 

[Discombobulated]

Also instituted the draft first and was far more aggressive about it, not to mention used it as a punitive measure aimed at Unionists.

Though I gather from Mr. Everett's posts that what he really wants is a return to the Articles of Confederation and is simply using the failed Confederate secession as grounds to claim territory to do it in. The Confederate Constitution, after all, gave significantly more power to the national government in several areas.

In the Confederate Presidential election of 1861 there were about 49,000 votes cast. I wonder what happened to the rest of the eligible voters?