Today's American History lesson.

[Slash]

89 years... from 1776 to 1865. Do the maths!

Excuses for why previous presidents didn't support abolition is pointless and irrelevant. The fact is, they didn't and neither did congress... Neither did the courts! States were free to abolish slavery and the CSA didn't have any problem with that. Indeed, the principle of secession was so that states had every right to make this determination on their own.

Ironically, the Constitution of the Confederacy granted voting rights to free blacks and Native Americans... 100 years before the US government passed the Civil Rights Act.

There we go. States rights to expand slavery. See they called them out. States rights to have runaway slaves returned.


And actually the Constitution of the Confederacy did not grant voting rights to free blacks. It didn't recognize them as human citizens. That's why "free blacks" in the south could just be taken and forced back into slavery. That's why not one black person voted in the Confederacy. South Carolina's delegates when it met talked about their outrage that New England states allowed free blacks to vote. They most definitely did not EVER give blacks the right to vote in the South.

 

[Slash]

But that is incorrect on TWO fronts. First, SCOTUS did NOT rule secession was "illegal." It simply ruled it wasn't constitutionally supported. There are LOTS of things the Constitution doesn't support that aren't illegal. Secondly, and more importantly, you cannot apply a ruling from 1869 to 1861 actions. We cannot retroactively apply constitutionality to history. If SCOTUS rules tomorrow that aborting a human fetus is unconstitutional, that doesn't mean it was unconstitutional today.

If someone were trying to argue that slavery is Constitutional today, then you can cite the 13th Amendment and prove them incorrect. But you cannot apply the 13th Amendment to a time in history before it existed. In 1860, it was a Constitutional right to own slaves as property. Like it or not, that was the law... not according to the CSA but according to the highest US court in the land.

They said "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.... Considered therefore 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 (secession), were absolutely null. AKA illegal to secede.


So please, stop lying. It doesn't help your cause when you think you can pull it off and get caught up in your own lies to support your argument.



And yes. You can apply that ruling. That's how courts work. They don't judge until AFTER the event occurs. They are not pre-cogs like in Minority Report. That's science Fiction if you want it the other way around.

Lets say you have a slave in your house using your example there. You had them there in 2011. Charges are brought up in 2017. The Courts rule in 2018 that you did in fact break the law. What you did TODAY was illegal even though they didn't rule on it till many years later. Just because you haven't had your case heard yet doesn't mean what you did is legal. That's the purpose of the court to decide. That's what the Supreme Court did.

Like it or not, we don't have judges judge hypotheticals. They only judge things AFTER they happened.

The supreme court said that based on the law written before the secession, that secession was illegal..

You may want to disagree with that. You may want to burn the Constitution and try to reverse that. Whatever. Doesn't matter. As long as the Constitution is the law of the land in the USA that secession was illegal.

 

[Boss]

There we go. States rights to expand slavery. See they called them out. States rights to have runaway slaves returned.


And actually the Constitution of the Confederacy did not grant voting rights to free blacks. It didn't recognize them as human citizens. That's why "free blacks" in the south could just be taken and forced back into slavery. That's why not one black person voted in the Confederacy. South Carolina's delegates when it met talked about their outrage that New England states allowed free blacks to vote. They most definitely did not EVER give blacks the right to vote in the South.

You are factually wrong. The only persons prohibited from voting in the CSA were "foreign born" persons and slaves.

 

[Slash]

\

You are factually wrong. The only persons prohibited from voting in the CSA were "foreign born" persons and slaves.

Interesting. I know that free blacks were often taken and used as slaves because the ruling was they weren't considered citizens or something. I remember reading how military groups would just take them and make them support slaves under that. Was it because they knew no state would ever let a black person vote? I mean it isn't like the Confederacy every allowed it. There's no evidence ever of that happening that I can find.

 

[Boss]

They said "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.

But they said this in 1869, not in 1861!

You are attempting to apply a ruling from the future to the past... as if we could jump into a time machine and go from 1861 to 1869 to discover something was unconstitutional, then transport back to 1861 and apply that ruling!

Clearly, today, it's unconstitutional to own a slave. That does not mean it was unconstitutional in 1861.

 

[Slash]

But they said this in 1869, not in 1861!

You are attempting to apply a ruling from the future to the past... as if we could jump into a time machine and go from 1861 to 1869 to discover something was unconstitutional, then transport back to 1861 and apply that ruling!

Clearly, today, it's unconstitutional to own a slave. That does not mean it was unconstitutional in 1861.

100% of all court rulings are on things that occurred in the past. Not one court ruling has ever been on a case that has not yet happened. What is your point? They heard the case on the legality of that secession and ruled it illegal.


They rules that it was illegal in 1861 based on laws written in the late 1700's.

 

[Boss]

\

You are factually wrong. The only persons prohibited from voting in the CSA were "foreign born" persons and slaves.

Interesting. I know that free blacks were often taken and used as slaves because the ruling was they weren't considered citizens or something. I remember reading how military groups would just take them and make them support slaves under that. Was it because they knew no state would ever let a black person vote? I mean it isn't like the Confederacy every allowed it. There's no evidence ever of that happening that I can find.

I'm not disputing there were many prejudices against non-whites in 1860s America. I simply stated the CSA Constitution allowed free blacks to vote along with Native Americans. As long as you weren't "foreign born" or a slave, you had the right to vote. Now, individual states my have had all kinds of prerequisites for voting but that doesn't change what I stated.

 

[Slash]

I'm not disputing there were many prejudices against non-whites in 1860s America. I simply stated the CSA Constitution allowed free blacks to vote along with Native Americans. As long as you weren't "foreign born" or a slave, you had the right to vote. Now, individual states my have had all kinds of prerequisites for voting but that doesn't change what I stated.

Did it allow them to? Because if it did, according to the CSA, that meant states couldn't change that. Or did it not mention them as NOT having the right to vote?

 

[rightwinger]

Regardless of individual reasons for taking up arms, what was the officially stated cause for secession? I can quote the declarations if you'd like.

I've addressed this argument at least 100 times on this forum. I think I addressed it earlier in this thread. The state official declarations of secession prominently mention slavery because slavery was the issue. It wasn't the principle. That is VERY important. We have to remember that slavery had not been outlawed, it wasn't illegal to own slaves, and the US's own Supreme Court had repeatedly defended the right to own slaves as property. So you are literally arguing the South declared secession over something that did not yet exist.

Yes, slavery was the prominent issue at hand, but it was NOT the principle on which secession resided. That was Federalism! Whether the US Federal government had authority under the Constitution to take the property (or in this case, render it worthless) of state citizens. MANY people (then and now) believe such issues are a STATE matter and the Constitution clearly states it as such.

Congress had 89 years and countless opportunities to condemn slavery and outlaw it. The SCOTUS also had ample opportunities to condemn slavery and render it unconstitutional. These things did not happen in America. That's NOT the fault of the South or Southerners. Are they complicit? Do they share a part of the burden? Of course! But to attempt to revise history so as to lay the entire blame at their feet is deplorable and dishonest. Furthermore, I believe it is done in order to scapegoat the South and absolve the North from any and all culpability. This is bigotry at it's finest.

The "reason" was not slavery! The "reason" for secession was in order to form a new nation. A Confederation of states who determined their own parameters and laws as opposed to a Union of states with a central Federal authority ruling over them. Slavery was the issue of the time and NOT the principle.

More importantly-- Me, speaking this TRUTH is not an endorsement of slavery or even the idea of Confederacy. It's simply an acknowledgment of the truth, whether we like to hear it or not. We get nowhere by rejecting the truth and adopting an idiotic notion that doesn't comport with reality. You cannot absolve the North of the guilt for upholding slavery for 89 years by scapegoating the South. You cannot turn the Union into a bunch of Civil Rights Warriors who were fighting for equality against a racist South. That's a false picture of reality and I can't allow that to go unchallenged.

A new nation dedicated to the preservation of slavery

Not worthy of being honored

 

[Boss]

But they said this in 1869, not in 1861!

You are attempting to apply a ruling from the future to the past... as if we could jump into a time machine and go from 1861 to 1869 to discover something was unconstitutional, then transport back to 1861 and apply that ruling!

Clearly, today, it's unconstitutional to own a slave. That does not mean it was unconstitutional in 1861.

100% of all court rulings are on things that occurred in the past. Not one court ruling has ever been on a case that has not yet happened. What is your point? They heard the case on the legality of that secession and ruled it illegal.


They rules that it was illegal in 1861 based on laws written in the late 1700's.

You are arguing it was unconstitutional (and illegal) in 1861 based on a ruling made in 1869. I am counter-arguing that 1) it was not deemed unconstitutional or illegal in 1869 and 2) an 1869 ruling cannot apply to an action taken in 1861.

White v. Texas rendered an action taken in 1861 invalid, not unconstitutional or illegal. It was a ruling pertaining to the sale of bonds... nothing to do with secession. The finding of the court was not to determine constitutionality of secession but rather to adjudicate the sale of the bonds and whether that action was legitimately supported by the Constitution. it ruled it was not.

But the POINT is... the people who took the action in 1861 did not know it would be invalidated in 1869. To conclude their action was "illegal" at the time of the act is an attempt to retroactively apply the court ruling.

 

[Soupnazi630]

How was it legal? No provision in the constitution allows for it. When the states agreed to ratify the constitution the agreed to abide by the terms of the constitution.

Wrong. The CSA killed over 300,000 Union soldiers because their land was invaded by a Tyrant warmonger who got his in the end also. Sic Semper Tyrannis

Yes he did invade, after the Confederacy spent about a day bombing a US fort. I would hope that if North Korea nuked Guam, we would fight back as well.

Wrong. Secession was legal. Fort Sumter was therefore the

Wrong. The CSA killed over 300,000 Union soldiers because their land was invaded by a Tyrant warmonger who got his in the end also. Sic Semper Tyrannis

Yes he did invade, after the Confederacy spent about a day bombing a US fort. I would hope that if North Korea nuked Guam, we would fight back as well.

Bad answer which does not address the question
Wrong. Secession was legal. Fort Sumter was therefore the property of the State of SC.

How was it legal? No provision in the constitution allows for it. When the states agreed to ratify the constitution the agreed to abide by the terms of the constitution.

Very good question.
10th 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."[/QUOTE]

 

[Boss]

I'm not disputing there were many prejudices against non-whites in 1860s America. I simply stated the CSA Constitution allowed free blacks to vote along with Native Americans. As long as you weren't "foreign born" or a slave, you had the right to vote. Now, individual states my have had all kinds of prerequisites for voting but that doesn't change what I stated.

Did it allow them to? Because if it did, according to the CSA, that meant states couldn't change that. Or did it not mention them as NOT having the right to vote?

Now you are trying to argue that the CSA established a non-Federalist government, ruled by central authority, which is exactly why the CSA was formed in the first place! It was a complete repudiation of that concept.

Whether a future CSA Supreme Court would've ruled a state's voting rights violated the CSA Constitution is not an argument we can evaluate because that never transpired.

 

[Slash]

Very good question.
10th 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."

[/QUOTE]

And the supreme court ruled that the constitution did say that secession was illegal. Therefor the 10th amendment did not pertain to that case.

 

[Slash]

You are arguing it was unconstitutional (and illegal) in 1861 based on a ruling made in 1869. I am counter-arguing that 1) it was not deemed unconstitutional or illegal in 1869 and 2) an 1869 ruling cannot apply to an action taken in 1861.

Absolutely an 1869 ruling could apply to an action taken 8 years earlier. Rulings happen on legality of actions of the past ALL THE TIME. In fact 100% of rulings are on actions taken in the past being legal or not. Every single court ruling ever made in the US was based on determining if an act in the past was legal or not.

White v. Texas rendered an action taken in 1861 invalid, not unconstitutional or illegal. It was a ruling pertaining to the sale of bonds... nothing to do with secession. The finding of the court was not to determine constitutionality of secession but rather to adjudicate the sale of the bonds and whether that action was legitimately supported by the Constitution. it ruled it was not.

Yes, it rendered it unconstitutional.
"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." The CONSTITUTION is what made the choice to secede null.


That's exactly what it said. The ruling was based right out of the Constitution, even quoting the Constitution as what made it illegal. And while the case was about Bonds, the legality of that sale was based on the legality of secession, which the supreme court said based on the US Constitution was not legal.

But the POINT is... the people who took the action in 1861 did not know it would be invalidated in 1869. To conclude their action was "illegal" at the time of the act is an attempt to retroactively apply the court ruling.

That's the POINT in every single case. No idea if what OJ Simpson did was legal or not UNTIL it is ruled on. Based on the laws in place the judge or jury makes their ruling. In this case the ruling was "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation." Therefore leaving that relationship went against the Constitution, aka it was illegal. That was the findings of the court. That's how 100% of court cases in the US come about to decide legality.

 

[Slash]

Now you are trying to argue that the CSA established a non-Federalist government, ruled by central authority, which is exactly why the CSA was formed in the first place! It was a complete repudiation of that concept.

Whether a future CSA Supreme Court would've ruled a state's voting rights violated the CSA Constitution is not an argument we can evaluate because that never transpired.

No I just asked you a question. As the Confederate Constitution said that it should be the supreme law of the land, if it said that blacks could vote, then state laws (which there were state laws in place saying blacks could not) would be null.

Because what I can find it saying is "but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal."

So for it to allow free blacks and indians the right to vote, the country had to allow free blacks and indians the right to become citizens right? Otherwise their voting rights were the same as slaves correct?

 

[Boss]

That's the POINT in every single case. No idea if what OJ Simpson did was legal or not UNTIL it is ruled on. Based on the laws in place the judge or jury makes their ruling. In this case the ruling was "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation." Therefore leaving that relationship went against the Constitution, aka it was illegal. That was the findings of the court. That's how 100% of court cases in the US come about to decide legality.

No. The SCOTUS ruling does not retroactively apply to history and make something illegal. If it did, it would be prosecutable and actionable in a court of law. It rules from that point (or case) forward, something is illegal or unconstitutional because it establishes judicial precedent.

You did not have a Constitutional right to abortion before Roe v. Wade. That was the challenge in court and the court ruled you have an expected right of privacy, therefore, a constitutional right to abortion. From that point forward, you have a constitutionally-protected right... it doesn't retroactively apply to actions taken BEFORE the ruling. IF it did, then everyone who was ever punished for performing or getting an illegal abortion prior to Roe v. Wade could've sued for damages. Obviously, this would make virtually ANY application of law impossible because it's not known if the law might be invalidated in the future.

You simply can't argue that it's NOT unconstitutional to sell your wife into prostitution because in 2025, the SCOTUS will rule this to be Constitutional! That is completely asinine. Laws apply today as the laws are written, not by how the court may or may not rule in the future!

In Texas v. White, it DID NOT rule secession was illegal or unconstitutional and I challenge you to present evidence to the contrary... not your INTERPRETATIONS of the ruling. They DID NOT rule that leaving the relationship "went against" the Constitution. They ruled it wasn't supported by the Constitution. There is a HUMONGOUS difference!

 

[Boss]

Now you are trying to argue that the CSA established a non-Federalist government, ruled by central authority, which is exactly why the CSA was formed in the first place! It was a complete repudiation of that concept.

Whether a future CSA Supreme Court would've ruled a state's voting rights violated the CSA Constitution is not an argument we can evaluate because that never transpired.

No I just asked you a question. As the Confederate Constitution said that it should be the supreme law of the land, if it said that blacks could vote, then state laws (which there were state laws in place saying blacks could not) would be null.

Because what I can find it saying is "but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal."

So for it to allow free blacks and indians the right to vote, the country had to allow free blacks and indians the right to become citizens right? Otherwise their voting rights were the same as slaves correct?

Again, in the Confederate system, this determination was left to the states and people. The "country" allowed it.

 

[Slash]

No. The SCOTUS ruling does not retroactively apply to history and make something illegal. If it did, it would be prosecutable and actionable in a court of law. It rules from that point (or case) forward, something is illegal or unconstitutional because it establishes judicial precedent.

They never have. The find fact. They determined that secession was illegal.

You did not have a Constitutional right to abortion before Roe v. Wade. That was the challenge in court and the court ruled you have an expected right of privacy, therefore, a constitutional right to abortion. From that point forward, you have a constitutionally-protected right... it doesn't retroactively apply to actions taken BEFORE the ruling. IF it did, then everyone who was ever punished for performing or getting an illegal abortion prior to Roe v. Wade could've sued for damages. Obviously, this would make virtually ANY application of law impossible because it's not known if the law might be invalidated in the future.

Exactly and when the SC ruled on Roe vs. Wade, that abortion that happened years earlier was deemed legal. If they ruled the other way it would have been deemed illegal.

Same here when they ruled that the secession of 1861 was illegal, it was illegal.

You simply can't argue that it's NOT unconstitutional to sell your wife into prostitution because in 2025, the SCOTUS will rule this to be Constitutional! That is completely asinine. Laws apply today as the laws are written, not by how the court may or may not rule in the future!

Nobody is saying that. In 1791 the constitution was ratified. IN 1861 secession happened. In 1869 the legality of that secession was deemed illegal under the Constitution. That's all there is too it. You may think you've gotten away with something, but if the court determines you did break the law, you broke the law.


In Texas v. White, it DID NOT rule secession was illegal or unconstitutional and I challenge you to present evidence to the contrary... not your INTERPRETATIONS of the ruling. They DID NOT rule that leaving the relationship "went against" the Constitution. They ruled it wasn't supported by the Constitution. There is a HUMONGOUS difference!

Yes they did the said the Union was PERPETUAL
that it was Indissoluble
that it was FINAL
that the ordinance of Secession was NULL
that They were utterly without operation in law.
That The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired.
that the State did not cease to be a State nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union


They said it literally eight different ways.


This is basic government 101 here. The Constitution is the law of the land and the Supreme court has the power to decide write and wrong in these matters based on the law. The Supreme court heard a case which involved the legality of THAT SPECIFIC SECESSION and determined based on the laws at the time it was illegal.

It's as clear of a legal case as any ever.

 

[Boss]

They never have. The find fact. They determined that secession was illegal.

No, they certainly did not and you've not supported that view in spite of my challenge to do so.

Same here when they ruled that the secession of 1861 was illegal, it was illegal.

Again... because your head is apparently made of granite... The court cannot rule something illegal that was perfectly legal at the time. That would be to RETROACTIVELY change history and courts do not hold such authority, neither do you.

IN 1861 secession happened. In 1869 the legality of that secession was deemed illegal under the Constitution. That's all there is too it.

Well that's what you keep baselessly claiming but it's just not true. They cannot retroactively rule something illegal that wasn't illegal. Legality requires LAW to be passed and you already admitted no law was passed. The court doesn't pass laws.

Yes they did the said the Union was PERPETUAL
that it was Indissoluble
that it was FINAL

In an 1869 ruling AFTER the Civil War! Before the Civil War, this finding did not exist, therefore, you cannot claim it applied. Now... if SCOTUS had ruled in 1859 that states cannot secede, you could argue that secession was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the SCOTUS ruling in 1869 did not rule secession unconstitutional or illegal. You have not proven that argument... you keep presenting it as if it's valid and true, but you cannot support it with any evidence other than your wrongheaded interpretation in a case regarding the validity of bond sales.

This is basic government 101 here.

No, this is basic grandstanding idiocy on full display.

 

[rightwinger]

Can anyone point out what was so great about the Confederacy ?