Were the Confederates traitors

[rightwinger]

Slavery was Constitutionally allowed and protected.

No problem if others consider it wrong. As long as you recognize the South was not traitor for having it. The North was traitor in not allowing the South its protections under the Constitution.

We seceded because of that wrong.

"It was not the passage of the personal liberty laws, it was not the circulation of incendiary documents, it was not the raid of John Brown, it was not the operation of unjust and unequal tariff laws, nor all combined, that constituted the intolerable grievance, but it was the systematic and persistent struggle to deprive the Southern states of equality in the Union--generally to discriminate in legislation against the interests of their people; culminating in their exclusion from the territories, the common property of the states, as well as by the infraction of their compact to promote domestic tranquility. (Rise And Fall Of The Confederate Government, Vol. 1, Jefferson Davis, Da Capo Press, 1990, p. 70)

Quantrill

Doesn’t justify forming a Confederacy to protect slavery

Wrong then, wrong now

 

[Mushroom]

I asked about Slavemaster in Chief Lincoln.

I could not care less what you asked about. You did not ask me that, it had not a damned thing about anything I said.

You are just freaking jumping in and asking random people to talk to you. Rather pathetic, if you ask me.

Don't think you have any kind of right to demand others to address your comments. That is the behavior of a narcissist, and I have no interest in any conversations with a narcissist.

 

[Mushroom]

NO country in this world EVER recognized the so-called "confederacy." It did not exist. Just a bunch of scumbag traitors killing honorable Americans.

This is actually a half-truth.

No nations gave the CSA diplomatic status and officially recognized them, that is true.

However, the UK, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, Brazil, and several others recognized them a a belligerent nation. Which gave them almost all other rights, including trade and use of their ports.

Which is not say unlike the status of Taiwan in the current era.

 

[Mushroom]

The Articles of Confederation were thrown out the window. Any change, any amendment to the Articles had to be by unanomous consent. And in Philedlphia in 1787 they couldn't get it. So they threw out the Ariticles and made a new Constitution.

No, they were not. Provide any reference that states that they were ever revoked.

And yes, I am well aware of the problems with the Articles. But just like it was drafted in a Constitutional Convention, they simply convened another Constitutional Convention. You seem to fail to grasp the very important difference between a document being revoked and one being superseded.

If you can not comprehend the difference and refuse to recognize that they are not the same, then there is no point in saying anything else. Try looking up the actual definitions that are important here, revoke and supersede.

They were never "thrown out the window", they were never revoked, or dissolved, or overthrown. They were superseded by another document.

 

[meaner gene]

No, they were not. Provide any reference that states that they were ever revoked.

And yes, I am well aware of the problems with the Articles. But just like it was drafted in a Constitutional Convention, they simply convened another Constitutional Convention. You seem to fail to grasp the very important difference between a document being revoked and one being superseded.

If you can not comprehend the difference and refuse to recognize that they are not the same, then there is no point in saying anything else. Try looking up the actual definitions that are important here, revoke and supersede.

They were never "thrown out the window", they were never revoked, or dissolved, or overthrown. They were superseded by another document.

A little history to make you aware of what happened

Articles of Confederation (1777)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Articles of Confederation; 3/1/1781; Miscellaneous Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774 - 1789; Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, Record Group 360; National Archives Building, Washington, DC. View All...

www.archives.gov

The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777.

This "first constitution of the United States" established a "league of friendship" for the 13 sovereign and independent states. Each state retained "every Power...which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States.

Ratification by all 13 states was necessary to set the Confederation into motion.
When Maryland ratified it on March 1, 1781, the Congress of the Confederation came into being.

Now for the change

US Constitution

We the People of the United States,.....
...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Remember, the "United States of America" is a new entity, where the Confederation of States was merely a framework for mutual cooperation between independent states.

And an important difference between those two constitutions, which makes only one of them valid at a time.

The articles of confederation were of the 13 colonies, plus canada.

While the US Constitution was only of the 13 colonies.

If the articles of confederation were still binding, the US would be bound with Canada.

 

[Quantrill]

No, now.

As I asked, where in 1861?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Doesn’t justify forming a Confederacy to protect slavery

Wrong then, wrong now

Slavery was already protected. But the North would not allow the South's protection under the Constitution.

The wrong then was done by the North as I showed.

If the South is not allowed the protections of the Constitution when that Constitution is what makes the Union, it is time to leave.

You say it is not justified. Why? You would rather the South remain to be treated wrongfully. Typical yankee bs.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

No, they were not. Provide any reference that states that they were ever revoked.

And yes, I am well aware of the problems with the Articles. But just like it was drafted in a Constitutional Convention, they simply convened another Constitutional Convention. You seem to fail to grasp the very important difference between a document being revoked and one being superseded.

If you can not comprehend the difference and refuse to recognize that they are not the same, then there is no point in saying anything else. Try looking up the actual definitions that are important here, revoke and supersede.

They were never "thrown out the window", they were never revoked, or dissolved, or overthrown. They were superseded by another document.

The Articles of Confederation could not be changed except by unanimous consent. In Philadelphia 1787 they could not get unanimous consent. Thus they were tossed.

Nothing done in 1787 was by unanimous consent.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

A state can't leave.

The Constitution says they can.

Quantrill

 

[there4eyeM]

Perpetual, more perfect Union. One needs to understand English, not try to re-invent meanings.

 

[rightwinger]

Slavery was already protected. But the North would not allow the South's protection under the Constitution.

The wrong then was done by the North as I showed.

If the South is not allowed the protections of the Constitution when that Constitution is what makes the Union, it is time to leave.

You say it is not justified. Why? You would rather the South remain to be treated wrongfully. Typical yankee bs.

Quantrill

The South panicked upon the election of Lincoln

They feared Lincoln would take away their slaves and freed slaves would run around raping white women

If slavery had run its course, it would have ended in 20-30 years and slave owners would have been compensated. Instead, the south got its butt kicked in the resulting war and slaves were freed in four years.

 

[hadit]

And they lost. Because they were weak losers. Who fought a weak losing cause.

Now where's the Epstein files?

If they were weak, it wouldn't have taken 5 years and hundreds of thousands of deaths to defeat them. Remember that there were no arial bombing campaigns at the time. Soldiers faced off and shot each other at fairly close range.

 

[Quantrill]

The South panicked upon the election of Lincoln

They feared Lincoln would take away their slaves and freed slaves would run around raping white women

If slavery had run its course, it would have ended in 20-30 years and slave owners would have been compensated. Instead, the south got its butt kicked in the resulting war and slaves were freed in four years.

The South was always in a state of stress due to the constant attacks by the North and it's abolitionist thinking. Especially since the raid of John Brown upon Virginia and his effort to create a slave rebellion where blacks would rise up and murder the Southern whites.

And did the North rise up and condemn John Brown? Some did. But mostly in the North John Brown was praised, and even deified. His gallows were likened to the Cross of Christ. Songs were sung about him. And why shouldn't they, after all, they sent him.

Lincoln had already stated that a 'house divided cannot stand'. And he had stated that the country will be either all slave or all free. And with his appointment of Seward as Secretary of State, who was a radical abolitionist, and who had already spoke of the 'irresistable conflict' to come between North and South over slavery, the South knew no compromise would stop the North's continuing efforts to destroy slavery completely.

If slavery had run it's course it certainly would have died out naturally. But you're dreaming if you think the North would have compensated the South for it's loss. They could have offered that many times and didn't. Those yankees if anything are greedy penny pinchers. Strange isn't it, when so many of those yankees, instead of freeing their slaves at their expense, sold them South.

Well, of those 800,000 deaths in that war, at least half were yankees. If not more.

Quantrill

 

[rightwinger]

If they were weak, it wouldn't have taken 5 years and hundreds of thousands of deaths to defeat them. Remember that there were no arial bombing campaigns at the time. Soldiers faced off and shot each other at fairly close range.

Confederates ignored the evidence of the United States military and manufacturing superiority.

They never had a chance

 

[rightwinger]

And did the North rise up and condemn John Brown? Some did. But mostly in the North John Brown was praised, and even deified. His gallows were likened to the Cross of Christ. Songs were sung about him. And why shouldn't they, after all, they sent him.

John Browns revolt was stopped and Brown was executed by United States Troops led by Robert E Lee

 

[Quantrill]

Perpetual, more perfect Union. One needs to understand English, not try to re-invent meanings.

The perpetual union was under the Articles of Confedeation. The framers of our 1787 Constitution knew better and left 'perpetual' out of it.

Quantrill

 

[hadit]

Confederates ignored the evidence of the United States military and manufacturing superiority.

They never had a chance

No, but it took 5 years and hundreds of thousands of deaths to force surrender. Would you have described the Axis powers as weak and ineffective in WWII? They never had a chance against American military and manufacturing superiority either.

 

[Quantrill]

John Browns revolt was stopped and Brown was executed by United States Troops led by Robert E Lee

John Brown was executed by the State of Virginia, not the Federal government as he should have been. Why would the Fed. govt. want to execute him when he was their man.

Quantrill

 

[there4eyeM]

The perpetual union was under the Articles of Confedeation. The framers of our 1787 Constitution knew better and left 'perpetual' out of it.

Quantrill

Perpetual, more perfect Union. One needs to understand English, not try to re-invent meanings.

 

[Quantrill]

Perpetual, more perfect Union. One needs to understand English, not try to re-invent meanings.

You introduced 'perpetual', not me. The Union hasn't been perpetual since 1787. Which proves it never was, or will be.

Quantrill