Nations don't lose their sovereignty simply by joining Unions; only the truly ignorant think so, and only conquerors claim it.
Hitler was wrong: federalism is not a "mask" for national sovereignty over federated states, but on the contrary each state retains its sovereignty unless and until it expressly, directly and unambiguously RELINQUISHES it via manifestation of sovereign intent.
Every state is a sovereign nation by international law.
The fed did a good job of suppressing this fact since the Jackson Administration, but the simple fact is that the American union was a confederation in 1781 and a republic in 1788, but NEVER a sovereign nation-- EVER.
Charlatans have twisted the facts since before Jackson, but it's a conqueror's dream to say that a nation can surrender sovereignty by indirect, ambiguous or non-express manifestation-- and then "settle it on the battlefield."
@THAT1ANONYMOUSDUDE "Come down to it, the ability to secede from from the union is a possibility that exists."
Come down to it, there's a possibility that all the Muslims in the world will decide you're Jesus some day - but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
@civilwarcow LOL! I've openly said slavery was one of the major issues. You are the one who cannot accept that it wasn't all about that. The fact that Rhett's address was only OVERWHELMINGLY about economics and did briefly mention slavery...hey, mea maxima culpa. Now, since all you can do is scream "liar!" whenever anybody disagrees with you, I do not see how this is fruitful or productive. Have a nice day.
@civilwarcow umm....huh? I wasn't involved in that other thread. Like I said, you cannot grasp the idea that others GASP!!! might see things differently. You therefore think anybody who disagrees with you "must" see it the same way you do and just be lying for having the temerity to put forth an opinion which differs from yours. Pathetic. Grow up.
@civilwarcow By the way, I saw your long exchange on the Morril Tariff thread a while back. I have no interest in going back and forth with you with each of us throwing quotes supporting our position for weeks and weeks....ending in you calling me "dishonest" for not agreeing with you and leaving in a sulk.
@civilwarcow "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation North American Review (Boston October 1862)
@civilwarcow You've never seen one? I just provided you with Rhett's address. The Georgia Declaration of causes goes into it at length. There are tons of other quotes from Southern political leaders saying the same thing-ie that the South was being economically exploited and that this was the primary motivation of the Northern states. If you haven't seen one I can only conclude you haven't looked or just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your interpretation.
@civilwarcow You don't dismiss all the sources which disagree with your point of view? ROFL! I've never claimed that slavery AND economics AND philosophical differences were not all linked together. They were. You are just making a dishonest straw man argument here.
@civilwarcow LOL! OK I admit its only well over 90% about economics. He does briefly mention slavery. Yet you just cannot accept that anything other than slavery could possibly have been primary so you dishonestly cherrypick to give a false impression. As for Rhett...it doesn't matter what YOU think about him. What matters is what he actually said and what people at the time were concerned with. Obviously economic issues were very important-as in almost all wars in history.
@civilwarcow I have merely provided a brief quotation from his speech the vast bulk of which is about economics. You try to mislead by cherrypicking a brief passage about slavery so as to give that subject an undue weight. I have shared plenty of facts and figures from official records and sources. What I just provided you with is a quote from a reliable source in Rhett's own words.
@civilwarcow I've never denied that slavery was one of the causes. Rhett's speech is overwhelmingly about economics as anybody can see. If you take a very brief mention in a long text to be evidence of a "lie" then so be it. My conclusion from the evidence is that economics/power was the root cause of secession and that slavery was secondary. If you think economics was "unsubstantiated by any facts", "superficial" then I can only laugh at your pathetic attempt at "analysis".
@civilwarcow LOL, wrong liar. I have merely said that they had legitimate economic grievances and that it wasn't "all about slavery" as you dishonestly try to claim.
@civilwarcow Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution.
@civilwarcow The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them.
@civilwarcow And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors for their benefit. For the last 40 years, the taxes laid by the Congress have been laid with a view of serving the interests of the North.
@civilwarcow The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The North having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires.
@civilwarcow Read it. It does talk about slavery but the reader will be well aware that when it does so it is int he context of that issue being used as a tool to unite the North so as to economically exploit the South.
@civilwarcow LOL! The usual propaganda and lies from you. What's the matter? Are you afraid people are going to actually READ the document for themselves and expose you for the boldfaced liar that you are? I can understand. If they read for themselves instead of just taking your lying word for it, you will be exposed for what you are.
@civilwarcow So you're saying the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of what he talks about is NOT about the economic exploitation of the Southern States by the Federal Government and Northern states? Just read the document for yourselves. Don't take his word for it, don't take my word for it, read for yourselves and see what you think the gist of the address is.
@civilwarcow LOL! Read it. I invite everybody to read it Go to google and type in "address of South Carolina to the slaveholding states" and see what a bold faced liar civilwarcrow is. It is ALL about economics.
@civilwarcow Read it. What does it say? It is ALL about the economic exploitation of the Southern states at the hands of the federal government and the Northern states.
@civilwarcow They held no sovereign claim to any territory outside their borders and never claimed they did. Their sovereign rights did not extend beyond their own borders.
@civilwarcow You seem to think force = right. That is obviously not so for any nation which claims to respect the rule of law. We do not know what Congress would or would not have authorized in 1861. They were never given the chance. Lincoln just started a war on his own.
@civilwarcow Of course there was. Any sovereign may withdraw from a treaty. The US can withdraw from the UN if it likes...or the ABM treaty which it did. It need not obtain permission from anybody else for doing so. Lincoln clearly started the war and did so deliberately. He committed an act of aggression by sending a military expedition to sovereign South Carolina territory....and he had no right to fight a war without the authorization of Congress.
@civilwarcow They were sovereign states within their own territory but retained no sovereign claim on the territory belonging to the US and made no such claim. Providing for a possibility of new states/territories be they slaveholding or not-which they did-was no indicator of designs upon US territory. The US itself had such a provision and given the expansion of its territory in the first 80 years that seemed prudent for the CSA to include such a provision as well.
@civilwarcow No, they had a pre-existing right as any sovereign does. They would have had to agree to surrender this right for them not to have retained it....which is something they never did. Lincoln started the war without the consent of Congress. They only got a chance to vote several months into it and no Congress is going to withdraw funding during a war. The Confederate states being sovereign were under NO obligation to seek anybody else's approval.
@civilwarcow err no. The Supreme Court ruled the president cannot suspend habeas corpus. Only the Congress can and only when the regular courts are not functioning.
@civilwarcow, I didn't say that they did. But the push to spread slavery West wasn't because they wanted the territories themselves, it was because spreading it West into new incoming states = more slavers in DC.
They wanted popular sovereignty to decide whether or not slavery would spread.....Lincoln was simply opposed to slavery spreading, popular sovereignty be damned....
This fact was simply unacceptable to the South because it meant losing the power balance, and quickly
@civilwarcow A sovereign state does not require a specific law. They retained their sovereign rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments when they ratified the Constitution. Under what law did Lincoln wage war on them?
Go ahead and leave the Union you morons and see what happens. Texas will become part of Mexico and we will build a wall between Texas and the US. All federal institutions will leave along with the federal jobs. All passports with a Texas address will be voided. You will pay taxes to Mexico City and your kids will be in the Mexican Army. I hope you learn Spanish quickly.
@chairde ROTF! Get a clue. Mexico has neither the desire and certainly lacks the ability to conquer Texas. The Texans proved that over 150 years ago when there were far fewer of them. What you fail to recognize is that along with all those federal jobs that would go would also be all those federal taxes. I tend to think with all their energy reserves and alleviated from the need to pay for DC's social programs and foreign adventures, they would probably be much better off.
@hungarygator No it is you who are clueless. Without the US Texas would be a ripe and defenseless target for Mexico. Mexico has 100 million people. How many people does Texas have? Go ahead and leave the United States but don't ever expect us to defend your sorry asses. I hope you don't mind being a minority when you become part of Mexico.
@chairde LOL! Numbers alone will do it? Technology doesn't matter? Mexico will suddenly decide to become this warlike aggressive power and will improve its technology and economy by leaps and bounds to enable them to do this? Like I said, you are clueless.
Governor Perry would find himself at odds with Sam Houston if he were still alive. Houston tried to stop Texas from seceding in 1861, saying "if this Union must be dissolved, let its ruins be the monument of my grave." The Confederates certainly didn't support western Virginia's secession from Virginia; they invaded it; exactly what they vilified Lincoln for doing.
@hungarygator So, you believe the right to secession is limited. Sounds to me like this is purely a matter of opinion, since the Constitution doesn't refer specifically to secession at all.
@galoon Where did I ever say the right of secession is limited? Jefferson and others felt it was the right of any state regardless if any other state or the federal government agreed or not.
The secession of the South-Eastern U.S. in 1860/61 was not about wanting independence for any other reason than to ensure that slavery spread West and as a sign of opposition to Northern hostility towards 'negro chattel slavery.'
@RebelGuy95 A ridiculous falsehood. There were many economic concerns over tariffs and grossly unbalanced federal expenditures as well as the steady consolidation of power by the federal government which Southerners were never in favor of. Slavery would have been much safer within the US-a fact most Southerners well recognized.
@hungarygator, that's not what South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, or Mississippi wrote in their declarations of secession.
Yeah, right, in a country run by a man and party either opposed to slavery altogether, or at least opposed to its spread West?
Nope, for part of the genius of Lincoln (something the Southern aristocracy picked up on) was that he was a moderate, and he knew that the mere restriction of slavery in the East spelled its death card.
@RebelGuy95 Georgia talked extensively about economics. Texas listed other causes as well like economics and border security. Attached to South Carolina's declaration was the Address of Robert Barnwell Rhett aka "the father of secession" which was all about economics. Lincoln was not opposed to protecting slavery where it existed-read his inaugural address and read about the Corwin Amendment. Seceding meant giving up any claim to the territories, that obviously wasn't why they seceded.
@hungarygator, no way, those declarations are about slavery, nearly through and through.
They would rather leave the territories than see them become free states and send their free state, perhaps even hard core abolitionist, reps to DC in the future.
@RebelGuy95 You obviously haven't read them or Rhett's address if you think so. Go ahead. Look them up for yourself. They would rather go independent and give up any claim to the territories because they were a minority and could not protect their economic interests. Once they were out and not subject to exploitation at the hands of the Northern states any longer they no longer needed the added votes in Congress.
@RebelGuy95 Tariffs? Grossly unequal government expenditure? Very tangential at best and if you want to make that argument, then the North's economic interests were tied to slavery as well-they certainly derived a great deal of profit from it. You notice than in the Confederate Constitution the maximum tariff was 10%, the general welfare clause was struck, the president had a line item veto, no riders were allowed and spending required a 2/3rds majority-all done to hold down spending.
@hungarygator, the North was in the business of manufacturing and raising food crops...if the South wanted to buy a cheaper reaper from France there will be a tariff, of course.
Yeah, they also explicitly reference slavery and peoples' right to engage in it.
Couple that with the 4 declarations and the decades of arguments and land compromises dating back to the 1780's over slavery...seems pretty clear cut to me and almost all others.
@RebelGuy95 There were also a lot of arguments over tariffs. Witness, the Tariff of Abominations, the Nullification Crisis, many statements by politicians and newspapers, the Republican Party's 1860 platform, etc. Like the overwhelming majority of all wars, this too was fought largely over money. Of course nobody ever says that's what they're fighting for......
Does that explain the issues that Dred Scott, or Uncle Tom's Cabin, or Brown's Raid produced?
The only threat to the South's money, and it was a threat, was Mr. Lincoln and the more radical Republicans. The South's money was literally tied up in human slavery and the white gold that it produced.
@RebelGuy95 its not what they were fighting for. They were fighting because their homes had been invaded. The North however was fighting over money-again just read Lincoln's inaugural address or any of many newspaper editorials at the time. With the Southern states out and with a low tariff, the Northern states and the Federal Government stood to lose all the money it was squeezing out of the South year after year.
@hungarygator, how? The South was a minority of free citizens?...and clearly that's not true...the U.S. spent an unprecedented amount of money fighting them and was able to do it.
That's why Lincoln and black dolls were burned in effigy all over the South in November, 1860?...right.
The average soldier does not define the cause of a war, c'mon, hungarygator, you know this elementary fact.
The war was over secession which was brought about because of slavery grievances, by and large.
@RebelGuy95 The South had a minority in Congress and a candidate entirely beholden to Northern business interests was elected without a single electoral vote from the South. You said they were fighting over slavery. I merely corrected that false statement. Slavery was ONE of the causes of secession, nobody can honestly deny that. It was not however the ONLY cause of secession-nobody can honestly deny that either.....though many PC revisionists try.
@hungarygator, how could Lincoln be elected by the South...he didn't appear on 10 ballots!
Slavery was the primary cause for secession - in lieu of the conditions that the compromises, court case/s, Brown's Raid, and Uncle Tom's Cabin produced, not to mention the declarations
To illustrate Southern hatred, the South was allowed to govern itself post-war. However, they instituted the Nazi like Black Codes...hence the division into districts. They couldn't be trusted to make moral decisions.
@RebelGuy95 You say slavery was the primary cause for secession....yet 3 states in the lower South never declared causes and 4 more in the upper South only seceded after being ordered to provide troops to attack other states. Your argument doesn't stand up to the facts. The Black Codes enacted in the South were modeled on those in the North. Just google "slavery in the North". Its the first link. Start reading. Who was the North to tell anybody about morality while murdering Indians?
@hungarygator, North Carolina's governor offered some food for thought two years after their secession in 63. Vance said that the state had seceded from a union hostile to slavery, parroted SC's declaration regarding the Fugitive Slave Law, and further stated that the state joined the confederacy to aid her sister states in protecting their monetary interests.
The was no slavery in the North after 1808 - only in NY and NJ...as per the South's demand in the compromise to import slaves.
@RebelGuy95 "There was no slavery in the North after 1808"? Somebody needs a history lesson. There certainly was. Even at the time of the war, New Jersey didn't have "slaves". It had "Apprentices for life" who were not free to leave. LOL! Gotta love that one! The South wanted to ban slave trading. It was Northeastern slave traders who insisted it be permitted for another 20 years. As to Vance.....he's one governor. Jefferson Davis said repeatedly that they were not fighting over that.
@hungarygator, NY and NJ promptly banned chattel slavery and all other forms of involuntary servitude in 1807 and 1808, respectively (Norton, Sheriff, Blight, Chudacoff, Logevall, and Bailey, 2009).
Really? Because Davis was a cheerleader for the Mexican-American War, partly on the grounds that slavery would spread West and bolster support.
Norton, M., Sheriff, C., Blight, D., Chudacoff, H., Logevall, F. & Bailey, B. (2009). A People and A Nation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
@RebelGuy95 When the North gave up the last remnants of slavery, in the generation after the Revolution, their motives were a mix of morality, and fear of a growing black population; practical economics; and the fact that the Revolutionary War had drained off much of the slave population. An exception was New Jersey, where the slave population actually increased during the war. Slavery lingered there until the Civil War, with the state reporting 236 slaves in 1850 and 18 as late as 1860."
@RebelGuy95 As in other Northern states, gradual emancipation freed no slaves at once. It simply set up slavery for a long-term natural death. Connecticut finally abolished slavery entirely in 1848. New Hampshire A commonly accepted date for the end of slavery in New Hampshire is 1857, when an act was passed stating that "No person, because of decent, should be disqualified from becoming a citizen of the state." The act is interpreted as prohibiting slavery.
@hungarygator, yeah, right. That's why SC charged 14 states, including mine, with working to undermine slavery and the Fugitive Slave Law.
It was treacherous imperialism.
Think about that - your slave escapes into my county in Iowa and I, along with any other able-bodied male, should like to help the sheriff catch them and then pay to send them back with no reimbursement from the imperialist owner in Dixie, looking to thrust his racial system upon us...that's what happened.
@RebelGuy95 treacherous imperialism was making war on the states which is defined as treason in article 3 section 3 of the constitution and the traitor was Lincoln. Imperialism is seeking to rule over states that do not consent to be ruled by Washington DC. An excellent way to undermine slavery would have been to let the seceding states go-no more fugitive slave protection for them. Slaves escape in droves and the system is weakened and collapses-that's what happened in Brazil.
@hungarygator, the states illegally seceded by taking unilateral action, and then by entering upon their own compact - the confederacy - which is further prohibited.
Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers on April 15, that's three days after the illegal attack on Sumter and one day after it fell.
Don't try and tell me that the South didn't start the shooting war, no one debates that because the South did it on April 12.
@RebelGuy95 states were within their rights to secede. Once they were out they could enter into whatever compact they wished. They are sovereign. now on to the starting of the war....cont
@hungarygator, South Carolina stated in their declaration that the North's unwillingness to crush anti-slavery sentiment in their states and enforce The Fugitive Slave Act made the contract [the Constitution] null and void!!!
Again, we see some half-assed attampt by the South Carolinians to blame my state, and others, for being morally superior.
@RebelGuy95 Correct....and the address of Robert Barnwell Rhett attached to South Carolina's declaration explained the economic exploitation of the South by the Northern states and the Federal Government quite extensively. As to supposed moral superiority...the North was more than happy to profit from Slavery, to protect it forever under the Corwin Amendment and then butchered Native Americans to steal their land-some "moral superiority".
@hungarygator, 9 is more than 2/3 majority out of 13. Yes, it did take a majority.
Yes, the South started the shooting. And despite their illegal, unilateral secession, Sumter was a U.S. installation paid for by the aggregate of tax revenue.
Yes, the morally superior North, as those states made slavery illegal by or before the turn of the 19th century and where the home of the abolitionist movement.
So you're saying that it was over slavery AND taxes...how does that change anything lol?
@RebelGuy95 but each state did not have to be approved by others. There was no requirement that they ratify it. They could have chosen not to and RI and NC took a long time to do it. It was their right as sovereign states not to if they didn't want to. Secession was perfectly legal. Lincoln was the aggressor by pouring troops into sovereign SC territory. The North was hardly morally superior ie profiting from slavery, supporting its continued existence, murdering Indians, etc.
@RebelGuy95 also, Slavery existed in the North far longer than the turn of the 19th century. Slavery was certainly an issue but economic exploitation was an issue as well. Also, deep seated philosophical differences about the nature of the Constitution/power relationship were a major issue. Nobody's hands were clean no matter how much some seem to wishfully think they were somehow "morally superior".
@RebelGuy95 False. Slavery existed in the North long after 1808. Even when it was abolished, it was generally grandfathered out which meant slaves were around a long time after official abolition and were still slaves in those states. New Jersey had "apprentices for life" even during the war. You realize Lincoln sent a fleet with 1200 military personnel and the full intention of pouring about 500 troops into Sumter right? Unilateral secession is perfectly legal. Each state is sovereign.
@hungarygator, no, NJ and NY took the most draconian measures after the South's compromise ended in 1808, dictating, perhaps unconstitutionally, that slavery was not only abolished but individuals with slaves had less then 30 days to get their human property out of the state, by the end of January, 1809!
Lincoln can send 500 people to Sumter if he wants...it's a U.S. installation...and they didn't shoot at anyone.
No way, according to Article I, each state gave up some of its sovereignty.
@RebelGuy95 it wasn't "the South's" compromise. Most in the South wanted the slave trade to stop-it was one of the complaints listed by Virginia in the DOI. It was the slave traders of New England who lobbied for its continuance. google slavery in the North and you will see that what you are claiming about Northern emancipation is simply not so. Lincoln sent troops to occupy sovereign South Carolina territory knowing it would mean war. Article I no longer applied after a state withdrew.
@hungarygator, Fort Sumter was a U.S. installation and SC seceded by illegal means.
I am not claiming anything about Northern abolition, I am stating an historical fact and I have cited one of my college texts in an earlier post to illustrate that.
Article I says states give up a level of sovereignty, naturally, to both the FEDs and the other states
SC knew they had to build a legal argument, and they did so on the grounds that my state and others werent upholding the Fugitive Slave Law
@RebelGuy95 South Carolina legally seceded and Lincoln trying to pour troops onto their sovereign territory was an act of aggression calculated to start a war. Article I deals with the legislature. States certainly did not surrender their sovereignty by ratifying the constitution. I do agree with the last part. The citing of concerns over slavery showed how they believed the Northern states had broken the compact even though those weren't their primary concerns.
@hungarygator, yeah, they weren't primary concerns, yet the document that their legislature unanimously voted for and submitted to the world can't shut up about slavery grievances.
You might want to read all of Article I, friend, for it does deal with powers denied to the states.
No, states did not surrender all of their sovereignty, but they certainly surrendered some...hence their obligation to abide by federal laws and to respect court decisions in other states, etc.
@RebelGuy95 They also included the address of Rhett which was all about economics. I've read article I and the rest of the constitution. Nowhere did they agree to bind themselves forever. Nobody thought that's what they were signing onto in the late 1780's. "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation" over "union," "I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'" Thomas Jefferson
@RebelGuy95 You keep ignoring the Address of Rhett which they all knew and had attached. He and Hammond had done a lot of research on the economic aspects and had spoken about it repeatedly. They felt his Address amply covered that topic. Jefferson and Madison did not feel the people could entrust their liberty solely to 9 federal government lawyers. It was about slavery AND money AND fundamental philosophical differences about the nature of the fed/state relationship
@hungarygator, I am not ignoring a thing...I am trying to understand you.
And you've just confirmed what I stated earlier. Slavery was a primary factor, and given the absence of any real economic redress in their official declaration, slavery was clearly the more substantive issue.
The fact is, slavery grievances were primary factors in causing secession.
Because secession created the circumstances in which the war began, the war was without question over these slavery grievances.
@RebelGuy95 the lack of any economic redress? Huh? Their remedy to continued economic exploitation by the Northern states was to leave. If slavery were a more substantive issue, the Corwin Amendment would have addressed their concerns. Fact is, to claim that the main cause was slavery alone is propaganda. The war was "about" the Lincoln administration's desire to centralize power in Washington, supported by Northern industrialists interested in having a captive market.
@hungarygator, What economic exploitation?...they made a killing in their two markets...trading human flesh around dixie and growing 3/4 the world's cotton!
The corwin amendment? That amendment didn't even address their issues - it was a joke!
The corwin amendment said nothing about allowing slavery to spread West or who was going to enforce The Fugitive Slave Law, nothing.
Lincoln was going to centralize power?...how is that, exactly? That is what's called an overbroad statement.
@RebelGuy95 grossly unequal taxation, grossly unequal federal funding for infrastructure, subsidies to Northern industries like shipping and mining and fishing. Read Georgia's declaration of causes or Rhett's address. Its spelled out right there.
The Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery forever. The Northern dominated Congress and Abe Lincoln supported it. The Southern states only needed the territories because they needed more votes in Congress....continued
@RebelGuy95 By seceding they gave up any claim to the territories and any chance of spreading slavery there...but this was fine with them because they no longer needed extra votes in Congress to stop being economically exploited by the Northern states.
Lincoln's clear aim was to centralize power. Read Douglas' comments about him during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. That was his whole economic and political agenda.
@hungarygator, You misunderstand me. Lincoln was a moderate republican, i.e. even more dangerous to slavery than a radical with less appeal, that's why he was nominated.
If the South remained in the union with slavery restricted to the South-East, then that's it, slavery will end once some more states send their reps and senators to DC.
That tells me nothing, it's like Glenn Beck calling someone socialist...it's overbroad. What power, exactly?
@RebelGuy95 What you seem to not understand is that slavery was not threatened. Abolitionists were not popular and received a pathetically small share of the total vote. Stopping the spread of slavery was popular....for reasons of economic self interest as well as plain old racism (they didn't want blacks slave or free) but abolition was not. It was to stop any further economic exploitation-and the R's promised a massive tariff hike-that the Southern states left.
@hungarygator, slavery was not threatened? Ahahaha. Now I know you're jokin with me, bro.
All of the land compromises, the land ordinances, the fights that erupted on the senate floor, that was all about maintaining the delicate power balance between free states and slavers.
"This stipulation [the Fugitive Slave Act] was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves"~SC Declaration of Secession.
@RebelGuy95 No, slavery was not threatened within the US. There were political fights about the spread of it and self interest, racism and power politics had as much to do with that as morality. Lincoln was a supporter of the Fugitive Slave Act and he and the Northern States were quite content to protect slavery forever where it existed.
@hungarygator, no, that's incorrect. The compromises and land ordinances regarding slavery's expansion had very little to do with spreading West for the sake of it, it was all about those new slave states then sending their reps and senators to DC to fight off most of the Republican party.
Lincoln said in his inaugural that he wasn't sure who should even enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
SC stated the exact converse of what you have in their declaration. I believe them more than you.
@RebelGuy95 I agree with the first part here. It was about power politics and ultimately money.
I can quote Lincoln on his support for the fugitive slave act and whatever else necessary to support the slave system.
Why do you always want to ignore Rhett's Address when discussing South Carolina despite the fact that his address was attached to their declaration? I could quote Calhoun saying the same or the Charleston Mercury saying the same.
@RebelGuy95 No question slavery was an affront to human dignity and an abomination. Equally no question that both regions profited from it. Shame on both for that. Also, no question that the Southern states did have legitimate grievances wrt being economically exploited by the Northern states. Nobody's hands were clean in the whole lead up to and prosecution of the war.
@hungarygator, Yeah, and it's because slavery grievances played such a "material" role in causing secession and ultimately a shooting war, I cannot and will not ever understand the people that defend the South for seceding over the aforementioed issues and starting the shooting.
Never in one million years will I understand it.
Moreover, I think it's a shame, because the modern day states' rights advocates so often associate the modern movement with the old hatred of the antebellum South.
@RebelGuy95 Firstly, I'm not at all sure the same thing wouldn't have happened even without slavery. The economic issues would have been the same as would the philosophical differences. Also, Lincoln is the one who wanted and deliberately provoked war over the unanimous advice of his cabinet and without the consent of Congress. Also, trying to equate state's rights exclusively with slavery is a cheap and dishonest tactic of those who love big government-usually on the Left.
@hungarygator, you misunderstood me again, friend. I am not for big government at all!
What I said is that I do not the way states' rights groups also often associate with neo-confederates and fly those flags at rallies, etc. It is 100% counterproductive and alienates possible allies of virtually any other race.
Lincoln asked for 75,000 volunteers after the South Carolinians started shooting.
And yes, the war was unconstitutional in the final analysis - no declaration of war.
@RebelGuy95 They fly those flags because state's rights-ie the Jeffersonian-Democrat tradition is what the South has always championed....and yes they championed that long before slavery was a major political issue and have championed it long after. It was never "just a cover for racism/slavery" as lovers of big government try-dishonestly-to claim. Rather than saying they shouldn't, I say its long past time we had an HONEST discussion about that time and the issues surrounding it.
@RebelGuy95 Lincoln spent money and waged war without the consent of Congress. The Founders deliberately entrusted that power to the legislature. As Madison said history shows it is the executive branch which is most interested in war and most likely to start them as Lincoln did. That is why it is essential that authority to do so rest with Congress as a check on the power of the executive....and this was not a rebellion. Those states had legally seceded and were a separate country.
@hungarygator, Lincoln can spend money and fight a rebellion, the states did not legally secede, but rather illegally and unilaterally.
The Confederate flag has nothing to do with Jeffersonian states' rights...it came about decades after his death and as a result of a secession attempt...at least in large part due to slavery.
The states do not retain the sovereignty of a nation, that is ridiculous if that's what you're saying.
The are afforded wide deference, but not in totality
@RebelGuy95 The president can neither spend money nor wage war without the consent of Congress. The states legally seceded-as sovereign entities they did not require anybody else's consent any more than the US would require anybody else's consent if it chose to withdraw from the UN...or when it chose to withdraw from the ABM treaty for example. The Confederate flag has everything to do with state's rights and decentralized power. continued
@hungarygator, the congress appropriated funds for Lincoln, obviously, otherwise there would have been no army.
Lincoln doesn't need a declaration of war to crush a rebellion, even a very very large one.
They illegally seceded, but tried to justify their illegal act on the basis that the North wasn't carrying out their end of the contract by not enforcing The Fugitive Slave Act, as well as by being openly hostile towards slavery generally.
@RebelGuy95 He spent money BEFORE they appropriated any and waged war before they approved it. By the time they came back in session, the war had been going on-there was no chance to debate or authorize it until it had already started. What Congress is going to pull the plug then? He needed Congressional approval to wage war on a foreign country which the CSA was-they legally seceded. A sovereign can withdraw from a treaty eg the US could withdraw from the UN without anybody's permission.
@RebelGuy95 The states DELEGATED certain powers to the federal government which they as sovereign entities were within their rights to withdraw. 3 states ratified the Constitution with that express proviso and nobody felt their ratification thereby defective. Had they been told that ratifying the Constitution was a one way ticket, no state would have ratified it-a point no serious historian would disagree with. Who was the federal govt-their agent, to unilaterally alter the deal in its favor?
@RebelGuy95 Lincoln deliberately provoked war. The Providence Daily Post on April 13, 1861, wrote "Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor" by provisioning Sumter. On April 12 1861 the Jersey City American Statesman: wrote "This unarmed vessel, it is well understood, is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South." He wrote a letter to his navel commander-Fox-thanking him for starting the war.
The men in Sumter were of no tactical threat to the South Carolinians, and they did not start the shooting. South Carolina started shooting at men trapped on an island.
The Constitution is a contract. This is not debated. However, the question is how to withdraw from said contract.
It took a majority of contracting parties to allow for each state's admission...therefore it does not follow that unilateral secession is legitimate in any way.
@RebelGuy95 Sumter held a commanding position in the principle harbor. Think Washington would have tolerated a British fort in the middle of New York harbor? The aggressor is one who pours troops onto somebody else's land-not one who fires to drive them away. You say it took a majority of contracting parties to allow each state's admission? No it didn't. It only took 9 to come into force when they all seceded from the Articles of Confederation. No state required another's approval.
@RebelGuy95 We haven't even begun to talk about the black codes in Northern states intended to keep blacks out and drive out the ones who were there...codes that proved largely successful.
@hungarygator, my home state of Iowa revised their anti-immigration laws about one year after Dred Scott. The legislature stated that they have sought to bar all black immigration so as to help keep policing costs down that the imperialist South was imploring them to spend.
The vast majority of blacks coming North were escapees, and even legal freedmen could be declared an escapee with forged papers under Dred Scott, then every man had to help hunt them down for the imperialists in Dixie
@RebelGuy95 ROTF! It was hardly due to "imperialism" from Dixie that Northern states enacted nazi-like black codes. It was due to their own flagrant racism. Now if you want to talk about imperialism, there is Mr Lincoln's war on the South not to mention the massacre of the plains Indians who were in the way of the Yankees choo choos....
Profound and provocative video. I think there needs to be a re-visiting of the philosophical discussion of the Constitution as a contract between two sovereigns: the state and the individual.
Here's the thing---you obviously have no legal education of any kind, and no fucking idea what you're talking about. So why argue constitutional law? You wish the confederacy had killed more American troops---fine. You support slavery for black people---fine. You wish blacks had suffered MORE years of slavery and segregation---fine. Argue your case!!! Explain why you believe blacks deserve more years of slavery and segregation!!! Argue what you KNOW, not what you don't!
@RonPaulHatesBlacks and u obviously dont understand what ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL means cause you say only u are intelligent and southerners are stupid in that quote alone you show you are by definition RACIST and u do not believe ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL
People can use all sorts of things against Ron Paul. It's not a coincidence when someone polls only 2% of the total primary vote, doesn't come close to winning even one single GOP primary, and finishes with 5% or less of the GOP vote in 22 separate states, including California, Ohio, Florida, and his home state of Texas.
Check out my video. If you don't believe in secession, then you believe in slavery, for you are for enslaving people to a government that they want no part of:
Contrary to the SA's view, Lincoln did not start the war. The "Confeds" did at Fort Sumpter. Only with the dawning of the Atomic Age, we had to become more tolerant of what would otherwise be acts of war lest it escalate into an all out nuclear war.
Before the Atomic age, opening fire on a nations garrison was an act of war. The moment you open fire, you are at war. As such, the South gambles on starting a war and lost.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Secession is merely the removal of consent.
One military defeat by the forces of big government (regardless of how brutal or oppressive those forces behave towards civilians) does not eliminate in perpetuity the right to self-determination.
It took four, count 'em...FOUR, wars for secession by Portugal before they finally won their independence from Spain.
There is a 10th Amendment. It doesn't apply, because the Constitution bars secession in the first instance. Secession is neither BASIC nor fundamental. It's unconstitutional.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Are you serious? I hope it doesn't come to secession. Still, the right to secede was the whole point of the Dec. of Ind. The Constitution never says it's not legal. Have you read it? Read the Constitution. So what if the Supreme Court disagrees if they're exceeding their power in the first place? Did the U.S. have the king's consent in 1776? Again, I hope it doesn't come to that, but it's amazing that people are so uninformed about our history.
Sorry, slappy. Secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional, as the Constitution flatly states, Lincoln explained and everyone knew in 1861, and the United States Supreme Court confirmed 150 years ago.
The Founding Fathers did not have the consent of the King, and they knew they'd hung if they lost, like Nathan Hale. As a result, they didn't spend a lot of time whining and lying that revolution was legal under British law.
Revolution was illegal under British law, so my Founding Fathers didn't spend a lot of time whining or flat-out lying to the contrary.
If you hate America, then start your war, pussy. I'm sure there's a military base near your house---drive on up to the gate and open fire. If you win, nifty. If you lose, don't come back and pretend like your shit was legal the entire time. Secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional.
First slappy, now pussy. I see a pattern forming. Too bad your arguement can't be honest, otherwise you would dispense with the name-calling, you wouldn't need it to help support your position if the motives behind it were pure.
If you shoot at a military base gate and lose, you don't come back to do anything. They have bigger guns.
No, violating the Constitution and firing on American troops has never been legal under U.S. law. It's a real good way to get your ass kicked, though.
Read Lincoln's first inaugural or Texas v. White. It's all in there. Secession is, was and always has been unconstitutional, and Lincoln swore a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. That's it. If your state secedes tomorrow, declares the "cornerstone" of its new nation slavery and the genetic inferiority of your race, and starts shooting at American troops, We the People stomp that ass. We're one nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice for ALL. Traitors are free to leave.
How can it "all possibly be just "in there"? There's a lot of "there" there.
The AUTHOR of the Constitution, Tom Jefferson in his inaugaral address stated "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the union or to change it's republican form let them stand undisturbed."
Abe Lincoln also said on the House floor in 1848 "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power,Have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may chose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revoloutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Where in the constitution is secession illegal?
So, I take it you truly don't believe in state's rights?
But it's O.K. if the former Soviet UNION does it, we applauded when THAT happened saying it was a victory for state's rights, yet we shouldn't let our own have the opportunity?
@RonPaulHatesBlacks This is what was at the end of texas v white. the federal judicial system, in the case of Texas v. White, held that the preamble to the Constitution, which states that the Constitution was intended to "form a more perfect union," meant states did not have a right to secede. The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States." It can be done without revolution, just need to come together as states to do it.
Yes, the Court cited that language in the Constution, among others. And of course states in the South could have seceded, with permission, if they had asked. The South had a thousand different perfectly legal options to address their displeasure with the results of the 1860 election. Seceding without permission and killing American troops was never one of them.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks I was actually refering to todays times in seceding, not back then. Its what a lot of people are talking about. I could go on and on about a lot of things, but we have enough conflict going on with eachother without the government being brought into it.
ROFL the states don't have to ask permission...the people of the states allow the federal gov't to exist and the Constitution is to protect US from it but we as a whole sit and watch them limit and eliminate OUR inalienable rights. Someone told you the Civil war was about slavery right? The south fought the monster that is the federal gov't 150 years ago, now here we are again and it's still about slavery...debt slavery and a out of control central gov't.
Of course they have to ask permission. They voluntarily ratified or asked to be governed by a Constitution that flatly bars unilateral secession. If you voluntarily lease an apartment, you can't paint it pink without permission.
Of course the war was about slavery. The South proudly said so when they started it, in their Cornerstone Speech and the Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas declarations of secession, among others. The South seceded because America elected a Free Soil president.
Please read me the part of the Constitution that states that secession is not legal. And as far as Texas vs. White..if the Supreme Court declared Secession not legal then, they still didnt put it into the Constitution because its still not there.
The Supreme Court does not and cannot add things to the Constitution. There's an amendment process for that. And there's no need to add a prohibition on unpermitted secession---that is, was, and always has been unconstitutional. If folks think the Supreme Court got it wrong and secession should be constitutional, they've had 150 years to pursue a constitutional amendment.
The Constitution is something I think you may want to read or at least take a class on so you may understand how the fed has overstepped its authority.
Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class is posted on the tube...watch it and learn something.
Wow. Your education regarding constitutional law comes from a video on Youtube. Mine comes from three years at a top ten law school and a JD degree. You're way, way, way out of your league, slappy. Stick to the REAL reason you support the confederacy and its Cornerstone of racism and slavery.
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXwlDt6VU
As shown, everything I said is true and accurate.
Nations don't lose their sovereignty simply by joining Unions; only the truly ignorant think so, and only conquerors claim it.
Hitler was wrong: federalism is not a "mask" for national sovereignty over federated states, but on the contrary each state retains its sovereignty unless and until it expressly, directly and unambiguously RELINQUISHES it via manifestation of sovereign intent.
And they DIDN'T.
SovereignStatesman 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
SovereignStatesman 2 weeks ago
@SovereignStatesman :-)
dan91709 2 weeks ago
Every state is a sovereign nation by international law.
The fed did a good job of suppressing this fact since the Jackson Administration, but the simple fact is that the American union was a confederation in 1781 and a republic in 1788, but NEVER a sovereign nation-- EVER.
Charlatans have twisted the facts since before Jackson, but it's a conqueror's dream to say that a nation can surrender sovereignty by indirect, ambiguous or non-express manifestation-- and then "settle it on the battlefield."
SovereignStatesman 2 weeks ago
Come down to it, the ability to secede from from the union is a possibility that exists.
THAT1ANONYMOUSDUDE 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THAT1ANONYMOUSDUDE "Come down to it, the ability to secede from from the union is a possibility that exists."
Come down to it, there's a possibility that all the Muslims in the world will decide you're Jesus some day - but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
dan91709 2 weeks ago
The colonies did not secede. The American people revolted.
therealaj123 8 months ago
@civilwarcow LOL! I've openly said slavery was one of the major issues. You are the one who cannot accept that it wasn't all about that. The fact that Rhett's address was only OVERWHELMINGLY about economics and did briefly mention slavery...hey, mea maxima culpa. Now, since all you can do is scream "liar!" whenever anybody disagrees with you, I do not see how this is fruitful or productive. Have a nice day.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow umm....huh? I wasn't involved in that other thread. Like I said, you cannot grasp the idea that others GASP!!! might see things differently. You therefore think anybody who disagrees with you "must" see it the same way you do and just be lying for having the temerity to put forth an opinion which differs from yours. Pathetic. Grow up.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow By the way, I saw your long exchange on the Morril Tariff thread a while back. I have no interest in going back and forth with you with each of us throwing quotes supporting our position for weeks and weeks....ending in you calling me "dishonest" for not agreeing with you and leaving in a sulk.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow LOL! In 1776 ALL THIRTEEN Colonies had slavery. Nice try to draw some great distinction between 1776 and 1861 but....FAIL.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation North American Review (Boston October 1862)
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow You've never seen one? I just provided you with Rhett's address. The Georgia Declaration of causes goes into it at length. There are tons of other quotes from Southern political leaders saying the same thing-ie that the South was being economically exploited and that this was the primary motivation of the Northern states. If you haven't seen one I can only conclude you haven't looked or just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your interpretation.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow You don't dismiss all the sources which disagree with your point of view? ROFL! I've never claimed that slavery AND economics AND philosophical differences were not all linked together. They were. You are just making a dishonest straw man argument here.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow LOL! OK I admit its only well over 90% about economics. He does briefly mention slavery. Yet you just cannot accept that anything other than slavery could possibly have been primary so you dishonestly cherrypick to give a false impression. As for Rhett...it doesn't matter what YOU think about him. What matters is what he actually said and what people at the time were concerned with. Obviously economic issues were very important-as in almost all wars in history.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow I have merely provided a brief quotation from his speech the vast bulk of which is about economics. You try to mislead by cherrypicking a brief passage about slavery so as to give that subject an undue weight. I have shared plenty of facts and figures from official records and sources. What I just provided you with is a quote from a reliable source in Rhett's own words.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow I've never denied that slavery was one of the causes. Rhett's speech is overwhelmingly about economics as anybody can see. If you take a very brief mention in a long text to be evidence of a "lie" then so be it. My conclusion from the evidence is that economics/power was the root cause of secession and that slavery was secondary. If you think economics was "unsubstantiated by any facts", "superficial" then I can only laugh at your pathetic attempt at "analysis".
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow LOL, wrong liar. I have merely said that they had legitimate economic grievances and that it wasn't "all about slavery" as you dishonestly try to claim.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors for their benefit. For the last 40 years, the taxes laid by the Congress have been laid with a view of serving the interests of the North.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The North having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow Read it. It does talk about slavery but the reader will be well aware that when it does so it is int he context of that issue being used as a tool to unite the North so as to economically exploit the South.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow Good. People need to read and decide for themselves.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow LOL! The usual propaganda and lies from you. What's the matter? Are you afraid people are going to actually READ the document for themselves and expose you for the boldfaced liar that you are? I can understand. If they read for themselves instead of just taking your lying word for it, you will be exposed for what you are.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow So you're saying the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of what he talks about is NOT about the economic exploitation of the Southern States by the Federal Government and Northern states? Just read the document for yourselves. Don't take his word for it, don't take my word for it, read for yourselves and see what you think the gist of the address is.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow LOL! Read it. I invite everybody to read it Go to google and type in "address of South Carolina to the slaveholding states" and see what a bold faced liar civilwarcrow is. It is ALL about economics.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow Read it. What does it say? It is ALL about the economic exploitation of the Southern states at the hands of the federal government and the Northern states.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow They held no sovereign claim to any territory outside their borders and never claimed they did. Their sovereign rights did not extend beyond their own borders.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow You seem to think force = right. That is obviously not so for any nation which claims to respect the rule of law. We do not know what Congress would or would not have authorized in 1861. They were never given the chance. Lincoln just started a war on his own.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow Of course there was. Any sovereign may withdraw from a treaty. The US can withdraw from the UN if it likes...or the ABM treaty which it did. It need not obtain permission from anybody else for doing so. Lincoln clearly started the war and did so deliberately. He committed an act of aggression by sending a military expedition to sovereign South Carolina territory....and he had no right to fight a war without the authorization of Congress.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow Wrong again. Rhett's address is all about economics. I invite everybody to read it and see which one of us is being dishonest here.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow They were sovereign states within their own territory but retained no sovereign claim on the territory belonging to the US and made no such claim. Providing for a possibility of new states/territories be they slaveholding or not-which they did-was no indicator of designs upon US territory. The US itself had such a provision and given the expansion of its territory in the first 80 years that seemed prudent for the CSA to include such a provision as well.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow yes it is. Read Rhett's address. You an everybody else can google and see for themselves.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow No, they had a pre-existing right as any sovereign does. They would have had to agree to surrender this right for them not to have retained it....which is something they never did. Lincoln started the war without the consent of Congress. They only got a chance to vote several months into it and no Congress is going to withdraw funding during a war. The Confederate states being sovereign were under NO obligation to seek anybody else's approval.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow err no. The Supreme Court ruled the president cannot suspend habeas corpus. Only the Congress can and only when the regular courts are not functioning.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@civilwarcow, I didn't say that they did. But the push to spread slavery West wasn't because they wanted the territories themselves, it was because spreading it West into new incoming states = more slavers in DC.
They wanted popular sovereignty to decide whether or not slavery would spread.....Lincoln was simply opposed to slavery spreading, popular sovereignty be damned....
This fact was simply unacceptable to the South because it meant losing the power balance, and quickly
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@civilwarcow A sovereign state does not require a specific law. They retained their sovereign rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments when they ratified the Constitution. Under what law did Lincoln wage war on them?
hungarygator 9 months ago
Go ahead and leave the Union you morons and see what happens. Texas will become part of Mexico and we will build a wall between Texas and the US. All federal institutions will leave along with the federal jobs. All passports with a Texas address will be voided. You will pay taxes to Mexico City and your kids will be in the Mexican Army. I hope you learn Spanish quickly.
chairde 10 months ago
@chairde ROTF! Get a clue. Mexico has neither the desire and certainly lacks the ability to conquer Texas. The Texans proved that over 150 years ago when there were far fewer of them. What you fail to recognize is that along with all those federal jobs that would go would also be all those federal taxes. I tend to think with all their energy reserves and alleviated from the need to pay for DC's social programs and foreign adventures, they would probably be much better off.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator No it is you who are clueless. Without the US Texas would be a ripe and defenseless target for Mexico. Mexico has 100 million people. How many people does Texas have? Go ahead and leave the United States but don't ever expect us to defend your sorry asses. I hope you don't mind being a minority when you become part of Mexico.
chairde 10 months ago
@chairde LOL! Numbers alone will do it? Technology doesn't matter? Mexico will suddenly decide to become this warlike aggressive power and will improve its technology and economy by leaps and bounds to enable them to do this? Like I said, you are clueless.
hungarygator 10 months ago
Governor Perry would find himself at odds with Sam Houston if he were still alive. Houston tried to stop Texas from seceding in 1861, saying "if this Union must be dissolved, let its ruins be the monument of my grave." The Confederates certainly didn't support western Virginia's secession from Virginia; they invaded it; exactly what they vilified Lincoln for doing.
galoon 11 months ago
@galoon That's because states were sovereign. Portions of states were not.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator So, you believe the right to secession is limited. Sounds to me like this is purely a matter of opinion, since the Constitution doesn't refer specifically to secession at all.
galoon 9 months ago
@galoon Where did I ever say the right of secession is limited? Jefferson and others felt it was the right of any state regardless if any other state or the federal government agreed or not.
hungarygator 9 months ago
The secession of the South-Eastern U.S. in 1860/61 was not about wanting independence for any other reason than to ensure that slavery spread West and as a sign of opposition to Northern hostility towards 'negro chattel slavery.'
RebelGuy95 11 months ago
@RebelGuy95 A ridiculous falsehood. There were many economic concerns over tariffs and grossly unbalanced federal expenditures as well as the steady consolidation of power by the federal government which Southerners were never in favor of. Slavery would have been much safer within the US-a fact most Southerners well recognized.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, that's not what South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, or Mississippi wrote in their declarations of secession.
Yeah, right, in a country run by a man and party either opposed to slavery altogether, or at least opposed to its spread West?
Nope, for part of the genius of Lincoln (something the Southern aristocracy picked up on) was that he was a moderate, and he knew that the mere restriction of slavery in the East spelled its death card.
RebelGuy95 10 months ago 2
@RebelGuy95 Georgia talked extensively about economics. Texas listed other causes as well like economics and border security. Attached to South Carolina's declaration was the Address of Robert Barnwell Rhett aka "the father of secession" which was all about economics. Lincoln was not opposed to protecting slavery where it existed-read his inaugural address and read about the Corwin Amendment. Seceding meant giving up any claim to the territories, that obviously wasn't why they seceded.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, no way, those declarations are about slavery, nearly through and through.
They would rather leave the territories than see them become free states and send their free state, perhaps even hard core abolitionist, reps to DC in the future.
RebelGuy95 10 months ago
@RebelGuy95 You obviously haven't read them or Rhett's address if you think so. Go ahead. Look them up for yourself. They would rather go independent and give up any claim to the territories because they were a minority and could not protect their economic interests. Once they were out and not subject to exploitation at the hands of the Northern states any longer they no longer needed the added votes in Congress.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, I have them right here.
Their economic interests were welded to slavery.
1. The 11 states that were able to form the CSA held almost all of the $2 Billion in slaves.
2. The South, at the time, produced 3/4 of the world's cotton...with the help of slavery.
I agree with you about the economic interests, don't you understand lol?
RebelGuy95 10 months ago
@RebelGuy95 Tariffs? Grossly unequal government expenditure? Very tangential at best and if you want to make that argument, then the North's economic interests were tied to slavery as well-they certainly derived a great deal of profit from it. You notice than in the Confederate Constitution the maximum tariff was 10%, the general welfare clause was struck, the president had a line item veto, no riders were allowed and spending required a 2/3rds majority-all done to hold down spending.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, the North was in the business of manufacturing and raising food crops...if the South wanted to buy a cheaper reaper from France there will be a tariff, of course.
Yeah, they also explicitly reference slavery and peoples' right to engage in it.
Couple that with the 4 declarations and the decades of arguments and land compromises dating back to the 1780's over slavery...seems pretty clear cut to me and almost all others.
RebelGuy95 10 months ago
@RebelGuy95 There were also a lot of arguments over tariffs. Witness, the Tariff of Abominations, the Nullification Crisis, many statements by politicians and newspapers, the Republican Party's 1860 platform, etc. Like the overwhelming majority of all wars, this too was fought largely over money. Of course nobody ever says that's what they're fighting for......
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, it was what they were fighting for.
That tariff and crisis, 30 years prior?
Does that explain the issues that Dred Scott, or Uncle Tom's Cabin, or Brown's Raid produced?
The only threat to the South's money, and it was a threat, was Mr. Lincoln and the more radical Republicans. The South's money was literally tied up in human slavery and the white gold that it produced.
RebelGuy95 10 months ago 2
@RebelGuy95 its not what they were fighting for. They were fighting because their homes had been invaded. The North however was fighting over money-again just read Lincoln's inaugural address or any of many newspaper editorials at the time. With the Southern states out and with a low tariff, the Northern states and the Federal Government stood to lose all the money it was squeezing out of the South year after year.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, how? The South was a minority of free citizens?...and clearly that's not true...the U.S. spent an unprecedented amount of money fighting them and was able to do it.
That's why Lincoln and black dolls were burned in effigy all over the South in November, 1860?...right.
The average soldier does not define the cause of a war, c'mon, hungarygator, you know this elementary fact.
The war was over secession which was brought about because of slavery grievances, by and large.
RebelGuy95 10 months ago 2
@RebelGuy95 The South had a minority in Congress and a candidate entirely beholden to Northern business interests was elected without a single electoral vote from the South. You said they were fighting over slavery. I merely corrected that false statement. Slavery was ONE of the causes of secession, nobody can honestly deny that. It was not however the ONLY cause of secession-nobody can honestly deny that either.....though many PC revisionists try.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, how could Lincoln be elected by the South...he didn't appear on 10 ballots!
Slavery was the primary cause for secession - in lieu of the conditions that the compromises, court case/s, Brown's Raid, and Uncle Tom's Cabin produced, not to mention the declarations
To illustrate Southern hatred, the South was allowed to govern itself post-war. However, they instituted the Nazi like Black Codes...hence the division into districts. They couldn't be trusted to make moral decisions.
RebelGuy95 10 months ago
@RebelGuy95 You say slavery was the primary cause for secession....yet 3 states in the lower South never declared causes and 4 more in the upper South only seceded after being ordered to provide troops to attack other states. Your argument doesn't stand up to the facts. The Black Codes enacted in the South were modeled on those in the North. Just google "slavery in the North". Its the first link. Start reading. Who was the North to tell anybody about morality while murdering Indians?
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, North Carolina's governor offered some food for thought two years after their secession in 63. Vance said that the state had seceded from a union hostile to slavery, parroted SC's declaration regarding the Fugitive Slave Law, and further stated that the state joined the confederacy to aid her sister states in protecting their monetary interests.
The was no slavery in the North after 1808 - only in NY and NJ...as per the South's demand in the compromise to import slaves.
RebelGuy95 10 months ago 2
@RebelGuy95 "There was no slavery in the North after 1808"? Somebody needs a history lesson. There certainly was. Even at the time of the war, New Jersey didn't have "slaves". It had "Apprentices for life" who were not free to leave. LOL! Gotta love that one! The South wanted to ban slave trading. It was Northeastern slave traders who insisted it be permitted for another 20 years. As to Vance.....he's one governor. Jefferson Davis said repeatedly that they were not fighting over that.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, NY and NJ promptly banned chattel slavery and all other forms of involuntary servitude in 1807 and 1808, respectively (Norton, Sheriff, Blight, Chudacoff, Logevall, and Bailey, 2009).
Really? Because Davis was a cheerleader for the Mexican-American War, partly on the grounds that slavery would spread West and bolster support.
Norton, M., Sheriff, C., Blight, D., Chudacoff, H., Logevall, F. & Bailey, B. (2009). A People and A Nation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
RebelGuy95 10 months ago 2
@RebelGuy95 When the North gave up the last remnants of slavery, in the generation after the Revolution, their motives were a mix of morality, and fear of a growing black population; practical economics; and the fact that the Revolutionary War had drained off much of the slave population. An exception was New Jersey, where the slave population actually increased during the war. Slavery lingered there until the Civil War, with the state reporting 236 slaves in 1850 and 18 as late as 1860."
hungarygator 10 months ago
@RebelGuy95 As in other Northern states, gradual emancipation freed no slaves at once. It simply set up slavery for a long-term natural death. Connecticut finally abolished slavery entirely in 1848. New Hampshire A commonly accepted date for the end of slavery in New Hampshire is 1857, when an act was passed stating that "No person, because of decent, should be disqualified from becoming a citizen of the state." The act is interpreted as prohibiting slavery.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, yeah, right. That's why SC charged 14 states, including mine, with working to undermine slavery and the Fugitive Slave Law.
It was treacherous imperialism.
Think about that - your slave escapes into my county in Iowa and I, along with any other able-bodied male, should like to help the sheriff catch them and then pay to send them back with no reimbursement from the imperialist owner in Dixie, looking to thrust his racial system upon us...that's what happened.
RebelGuy95 10 months ago
@RebelGuy95 treacherous imperialism was making war on the states which is defined as treason in article 3 section 3 of the constitution and the traitor was Lincoln. Imperialism is seeking to rule over states that do not consent to be ruled by Washington DC. An excellent way to undermine slavery would have been to let the seceding states go-no more fugitive slave protection for them. Slaves escape in droves and the system is weakened and collapses-that's what happened in Brazil.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, the states illegally seceded by taking unilateral action, and then by entering upon their own compact - the confederacy - which is further prohibited.
Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers on April 15, that's three days after the illegal attack on Sumter and one day after it fell.
Don't try and tell me that the South didn't start the shooting war, no one debates that because the South did it on April 12.
RebelGuy95 10 months ago
@RebelGuy95 states were within their rights to secede. Once they were out they could enter into whatever compact they wished. They are sovereign. now on to the starting of the war....cont
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, South Carolina stated in their declaration that the North's unwillingness to crush anti-slavery sentiment in their states and enforce The Fugitive Slave Act made the contract [the Constitution] null and void!!!
Again, we see some half-assed attampt by the South Carolinians to blame my state, and others, for being morally superior.
RebelGuy95 10 months ago
@RebelGuy95 Correct....and the address of Robert Barnwell Rhett attached to South Carolina's declaration explained the economic exploitation of the South by the Northern states and the Federal Government quite extensively. As to supposed moral superiority...the North was more than happy to profit from Slavery, to protect it forever under the Corwin Amendment and then butchered Native Americans to steal their land-some "moral superiority".
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, 9 is more than 2/3 majority out of 13. Yes, it did take a majority.
Yes, the South started the shooting. And despite their illegal, unilateral secession, Sumter was a U.S. installation paid for by the aggregate of tax revenue.
Yes, the morally superior North, as those states made slavery illegal by or before the turn of the 19th century and where the home of the abolitionist movement.
So you're saying that it was over slavery AND taxes...how does that change anything lol?
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 but each state did not have to be approved by others. There was no requirement that they ratify it. They could have chosen not to and RI and NC took a long time to do it. It was their right as sovereign states not to if they didn't want to. Secession was perfectly legal. Lincoln was the aggressor by pouring troops into sovereign SC territory. The North was hardly morally superior ie profiting from slavery, supporting its continued existence, murdering Indians, etc.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 also, Slavery existed in the North far longer than the turn of the 19th century. Slavery was certainly an issue but economic exploitation was an issue as well. Also, deep seated philosophical differences about the nature of the Constitution/power relationship were a major issue. Nobody's hands were clean no matter how much some seem to wishfully think they were somehow "morally superior".
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, there were no slave states (NY and NJ) in the North post 1808.
Secession is not illegal, unilateral secession is.
Pouring troops into SC? What?!
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 False. Slavery existed in the North long after 1808. Even when it was abolished, it was generally grandfathered out which meant slaves were around a long time after official abolition and were still slaves in those states. New Jersey had "apprentices for life" even during the war. You realize Lincoln sent a fleet with 1200 military personnel and the full intention of pouring about 500 troops into Sumter right? Unilateral secession is perfectly legal. Each state is sovereign.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, no, NJ and NY took the most draconian measures after the South's compromise ended in 1808, dictating, perhaps unconstitutionally, that slavery was not only abolished but individuals with slaves had less then 30 days to get their human property out of the state, by the end of January, 1809!
Lincoln can send 500 people to Sumter if he wants...it's a U.S. installation...and they didn't shoot at anyone.
No way, according to Article I, each state gave up some of its sovereignty.
RebelGuy95 9 months ago 2
@RebelGuy95 it wasn't "the South's" compromise. Most in the South wanted the slave trade to stop-it was one of the complaints listed by Virginia in the DOI. It was the slave traders of New England who lobbied for its continuance. google slavery in the North and you will see that what you are claiming about Northern emancipation is simply not so. Lincoln sent troops to occupy sovereign South Carolina territory knowing it would mean war. Article I no longer applied after a state withdrew.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, Fort Sumter was a U.S. installation and SC seceded by illegal means.
I am not claiming anything about Northern abolition, I am stating an historical fact and I have cited one of my college texts in an earlier post to illustrate that.
Article I says states give up a level of sovereignty, naturally, to both the FEDs and the other states
SC knew they had to build a legal argument, and they did so on the grounds that my state and others werent upholding the Fugitive Slave Law
RebelGuy95 9 months ago 2
@RebelGuy95 South Carolina legally seceded and Lincoln trying to pour troops onto their sovereign territory was an act of aggression calculated to start a war. Article I deals with the legislature. States certainly did not surrender their sovereignty by ratifying the constitution. I do agree with the last part. The citing of concerns over slavery showed how they believed the Northern states had broken the compact even though those weren't their primary concerns.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, yeah, they weren't primary concerns, yet the document that their legislature unanimously voted for and submitted to the world can't shut up about slavery grievances.
You might want to read all of Article I, friend, for it does deal with powers denied to the states.
No, states did not surrender all of their sovereignty, but they certainly surrendered some...hence their obligation to abide by federal laws and to respect court decisions in other states, etc.
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 They also included the address of Rhett which was all about economics. I've read article I and the rest of the constitution. Nowhere did they agree to bind themselves forever. Nobody thought that's what they were signing onto in the late 1780's. "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation" over "union," "I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'" Thomas Jefferson
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, I don't think you've been reading my posts fully, for I would never say that the contract is forever binding.
The only document that their legislature drafted and unanimously passed was their declaration and it stated virtually nothing but slavery grievances.
Jefferson also thought states should legislate your Constitutional rights.
We've been through this before - what you're telling me is that it was about slavery AND tariffs....so what? So it's still about slavery.
RebelGuy95 9 months ago 2
@RebelGuy95 You keep ignoring the Address of Rhett which they all knew and had attached. He and Hammond had done a lot of research on the economic aspects and had spoken about it repeatedly. They felt his Address amply covered that topic. Jefferson and Madison did not feel the people could entrust their liberty solely to 9 federal government lawyers. It was about slavery AND money AND fundamental philosophical differences about the nature of the fed/state relationship
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, I am not ignoring a thing...I am trying to understand you.
And you've just confirmed what I stated earlier. Slavery was a primary factor, and given the absence of any real economic redress in their official declaration, slavery was clearly the more substantive issue.
The fact is, slavery grievances were primary factors in causing secession.
Because secession created the circumstances in which the war began, the war was without question over these slavery grievances.
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 the lack of any economic redress? Huh? Their remedy to continued economic exploitation by the Northern states was to leave. If slavery were a more substantive issue, the Corwin Amendment would have addressed their concerns. Fact is, to claim that the main cause was slavery alone is propaganda. The war was "about" the Lincoln administration's desire to centralize power in Washington, supported by Northern industrialists interested in having a captive market.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, What economic exploitation?...they made a killing in their two markets...trading human flesh around dixie and growing 3/4 the world's cotton!
The corwin amendment? That amendment didn't even address their issues - it was a joke!
The corwin amendment said nothing about allowing slavery to spread West or who was going to enforce The Fugitive Slave Law, nothing.
Lincoln was going to centralize power?...how is that, exactly? That is what's called an overbroad statement.
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 grossly unequal taxation, grossly unequal federal funding for infrastructure, subsidies to Northern industries like shipping and mining and fishing. Read Georgia's declaration of causes or Rhett's address. Its spelled out right there.
The Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery forever. The Northern dominated Congress and Abe Lincoln supported it. The Southern states only needed the territories because they needed more votes in Congress....continued
hungarygator 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 By seceding they gave up any claim to the territories and any chance of spreading slavery there...but this was fine with them because they no longer needed extra votes in Congress to stop being economically exploited by the Northern states.
Lincoln's clear aim was to centralize power. Read Douglas' comments about him during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. That was his whole economic and political agenda.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, You misunderstand me. Lincoln was a moderate republican, i.e. even more dangerous to slavery than a radical with less appeal, that's why he was nominated.
If the South remained in the union with slavery restricted to the South-East, then that's it, slavery will end once some more states send their reps and senators to DC.
That tells me nothing, it's like Glenn Beck calling someone socialist...it's overbroad. What power, exactly?
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 What you seem to not understand is that slavery was not threatened. Abolitionists were not popular and received a pathetically small share of the total vote. Stopping the spread of slavery was popular....for reasons of economic self interest as well as plain old racism (they didn't want blacks slave or free) but abolition was not. It was to stop any further economic exploitation-and the R's promised a massive tariff hike-that the Southern states left.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, slavery was not threatened? Ahahaha. Now I know you're jokin with me, bro.
All of the land compromises, the land ordinances, the fights that erupted on the senate floor, that was all about maintaining the delicate power balance between free states and slavers.
"This stipulation [the Fugitive Slave Act] was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves"~SC Declaration of Secession.
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 No, slavery was not threatened within the US. There were political fights about the spread of it and self interest, racism and power politics had as much to do with that as morality. Lincoln was a supporter of the Fugitive Slave Act and he and the Northern States were quite content to protect slavery forever where it existed.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, no, that's incorrect. The compromises and land ordinances regarding slavery's expansion had very little to do with spreading West for the sake of it, it was all about those new slave states then sending their reps and senators to DC to fight off most of the Republican party.
Lincoln said in his inaugural that he wasn't sure who should even enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
SC stated the exact converse of what you have in their declaration. I believe them more than you.
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 I agree with the first part here. It was about power politics and ultimately money.
I can quote Lincoln on his support for the fugitive slave act and whatever else necessary to support the slave system.
Why do you always want to ignore Rhett's Address when discussing South Carolina despite the fact that his address was attached to their declaration? I could quote Calhoun saying the same or the Charleston Mercury saying the same.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, I am not ignoring it...I've conceded to YOUR point - that SC secession was about slavery and tariffs....that doesn't help out at all.
The point is the document actually drafted by the legislature and passed unanimously talks about slavery grievances.
Since it was about slavery it is indefensible, there is no way around it.
Hey, did you know that Nazi Germany wasn't only after ethnic cleansing goals when invading all of Europe?....does that fact really matter ?!
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 No question slavery was an affront to human dignity and an abomination. Equally no question that both regions profited from it. Shame on both for that. Also, no question that the Southern states did have legitimate grievances wrt being economically exploited by the Northern states. Nobody's hands were clean in the whole lead up to and prosecution of the war.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, Yeah, and it's because slavery grievances played such a "material" role in causing secession and ultimately a shooting war, I cannot and will not ever understand the people that defend the South for seceding over the aforementioed issues and starting the shooting.
Never in one million years will I understand it.
Moreover, I think it's a shame, because the modern day states' rights advocates so often associate the modern movement with the old hatred of the antebellum South.
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 Firstly, I'm not at all sure the same thing wouldn't have happened even without slavery. The economic issues would have been the same as would the philosophical differences. Also, Lincoln is the one who wanted and deliberately provoked war over the unanimous advice of his cabinet and without the consent of Congress. Also, trying to equate state's rights exclusively with slavery is a cheap and dishonest tactic of those who love big government-usually on the Left.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, you misunderstood me again, friend. I am not for big government at all!
What I said is that I do not the way states' rights groups also often associate with neo-confederates and fly those flags at rallies, etc. It is 100% counterproductive and alienates possible allies of virtually any other race.
Lincoln asked for 75,000 volunteers after the South Carolinians started shooting.
And yes, the war was unconstitutional in the final analysis - no declaration of war.
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 They fly those flags because state's rights-ie the Jeffersonian-Democrat tradition is what the South has always championed....and yes they championed that long before slavery was a major political issue and have championed it long after. It was never "just a cover for racism/slavery" as lovers of big government try-dishonestly-to claim. Rather than saying they shouldn't, I say its long past time we had an HONEST discussion about that time and the issues surrounding it.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, if that's what you're thinking - no declaration of war = unconstitutional war, then you must know we don't agree.
It would be unconstitutional if Lincoln hadn't been quashing a rebellion
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 Lincoln spent money and waged war without the consent of Congress. The Founders deliberately entrusted that power to the legislature. As Madison said history shows it is the executive branch which is most interested in war and most likely to start them as Lincoln did. That is why it is essential that authority to do so rest with Congress as a check on the power of the executive....and this was not a rebellion. Those states had legally seceded and were a separate country.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, Lincoln can spend money and fight a rebellion, the states did not legally secede, but rather illegally and unilaterally.
The Confederate flag has nothing to do with Jeffersonian states' rights...it came about decades after his death and as a result of a secession attempt...at least in large part due to slavery.
The states do not retain the sovereignty of a nation, that is ridiculous if that's what you're saying.
The are afforded wide deference, but not in totality
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 The president can neither spend money nor wage war without the consent of Congress. The states legally seceded-as sovereign entities they did not require anybody else's consent any more than the US would require anybody else's consent if it chose to withdraw from the UN...or when it chose to withdraw from the ABM treaty for example. The Confederate flag has everything to do with state's rights and decentralized power. continued
hungarygator 9 months ago
@hungarygator, the congress appropriated funds for Lincoln, obviously, otherwise there would have been no army.
Lincoln doesn't need a declaration of war to crush a rebellion, even a very very large one.
They illegally seceded, but tried to justify their illegal act on the basis that the North wasn't carrying out their end of the contract by not enforcing The Fugitive Slave Act, as well as by being openly hostile towards slavery generally.
RebelGuy95 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 He spent money BEFORE they appropriated any and waged war before they approved it. By the time they came back in session, the war had been going on-there was no chance to debate or authorize it until it had already started. What Congress is going to pull the plug then? He needed Congressional approval to wage war on a foreign country which the CSA was-they legally seceded. A sovereign can withdraw from a treaty eg the US could withdraw from the UN without anybody's permission.
hungarygator 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 The states DELEGATED certain powers to the federal government which they as sovereign entities were within their rights to withdraw. 3 states ratified the Constitution with that express proviso and nobody felt their ratification thereby defective. Had they been told that ratifying the Constitution was a one way ticket, no state would have ratified it-a point no serious historian would disagree with. Who was the federal govt-their agent, to unilaterally alter the deal in its favor?
hungarygator 9 months ago
@RebelGuy95 Lincoln deliberately provoked war. The Providence Daily Post on April 13, 1861, wrote "Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor" by provisioning Sumter. On April 12 1861 the Jersey City American Statesman: wrote "This unarmed vessel, it is well understood, is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South." He wrote a letter to his navel commander-Fox-thanking him for starting the war.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, no, no way. That makes no sense.
The men in Sumter were of no tactical threat to the South Carolinians, and they did not start the shooting. South Carolina started shooting at men trapped on an island.
The Constitution is a contract. This is not debated. However, the question is how to withdraw from said contract.
It took a majority of contracting parties to allow for each state's admission...therefore it does not follow that unilateral secession is legitimate in any way.
RebelGuy95 10 months ago
@RebelGuy95 Sumter held a commanding position in the principle harbor. Think Washington would have tolerated a British fort in the middle of New York harbor? The aggressor is one who pours troops onto somebody else's land-not one who fires to drive them away. You say it took a majority of contracting parties to allow each state's admission? No it didn't. It only took 9 to come into force when they all seceded from the Articles of Confederation. No state required another's approval.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@RebelGuy95 We haven't even begun to talk about the black codes in Northern states intended to keep blacks out and drive out the ones who were there...codes that proved largely successful.
hungarygator 10 months ago
@hungarygator, my home state of Iowa revised their anti-immigration laws about one year after Dred Scott. The legislature stated that they have sought to bar all black immigration so as to help keep policing costs down that the imperialist South was imploring them to spend.
The vast majority of blacks coming North were escapees, and even legal freedmen could be declared an escapee with forged papers under Dred Scott, then every man had to help hunt them down for the imperialists in Dixie
RebelGuy95 10 months ago 2
@RebelGuy95 ROTF! It was hardly due to "imperialism" from Dixie that Northern states enacted nazi-like black codes. It was due to their own flagrant racism. Now if you want to talk about imperialism, there is Mr Lincoln's war on the South not to mention the massacre of the plains Indians who were in the way of the Yankees choo choos....
hungarygator 10 months ago
Profound and provocative video. I think there needs to be a re-visiting of the philosophical discussion of the Constitution as a contract between two sovereigns: the state and the individual.
whiff1962 11 months ago
Here's the thing---you obviously have no legal education of any kind, and no fucking idea what you're talking about. So why argue constitutional law? You wish the confederacy had killed more American troops---fine. You support slavery for black people---fine. You wish blacks had suffered MORE years of slavery and segregation---fine. Argue your case!!! Explain why you believe blacks deserve more years of slavery and segregation!!! Argue what you KNOW, not what you don't!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks No I don't support secession or slavery. You're acting completly irrational.
gunzrkewl 1 year ago
Oh, so you oppose the confederacy and you're glad America won the Civil War? Awesome! One nation indivisible, right?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks I'm laughing so hard right now I can't even catch my breath!
gunzrkewl 1 year ago
Well, let's hope you suffocate, die, and make the world a better place!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks lol your ignorance to understanding our founding documents spews from your ideological hatred for southerners and their heritage
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't hate anyone, actually. I just think racism and intolerance are wrong. You disagree. That's all.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks and u obviously dont understand what ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL means cause you say only u are intelligent and southerners are stupid in that quote alone you show you are by definition RACIST and u do not believe ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm a racist? Really? Which race(s) do I consider inherently inferior to others?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks YOU ARE A FUCKING ASSLICKING DUMBFUCK DIPSHIT YANKEE FUCK GET BETTER GRADES IN SOCIAL STUDIES YOU FUCKOFF
TylerPHS 1 year ago
MY ANCESTORS DIED FOR THE CONFEDERATE FLAG
TylerPHS 1 year ago
And all you do is whine like a little bitch on Youtube. Why aren't you brave enough to die for the flag?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks because the war is over you fucking dipshit
TylerPHS 1 year ago
Comment removed
holyhandgrenade117 1 year ago
I love how these silly comments are the only thing people can use against Ron Paul...
holyhandgrenade117 1 year ago
People can use all sorts of things against Ron Paul. It's not a coincidence when someone polls only 2% of the total primary vote, doesn't come close to winning even one single GOP primary, and finishes with 5% or less of the GOP vote in 22 separate states, including California, Ohio, Florida, and his home state of Texas.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks And he's at the top of CPAC... I love statistics too!
holyhandgrenade117 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out my video. If you don't believe in secession, then you believe in slavery, for you are for enslaving people to a government that they want no part of:
youtube.com/watch?v=oiH_XnqnyHU
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
Contrary to the SA's view, Lincoln did not start the war. The "Confeds" did at Fort Sumpter. Only with the dawning of the Atomic Age, we had to become more tolerant of what would otherwise be acts of war lest it escalate into an all out nuclear war.
Before the Atomic age, opening fire on a nations garrison was an act of war. The moment you open fire, you are at war. As such, the South gambles on starting a war and lost.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
miliatry might does not solve the problem it makes it worse
kevinkards1 1 year ago
An excellent video. Thank you.
NewAmericaNow 1 year ago
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Secession is merely the removal of consent.
One military defeat by the forces of big government (regardless of how brutal or oppressive those forces behave towards civilians) does not eliminate in perpetuity the right to self-determination.
It took four, count 'em...FOUR, wars for secession by Portugal before they finally won their independence from Spain.
webfulcrum 2 years ago
Secession is CONSTITUTIONAL!
cmcphee 2 years ago
Well, not according to the Constitution or the Supreme Court. Other than those minor problems, you have a great argument!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Yeah wow...I guess there is not a tenth amendment in your constitution then.
cmcphee 2 years ago
There is a 10th Amendment. It doesn't apply, because the Constitution bars secession in the first instance. Secession is neither BASIC nor fundamental. It's unconstitutional.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Are you serious? I hope it doesn't come to secession. Still, the right to secede was the whole point of the Dec. of Ind. The Constitution never says it's not legal. Have you read it? Read the Constitution. So what if the Supreme Court disagrees if they're exceeding their power in the first place? Did the U.S. have the king's consent in 1776? Again, I hope it doesn't come to that, but it's amazing that people are so uninformed about our history.
1972texan 2 years ago
Sorry, slappy. Secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional, as the Constitution flatly states, Lincoln explained and everyone knew in 1861, and the United States Supreme Court confirmed 150 years ago.
The Founding Fathers did not have the consent of the King, and they knew they'd hung if they lost, like Nathan Hale. As a result, they didn't spend a lot of time whining and lying that revolution was legal under British law.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
If the Founding Fathers had the consent of the King, would they have been the Founding Fathers?
They knew they could hang if they won.
Why in hell would revolution be legal under British Law? It took us to introduce the concept to them on a personal level.
If your state is already seceding....the US Supreme Court decisions then mean.....what?
ThePresidentialTouch 2 years ago
Revolution was illegal under British law, so my Founding Fathers didn't spend a lot of time whining or flat-out lying to the contrary.
If you hate America, then start your war, pussy. I'm sure there's a military base near your house---drive on up to the gate and open fire. If you win, nifty. If you lose, don't come back and pretend like your shit was legal the entire time. Secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Is revolution legal under U.S. law?
First slappy, now pussy. I see a pattern forming. Too bad your arguement can't be honest, otherwise you would dispense with the name-calling, you wouldn't need it to help support your position if the motives behind it were pure.
If you shoot at a military base gate and lose, you don't come back to do anything. They have bigger guns.
Your logic is faulty. Read more Jefferson
ThePresidentialTouch 2 years ago
No, violating the Constitution and firing on American troops has never been legal under U.S. law. It's a real good way to get your ass kicked, though.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Where in the Constitution does it say it's not legal?
Ass kicked? More lack of pure motive.
Generally, shooting at Americans will get you killed.
Happy Thanksgiving!
ThePresidentialTouch 2 years ago
Read Lincoln's first inaugural or Texas v. White. It's all in there. Secession is, was and always has been unconstitutional, and Lincoln swore a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. That's it. If your state secedes tomorrow, declares the "cornerstone" of its new nation slavery and the genetic inferiority of your race, and starts shooting at American troops, We the People stomp that ass. We're one nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice for ALL. Traitors are free to leave.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
How can it "all possibly be just "in there"? There's a lot of "there" there.
The AUTHOR of the Constitution, Tom Jefferson in his inaugaral address stated "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the union or to change it's republican form let them stand undisturbed."
ThePresidentialTouch 2 years ago
Abe Lincoln also said on the House floor in 1848 "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power,Have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may chose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revoloutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Where in the constitution is secession illegal?
ThePresidentialTouch 2 years ago 2
Why would any seceding state declare slavery as a cornerstone? Then they'd be no better than Africa.
Genetic inferiority of my race? What's my race? Did you just make a racist comment?
why do you expect people to start shooting at American troops? Is this some kind of sick fantasy you dream about at night?
"Stomp that ass". More misdirected attempts at threats of violence, silly to do on the Internet, but then again, you are being a very silly person.
ThePresidentialTouch 2 years ago
So, I take it you truly don't believe in state's rights?
But it's O.K. if the former Soviet UNION does it, we applauded when THAT happened saying it was a victory for state's rights, yet we shouldn't let our own have the opportunity?
Seems a bit hypocritical, don'tcha think?
ThePresidentialTouch 2 years ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks This is what was at the end of texas v white. the federal judicial system, in the case of Texas v. White, held that the preamble to the Constitution, which states that the Constitution was intended to "form a more perfect union," meant states did not have a right to secede. The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States." It can be done without revolution, just need to come together as states to do it.
wheelori814 2 years ago
Yes, the Court cited that language in the Constution, among others. And of course states in the South could have seceded, with permission, if they had asked. The South had a thousand different perfectly legal options to address their displeasure with the results of the 1860 election. Seceding without permission and killing American troops was never one of them.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks I was actually refering to todays times in seceding, not back then. Its what a lot of people are talking about. I could go on and on about a lot of things, but we have enough conflict going on with eachother without the government being brought into it.
wheelori814 2 years ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks
ROFL the states don't have to ask permission...the people of the states allow the federal gov't to exist and the Constitution is to protect US from it but we as a whole sit and watch them limit and eliminate OUR inalienable rights. Someone told you the Civil war was about slavery right? The south fought the monster that is the federal gov't 150 years ago, now here we are again and it's still about slavery...debt slavery and a out of control central gov't.
mcapps1 1 year ago
Of course they have to ask permission. They voluntarily ratified or asked to be governed by a Constitution that flatly bars unilateral secession. If you voluntarily lease an apartment, you can't paint it pink without permission.
Of course the war was about slavery. The South proudly said so when they started it, in their Cornerstone Speech and the Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas declarations of secession, among others. The South seceded because America elected a Free Soil president.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
Please read me the part of the Constitution that states that secession is not legal. And as far as Texas vs. White..if the Supreme Court declared Secession not legal then, they still didnt put it into the Constitution because its still not there.
meetman3 2 years ago
The Supreme Court does not and cannot add things to the Constitution. There's an amendment process for that. And there's no need to add a prohibition on unpermitted secession---that is, was, and always has been unconstitutional. If folks think the Supreme Court got it wrong and secession should be constitutional, they've had 150 years to pursue a constitutional amendment.
How's that effort going? Yeah.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
The Constitution is something I think you may want to read or at least take a class on so you may understand how the fed has overstepped its authority.
Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class is posted on the tube...watch it and learn something.
mcapps1 1 year ago
Wow. Your education regarding constitutional law comes from a video on Youtube. Mine comes from three years at a top ten law school and a JD degree. You're way, way, way out of your league, slappy. Stick to the REAL reason you support the confederacy and its Cornerstone of racism and slavery.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago