(1) 7 states seceded BEFORE the Morrill tariff was passed.
(2) If they hadn't seceded, it wouldn't have been able to pass through the Senate. The vote in the Senate was 25-14 in favor of the tariff. If the 12 southern senators hadn't vacated their seats, the vote would have been 26-25 AGAINST the tariff.
(3) Buchanan was the president that signed the tariff into law, not Lincoln.
(4) VP of the CSA was named Alexander Hamilton Stephens.
Another lie from the Confederate traitors, who were loyal to the British crown and their lopsided trade and colonialism. The Tariff was imposed to protect the USA against the wicked Banking schemes of the British empire. Confederates betrayed the Constitution of the USA.
This revisionist crap is easily debunked. The Morrill Tariff was easily blocked by the southern democrats controlling the Senate -- but since their states seceded before it was officially sent back to the House, it's hard to make the argument that it was the primary cause of the war.
"Democracy is hard! Let's abandon that Constitution we ratified and go rape our slaves in the corner," I imagine them saying.
@ageinGamer Unfortunately in a Letter to CAPT Fox Lincoln admitted that he started the war with his actions a Ft Sumter. & in his 1st inaug address he stated that Not only did he not care about slavery in the south but that he was willing to make it untouchable and then stated that the only way an invasion would happen is if TAXES were not paid. & Davis' 1 inaug address speaks of economics as a main issue not slavery... try reading the original record not what the Lincoln Cult teaches you.
@knitestalkers Lincoln started the war with what actions at Ft. Sumpter? The rebels attacked a federal holding with their illegal navy and captured the fort. And are you really going to point to Lincoln's first innaug. as evidence it was economic rather than slavery? The word taxes appears once (and it *was* Lincoln's job as chief executive) while a solid two thirds of the speech addresses slavery! A bold move on your part.
@ageinGamer Did you read his 1st inaug adress? You know "I have no intent to disturb slavery where it exists"... and near the end he states that he would support making an amendment to make it untouchable and also he states that invading a state would be a great crime no matter what the cause... he defends the right of the south to have slaves did you even read his speech? he then goes on to say that if taxes are not paid then there will be an invasion... it is called read the speech.
@knitestalkers "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. THIS IS THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL DISPUTE." You shouldn't lie about a famous speech and THEN encourage people to read it -- you may run into someone able to understand it.
Lincoln threatening to invade, I suppose: "The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."
@ageinGamer "It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous"
"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments."
@ageinGamer "Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."
@ageinGamer "If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?"
@ageinGamer " It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."
@ageinGamer "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." wow is this the same speech you are talkin about? He admits Slavery means nothing to him & is not his cause. but I will continue... with his 1st inaug address
@knitestalkers He swears to preserve the Union -- the Union that some were attacking because of slavery. He is also sworn to uphold the Constitution -- the Constitution that the secessionists were breaking.
@ageinGamer his foucus was preserving the Union in his words. Since he was the pursuer his reasons are the reason for the war- he clearly states its not a war against slavery for him. While the Original 7 did mention slavery as a reason it was not their full reason collectively. But I find that Lincoln's threat of invasion if taxes are not paid a little more telling- especially when you look at his Mercantilist Past and His Economic Policies as Dictator. He was shady on the economic front.
@ageinGamer & Lincoln did more to destroy our constitution with his war than anything the C.S.A. could have done- had they won our liberties would have been more secure. And not to mention slavery would have ended peacefully (most likely) b/c the U.S. would not have had to worry about the Fugative slave law (as Lincoln Noted) and slavery would have become too expensive to keep up. Which the Border Southern states were learning. Slavery is less about hatred and more about greed.
@ageinGamer Lincoln's explanation of the Union is historicly Ignorant. He himself states one that the actions of the south were revolutionary then goes on to talk about the people have a revolutionary right. He also forgets that only 1/3 of the colonial white male population (no where near a majority- let alone the whole of the empire) wanted to leave Britian. And Suprise Britian was not destroyed as he claimed would happen to the U.S. & he forgets some states were left out of union for a time.
@knitestalkers Is this all stuff your Grand Wizard tells you, or just the delusions of a semi-literate paranoiac? What Lincoln may have remembered, was that the Revolutionary War was not about the United Kingdom splitting in two, but an overseas colony breaking off.
@ageinGamer My GrandWizard? LOL .... I AM A JEW! & the Largest military Jewish cemetary outside of the State of Israel is a Confederate one in Virginia... lol. Judah Benjamin..uh Sephardic Jew- like my wife. Dumbass. & So because the Colonies were over seas that made it ok? But because the South is Just South it makes it wrong? What logic! What about Canada? & the other 2/3 of the colonies' population? Hello it is Secession...
@knitestalkers Paranoiac then. Thought so. I am pleased to (apparently) be the first to relieve you of the ignorance of the difference between imperial colonies, territories, and founding members of federations. Virginia and South Carolina, at least, would rightly have been considered by Lincoln integral to the United States. Had Liberia still been a U.S. holding at the time, its loss would not have been referred to as destroying the nation or the like.
@ageinGamer Imperial Colonies still belong to the King. The diff w/ A Fed Gov is that it takes the States to create that Gov & with drawl from that Union doesn't destroy said Fed only Changes the # in it & relieves the other states from having be involved in Mutual protection of Said State. If it destroys then what entity Invaded the South? You still have the problem of States retaining the right to secede & New England debating secession first under Pres. Jefferson & Madison etc etc.
@ageinGamer "Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one."
" If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it?"
@ageinGamer "We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before?"
@ageinGamer "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service." wait for it .... wait for it.......
@ageinGamer and here it is..."To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."....lol same speech yet who is the Revisonist? Play your B.S. on someone that hasn't studied.
@knitestalkers A moron can study and never understand what he's reading. Yes, as I've said, Lincoln was offering many political concessions to avoid a war. Then the traitors still rebelled. Then he invaded. And when the southern slave states removed themselves from the democratic process, the northern states used legislation to kill slavery. When the rebellion was put down, slavery was done in the United States. Coincidence?
@ageinGamer Hum? unfortunately for you Lincoln's entire political record speaks other wise. He and many other Northern Poiticians stated that the the territories & northern areas were basicly to be a white preserve. In fact Lincoln tried on many occasions to foster the idea of Deporting Blacks out of the U.S.- an idea which according to Gen. Ben Butler was kept until his death. He also clearly states Emancipation was a punishment for the "rebellion". So your point goes nowhere.
@knitestalkers Yawn. Who cares? This has nothing to do with the treason that caused the war, and none of that other stuff ever happened so -- so what?
@ageinGamer only because the money Lincoln actually secured from congress to do so was stolen by the man he put in charge.....lol ahhhh stings don't it?
@ageinGamer Lincoln supported Illiniois' laws again interracial relations. Some Northern states amend their constitutions to remove black suffurage. Some imposed laws that required blacks to post a form of deposit $500 (cost limiting at that time) per person to ensure "good behavior" in order to live there. The Ironic part is that 1000's of southern whites had their suffurage removed & given to former slaves- which some northern states themselves were not doing. All to secure Republican Votes.
@ageinGamer lol concessions? You are grasping at straws now. And the Southern states democraticly voted to secede. Tennesse lists the vote by the people in their secession ordnance. Even Salmon P. Chase admitted it in the shameful Texas v White case (which btw he should have recused himself from if he had any respect for the Law). The legal backflips after the war alone speak to the truth- the South was Right and Lincoln was a tyrant.
@ageinGamer so if you actually were paying attention and I know you didn't- you'd know Lincoln's concern was the Union Not slavery in that speech... or more correctly pay your taxes or else. but i will let you have slavery if you do... some humanitarian. He was a master of rhetoric, & contratictory which is why that speech left everyone guessing as to if we'd have a war or not.
@ageinGamer Funny how he says the Gov will not assail you- then procedes to imprison anyone that disagrees w/ any policy domestic or war related... I am talking about people that just complained about taxes or wanted peace (they just expressed opinion- they did not fight). I find a few thing hilarious and quite ironic but I will not expect you to find it as amusing....
@ageinGamer Irony #1 Francis K. Howard was imprisoned at ft. McHenry b/c he was editor of a paper that critisized the Lincoln for denying civil rights in MD & starting a war w/out Congress' consent. (which they eventually rubber stamped) The Irony is that Ft. McHenry was where his Grandfather Fracis Scott Key Penned the "Star Spangled Banner"... You should read American Bastille.
@ageinGamer irony #2... Thousands of European Immigrants enlisted in the federal army (with promises of land grants etc.- whole units could not even speak english) to teach the grandsons of Thomas Jefferson & Patrick Henry how to be good "Americans". Thomas G. Jefferson died for the cause... Europe opened its prison doors and dumbed its trash here & Lincoln said fight for me. Rape, pillage, KILL.... you have alot of reading.
@knitestalkers What does this have to do with the southern states' reason for rebellion? What you're having trouble wrapping your little head around is that claims that Lincoln was wrong or criminal or genius or gay or whatever have nothing to do with slavery's role in the Civil War. I'm not here to defend anyone's practices or behavior -- I'm just here to point out to revisionist idiots that slavery was, in fact, the primary cause of the Civil War. These attempts to derail don't interest me.
@ageinGamer Wow, again it was A cause for secession.... not the War. Again their can only be a war in the case of secession if there is a persuer...and at that point it is the persuer's reasons Not the persuee's reasons that are the cause of the war. Secession and War are two seperate acts. And Lincoln Quite Clearly States that his purpose was the "preservation of the Union" & that slavery had no baring on his choice. I put that there b/c you keep talking of treason- which it was not.
@ageinGamer "It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them;"
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Lincoln 1st aug address. h t t p ://w w w . bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
@ageinGamer just so I you understand I will state it again- you are a little slow. The SOUTH TRIED to pay for ft sumter and their part of the federal debt.... Lincoln refused to even igknowledge then while having Seward- lie to them and say peace was workable- Lincoln then sent a messager to Gov. of S.C.- no response allowed. Skipping over Davis. This was a direct challenge to Soverignty & Lincoln Knew it hence his letter already posted. Only a horse died, no P.O.W.s. All agresion stopped.
@knitestalkers It's bizarre then, that the 'Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union' that South Carolina released when they turned traitor a month before they attacked the fort (like anyone trying to buy property!) ONLY MENTIONS SLAVERY.
@ageinGamer Again that is one state... One out 11 that sucessfully seperated for a period of time. Actully 5 mention slavery- Mississippi has the most hilarious reason.. you should read it but again slavery was not the only reason. Especially seeing as each state had their own reason- then Davis put out his Inaug Address- then you have decades of history of complaints.
@ageinGamer Slavery was an important reason for secession in the original 7. I never denied that. However you equate secession with war- which at best is ignorance & at worst dishonest. There can only be war if persued. And Lincoln persued.
@ageinGamer "Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury.The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day" -GA
@ageinGamer "Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects."- GA
@ageinGamer Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors.- GA
This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. - GA
@ageinGamer They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. -GA
@ageinGamer These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. - GA
@ageinGamer It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.- Mississippi
@ageinGamer It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system. It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause. -Mississppi
The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression
@ageinGamer , and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States -VA
@ageinGamer , by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government,- Missouri
@ageinGamer seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; - Missouri
@ageinGamer Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof:-Missouri
@ageinGamer President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society,- KY
@ageinGamer and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will- KY
@ageinGamer Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government:- KY
@ageinGamer you are assuming and you know what they say about that don't you? No in KY.... and other southern states actual property was seized (not just slaves- and btw Lincoln fired one general for freeing slaves pre-emancipation proc -which itself had exemptions- and reversed anothers orders to free slaves) you have a lot to catch up on in terms of reading actual history- original document not Lincoln Cultist's twisting of the facts.
@ageinGamer An incursion has been instigated and actually perpetuated into a sister State the inevitable consequences of which were murder rapine and crimes even more horrible. The felon chief of that murderous band has been canonized as a heroic martyr by public meetings by the press and pulpit of all of the Northern States- FL unpublished found by National Parks and Services (NPS) historian
@ageinGamer – others of the party have been demanded by the Governor of the State they invaded and their surrender refused by the Governors of two States of the Confederacy, demanded not as fugitives from service but as fugitives from justice charged with treason and murder.- FL unpublished found by National Parks and Services Historian.
@ageinGamer The Congressional halls where the members should meet with fraternal feelings, a just regard for the interests of all the States there represented and respect for the feelings of all its members has been prostituted to the daily denunciation and vituperation of the slave holding States as sanctioning oppression robbery and all villainies,- FL unpublished foud by NPS historian.
@ageinGamer thus subjecting the members from these States to the degradation of gross and constantly repeated insults, and compelling the exclusion from our public press of the debates of our national Legislature or the circulation of the most incendiary matter.- FL unpublished Foud by NPS historian
@ageinGamer As to the sacrifice of lives which recent acquisitions have caused how small is the proportion of Northern blood shed or laurels won in the Mexican war.- FL unpub found by NPS Historian- also intresting to note that Florida was not the only state to mention this.
@ageinGamer Additional territory is generally only acquired by conquest or purchase. In either case the slaveholding States contribute at least this equal proportion of men or money – we think much more than an equal proportion. The revenues of the General Government are almost entirely derived from duties on importations. FL unpub
@ageinGamer It is time that the northern consumer pays his proportion of these duties, but the North as a section receiving back in the increased prices of the rival articles which it manufactures nearly or quite as much as the imposts which it pays thus in effect paying nothing or very little for the support of the government.- Fl Unpb
@knitestalkers "By the agency of a large proportion of the members from the non slaveholding States books have been published and circulated amongst us the direct tendency and avowed purpose of which is to excite insurrection and servile war with all their attendant horrors. A President has recently been elected, an obscure and illiterate man without experience in public affairs (con't)
@knitestalkers "or any general reputation mainly if not exclusively on account of a settled and often proclaimed hostility to our institutions and a fixed purpose to abolish them. It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act. (con't)
@knitestalkers "This has never been charged by any one. But it has been announced by all the leading men and presses of the party that the ultimate accomplishment of this result is its settled purpose and great central principle. That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less. (con't)
@knitestalkers "Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. (con't)
@knitestalkers "Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves." -- Ibid.
@ageinGamer Again- I did not deny that slavery was a Cause for secession. But it was not the only reason which you also have stated. So this is a mute point.
@ageinGamer if you can't even understand your hero's own words I can't help you. so whats your excuse for deporting a us cong from ohio or putting out an arrest warrant for a sitting u.s. supreme court justice? or the imprisionment of over 13k civilians from maine - ohio 7 & beyond on rumor alone? Or shutting down over 300 newspapers or litteraly color coding ballets so Soldiers could see who was voting correctly? or letting NV in union w/out proper procedure b/c he thought he'd lose reelection?
@knitestalkers Is the issue that Lincoln was a politician, or that he didn't want to lose his job? I know you're mad at -- um -- whatever you're so mad at, but none of that changes the fact that the southern states turned their back on the Constitution they ratified to preserve slavery and white supremacy.
@ageinGamer Again- there was a laundry list of reasons and the South did not turn its back on the constitution. The 9th & 10th Amend allow for secession, ratification agreements do the same- the very principle of the founding allow for it. We were never a conglomerate "United States" with states subservient to their own agent until 1865. The States are the Union & the people are the States. The ounders argued against disunion but never saud it was illegal. The compact was violated by Lincoln.
@ageinGamer You're not upset that Lincoln destroyed the Constitution to "save the union"? awesome. No no I understand- you love his dictatorial style. You can't just say what the south did was treason and expect me not to respond. Its not derailing when you bring it up-only when I respond? There is a reason Lincoln hoped Davis would escape and Chief Justice Chase did legal back flips to make sure he never saw a court room& Davis WANTED to be tried. After 2yrs in prison & denial of even council.
@knitestalkers I commented on this video to correct the revisionist claims that slavery was not a cause (or even the main cause) of the Civil War. Attacks on Lincoln's methods or crimes or racism just don't have any bearing. You are having an argument that has nothing to do with me. I'll say it again: Lincoln's dead, and the Constitution survived him. The rebellion failed and so has slavery. You should write a letter to your favorite Supreme Court jurist and ask if secession rights are settled.
@ageinGamer it wasn't - it was a cause for secession. Oh you mean the Jurists that have unconstitutionally decided that they are the end all be all of the constitution? Or the case "Law" in which Salmon Chase decided on in which the case had nothing to do with secession & where the 3 justices not appointed by Lincoln dessented and Chase actually should have recused himeself because he was a person of intrest in the case? The one where the real case part that was eventually overturn? That one?
@ageinGamer or are you talking about the fact that Chase used the 14th amend to get Davis off from being tried (which was never properly ratified just declared - OH & PA actually resended their ratfication of it over fed coruption) all because he new Davis would win in court. lol... Pres Johnson Had top Prosecutors Say they wouldn't touch it because Davis would win. Hence the Legal backflips so NO the issue is not settled.
@ageinGamer just so we are striaght.. The founders fought a war to free themselves from oppression to put 8 now 9 unelected lawyers in office to be the soul judge of the limits of their own power & that of the Fed Gov't? Yeah that sounds reasonable. You keep saying that it is treason and rebllion but you don't cite anything that legally backs up your statements or even historically. You sound more and more like a puppet. Secession & WAR are 2 seperate things therefore your reasoning is flawed.
@knitestalkers Well here's your opportunity to wrap your argument up succinctly by naming that time in the history of the world where members of a nation (kingdom, city-state, etc.) broke away from their parent state without months of negotiation or any new legislation and DIDN'T have to fight for it.
@ageinGamer Belgium seceded from the Netherlands in 1830. Norway from Sweden in 1905. Singapore from the Malaysian Federation in 1965. 15 republics seceded from the Soviet Union. The Czech Repubic & Slovakia were created out of Czechoslovakia through secession. All done PEACFULLY & the CSA tried to negotiate...pre-war & during the war even while the south was winning. Lincoln Rebuffed them.... so your framing of the statement was faulty.... try again jack!
@knitestalkers Who did they try to negotiate with? What legislation could they possibly have proposed with their representatives recalled from Congress? The southern states vowed that they would quit the U.S. if Lincoln won the election and then did. That's an ultimatum, not negotiation. The president at the time called it illegal and so did his successor. Why am I not surprised you couldn't understand my challenge? No territory has ever seceded w/o a new law or a fight.
@ageinGamer Jefferson Davis sent delegates to Washington D.C. Lincoln used Seward to spin tails of peacefully resolving the issue maybe you need to read more. What is next? You going to tell me that Black, Jewish, Native American and Hispanic Confederates are all myths too? you still have more than a few problems w/ your case like the Founders themselves recognized secession as legal, 3 states retained the secession rights & Congress did not challenge it-but let them in the Union-est it as law.
@knitestalkers ? Clearly I'm missing something. Nobody's as stupid as you're pretending to be. Jefferson Davis' authority to send delegates was as president of states in open rebellion. This is not an example of negotiating to break off. And apparently you are back to thinking (or still thinking -- if that's the right word) I'm claiming the war was to end racism. Get a clue, Cletis.
@ageinGamer wow nice deflection & non answer to my charges... Are you actually going to answer my questions/statements or are you going to continue to waste my time w/ rhetoric? You have not explained how they were in rebellion you have not addressed secession rights retained,- new england's actions under Jefferson & Madison nor theirs in return... the actions of actually estblish the Constitution or the Uses of the 9th & 10th Amend nor the Legal back flips of U.S. Gov etc etc. Still Waiting.
@knitestalkers What questions? You've already acknowledged that the slave states declared secession because they felt slavery was threatened by the new Republican administration. The Union army invaded after the attack on Ft. Sumter. Were there Native Americans in the south? Um -- sure? The Confederate States of America lost the war and the U.S. currently has 50 states and laws against slavery. What specifically are you having trouble wrapping your head around?
@ageinGamer they were restated above.Yes secession in part over slavery. Again Davis sent delegates to d.c to negotiate peaceful resolution & to pay for Ft. Sumter etc. Instead of meeting w/ them Lincoln played games- message SC Gov saying he was going to reprovision Ft Sumter. Something he knew would force Davis' Hand (hence Abe's letter to Capt Fox) b/c tensions over the fort were already made known. No one died & agressions stoped after. Lincoln was trying to mock & test CSA Soverignty.
@ageinGamer Sigh Lincoln had Seward tell the delegates that cooler heads would prevail, the Garrison would be removed & he was working on peacful solutions for Restoring Union.This was maintained until 7Apr1861. on the 8th Lincoln sent his letter to SC gov that he was going to reprovision not withdraw (against his cabint's advise). The SC Gov notified Confed Military. Hence the demand to surrender- the south was lied to & Soverignty directly threatened- how did they know it was just food?
@ageinGamer (con't) Lincoln didn't allow them to inspect nor escort nor take the supplies to Ft Sumter which would have easied tensions instead of causing the Attack on Ft Sumter (to which he admitted to knowing in his letter to Capt Fox) and eventually the lives of some 620,000 people to include Southern Civilians Women, Children and Old men of which were free blacks and slaves.... so yes he treated it as a game which makes it so much worst.
@ageinGamer The 5 "Civilized" tribes (Cherokee, Seminoles, Choctaw, Chickasaw & Creek) fought for the South... Hence Brigader General Watie Stand- Also a Cherokee Chief & last General to surrender. Yes the C.S.A. lost but it does not mean that the U.S. was right nor does it mean it was legal to invade & force union, Install a military dicatorship- force amend state constitutions, remove sufferage from the population- among many other things. To include starting the genocide on plains Indians.
@knitestalkers Oh, you're still arguing 'cause you think it wasn't RIGHT. You disagree... Gosh. Maybe you should sue president Lincoln or something. Try to get him impeached.
@ageinGamer deflect deflect- some rhetoric..But nothing of real substance coming out of your keyboard... you are starting to bore me. Running out of and actual argument are we?
@knitestalkers What argument? You are literally the only one arguing. Yes, you're mad at a dead American President. Yes, you wish the Civil War had gone another way 145 years ago. Sorry, but it happened the way it happened -- what does any of it have to do with me? Tell you what: you start a petition to overturn the result of the Civil War and I'll sign it so long as you promise to send me a picture of your face when you get your answer.
@ageinGamer It has everything to do with you as a "Citizen" of the U.S. in the since the war "changed the intent & meaning of the Union" not by legal actions but by Blood. To paraphrase Lysander Spooner (to which I am sure you have no idea how important he was to Abolition movement) the war made more slaves than it freed. Alot of what we are arguing about in 2days politics can be laid @ Lincoln's feet b/c of the war & his policies. If You'd rather be ignorant to your "slavery" that is fine.
@ageinGamer (con't) but don't fain intellectualism, patriotism or "righteous cause" when you have clearly demonstrated your lack of caring & lack of knowledge on the afore subject. And before you pull that tired race card again...(lest we forget your Grandwizard Comment) the term "Slavery" was used in strickly Lysander Spooner's meaning on the outcome of the war.BTW he that wrote the arguement that no one has ever refuted-The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (Abt 1845).
@ageinGamer oh and Davis' authority was based of the right of the people to pick their own leaders- ie abolish the old and instate the new... and the previous post still stands. & this time no rhetoric or deflections or don't bother responding.
@knitestalkers Jefferson Davis was not elected in accordance with Article II of the Constitution ratified by those states he claimed to represent. Afraid that makes it invalid.
@ageinGamer Davis was elected (9 Feb 1861) provisional President in Constitutional Convention by the delegates sent by the States to set up the gov ie BEFORE the CSA constitution was even adopted. Then once it was adopted & things were finished being set up he was elected under Article 2 (6 Nov 1861) & even the U.S. had President Cyrus Griffin (Resigned 4 Mar 1789 - Washington elected 30 Apr 1789) so your point, while cute- is invalid. (continued)
@ageinGamer(Continued) U.S. Const Article 7: The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.- THE 9th state ratified the Constitution on June 21, 1788 New Hamp. It took until 1789 for things to be up and running... so did that make President Cyrus Griffin illegitament? He Stayed in Office until he resigned in 1789- Washington took office about a 2 months (4 Mar-30 Apr) later.... lol.
@ageinGamer you seem to do this when you have no real responses. Yawn you bore me. But At least you admitt you don't know what you are talkin about that is the first step in recovery. We have already gone over this Slavery was a cause for secession not the war- b/c it was not Lincoln's reason for forcing Union nor the War. And you are the one that keeps saying secession it treason without any facts to back it up..I only answered YOUR CLAIM. Alright Skippy say something of worth or don't bother.
@knitestalkers I'd just be repeating myself. Congratulations! You're the first person ever to find someone you disagree with on the Internet!
The war was settled. The rebellion was illegal if for no other reason than the rebels lost the war. I understand that it sticks in your craw (though not precisely why), but it just doesn't interest me that much. You agree with the secessionists and hate the U.S.'s actions in the war. Don't care. My country kicked the confederates' asses.
@ageinGamer When all is said and done you rely on "Might Makes Right"...good job on your mental skills, research and any legal argument which you did not make or historical arguments from the "founding up to 1860" again good job on that massive brain of yours, glad to see the public school system has done its job. So when the same "heros" of the Civil War started open genocide on the Plains Indians to make way for the rail roads was that right & legal too? They won..
@ageinGamer (con't) or how about U.S. Marine & diplomat involvment in the overthrow of the legit peaceful gov of Hawaii? Was that Legal? They Won? Would you like more examples or has the retardedness of you mental skills sunk in? How about the defeated U.S. backed invasion of Cananda after the Civil War by Irish Immigrants (which almost caused war with Britian)..oh no they lost so it wasn't legal. Or how about Grant's plan to invade Mexico imediately after Lee surrendered? (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) oh wait he was told to abandon that for various reasons or how about Pres Grants plan to annex part of Mexico? oh wait cooler smarter head prevailed on that on... Your logic is at the heart of what it is to be an Imperialist. Lincoln was president during the largest mass execution in U.S. History- to which he paired the # down b/c Killing that many Sioux might flip foreign oppinion to the C.S.A. (abt 39 from abt 300) who were upset over being lied to/stolen from again.(con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) but who cares the sioux lost right? that makes it legal right? lol Mr Dodge of one of the big railroad company (to which all this havoc was in part to benifit) actually suggested that they be used as slaves for constructing the railroads-Shermans opinion won out- kill as many as possible & put the rest on reservations. Again they won so does that make it right or legal? Good Job skippy have fun with your Might makes right reasoning- to which enslavement can also be applied.
@knitestalkers Look, dude: the title of this video is the Morrill Tariff, and you just reached Hawaii. Obviously, it's really important to you that complete strangers share your views, so I guess I'm sorry to disappoint. The southern states ratified a constitution that disallowed electing their own president or starting their own post office or navy and the southern states decided to ignore it. I agree with Buchanan, Lincoln and Grant that that was illegal. (con't)
@knitestalkers Now, does that mean that I agree with every single thing those or any government official has done or ever will do? No. It takes two parties to fight a war, and nobody involved can do it without getting blood on their hands.
@ageinGamer You still fail to reach an actual legal argument you do not have to agree- just don't put crap out that you have not backed up. Davis and Benjamin and Lee did not want to secede either- but their states called them to duty and they answered. It takes 2 parties to fight but the aggressor is the one that forced the fight when the other just wishes to leave in peace. Lincoln invaded choosing war and blood (when non had been spilt) while the south aggetated for peace. (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) but it also takes 2 in the cases of genocide & butchery as well. And so your logic w/ the idea of not agreeing with what the gov does is the exact same as mine. But you only showed that after your Might makes Right comments... I disagree with the legality of what Licoln did to the South based on personal study- that is all. Lincoln if you followed his career at all, was a staunch Mercantilist, Rail Road lobbyist & lawyer.. a very Rich on at that. (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) that used his positions to Corruptly I might add gain $ for himself & other friends. One of the first acts congress did was cram through an increase in the Morril Tax before Lincoln took office... Republicans were & still are reborn WHIGS. When he took office he called an emergency session in congress why? To nationalized the Rail roads & pick where the new progects would start... suprise he picked an area near land he owned.... (con't)
@ageinGamer t(con't) he did many simular things... for Lincoln he could not let the South go Because they paid the majority of the taxes by either imports or forced buying of Northern goods (r/t to the tariff) & south goods suffered overseas b/c of that tarriff. Hence Davis' 1st inaug speech... & the CSA ban on "internal improvements" so yes the war was over that tax for Lincoln.. you can't do all the "fun stuff" if the citizens can leave. (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) and funny thing the Idea that the Union created the States and the indestructable union did not come into existance until 1830's b/c the whigs were tired of being beaten politically. You need more than a surface understanding if you are to understand what actually happened during the 1860's.
@knitestalkers What is wrong with you? Is it congenital? Does your nurse know you're on the Internet? I want to hear you admit that the fighting is over. It is not the 1860's. The Civil War is over and whether you or I or anyone agrees with it, the U.S. won. Slavery's over. There is no Morrill Tariff. Hawaii's a state now and the Euro-American genocide against the Americans is all but complete. These are facts. I know you really want to talk about your feelings, but I'm not your therapist.
@ageinGamer LOL..have you ever served in the Military? I have. Ever gone to war for your "country"? I have. The basic oath that every service member swears is to "uphold & defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies- foreign & domestic". Question how do you fullfil that oath without studying what that Document actually means? The answer is you can't. It is your Duty (ever hear of the word?) to disobey illegal orders, you can go to jail if you don't. (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) when you study and you find that the "Gov't for the People by the People" are blantently disobeying what they themselves swear to uhold... it makes a mockery of not just the system, the people but of every servicemember that served or died for those principles. The Patriot Act- is illegal, Going to War w/out Congress Declaring the war- illegal, Having the Fed Gov't be the sole judge of its own power- illegal. Having a president that says it is ok to assasinate (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) American Civilians- illegal if acted upon. Having anyone but Congress in charge of the Money- is illegal. I could go on... all of this is a result of what happened in 1865. We do not live the "country" we were intended to live in. Either the Constitution is important or it is not.... what say you? & before you say anything- nothing that the C.S.A. did was against the U.S. Constitution as it was originally understood at the time of ratification. (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) if the original undstanding is not restored and the idea of a Living constitution is allowed to continue no one's person Liberty is safe. You really have no clue do you? I said the war was over but I also said that it was wrong and quite illegal. To put such things out of our minds is an insult to liberty and the foundations "our system"...
@ageinGamer (con't) plus we are repeating the same mistakes over and over again... but you don't care as long as you got your tv, internet, somewhere to sleep right? You jump back and forth between right makes right and "No I don't agree with everything the gov't does" but you cited nothing that states that what Lincoln did was legal & the CSA was wrong. 1865 killed the Constitution and some Lincoln cultist even celebrate this fact openly... the book-Our Secret Constitution- comes to mind.
@knitestalkers You don't know the first thing about me and I officially know more about you than I care to. Listen very carefully to this next part: I don't care. Now, when I say I don't care, it doesn't mean I don't care about the issues. It doesn't mean that I don't care about my country or its policies or any of that. I means I don't care what YOU think. All your touchy-feely fist-shaking rants are falling on disinterested ears.
@ageinGamer HERE I will explain it in simple terms for you. If you really didn't care you would not respond nor would you have commented. I could care less about your politicis only in proving that you really have no clue it what you are talking about- to which you admitted.You talk of the states Ratifications binding them legally to the Constitution- VA, NY & RI retained the right of secession w/in their said documents Congress accepted them establishing States rights to secede. (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) and since every State is equal in the union secession is universal. Go ahead read them for yourself- not that you will. 10th amend-The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.- is secession talked about at all in the constitution? No it is not ergo it falls under the 9th&10th amend. But you don't care so that means you won't respond right?
@knitestalkers Actually, this issue does interest me and I'm glad it's rolled around again. The Constitution (in Article IV) reserves for congress decisions regarding states, territories, and property of the federal government. It also prohibits others from several things any state would have to claim to be truly sovereign: post offices, treaties with foreign nations, etc. The constitution also gives command of state militias to the U.S. president. (con't)
@knitestalkers So without the consent of congress in the form of actual legislation, these rules are binding to any entity that has agreed to abide by the Constitution. The fact that it doesn't specifically mention the word secession is no reason to think that these other restrictions aren't there. In other words: There are powers 'enumerated' within the Constitution that preclude any right to secession someone might assume. Now; right to revolution? Maybe. But you have to win those.
@ageinGamer But while Militia is under the comand of the president- the officers served at the States will. Art 4 is still bound by Art 1 sec 8 & Article 4 sec 4 requires that State Authorities have to call for help to put down "insurrections" before the Fed can enter militarily. & again apart of the binding agreements (ratifications) accepted by congress state that secession is legal- based on what makes their people happy. And there again certain artciles of the constitution are bound (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) by other parts. The prohabition against states making treaties & the like only apply to states that are apart of the Union. Since Secession in not prohibited specificly to the states nor a power given specificly to the Fed Gov't it is a power reserved to the States or the People Per the 10th Amend. Do you know the story of the bill of rights or more specificly the 9th & 10th Amendments? It would help in clarifying my point even further... (con't)
(con't) Fed papr84- I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't with fed paper84) Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. - Hamilton. Hamilton's arguments back fired - the Anti-fedalists then proposed the 9th & 10th.... (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) so therefore it was to be understood that Congress and the rest of the Federal Gov was limited to the enumerated powers specifiaclly listed & all others belong to the states- impiled powers are invalid when it comes to the Fed govt, which is not so with State Govts. Senators Were appointed by the States (pre 17th) & Senators numbers (equal State Rep) can't be amended.Senate has to approve all treaties ie the States. Senators were recalled for violating state wishes(con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) The Senate was intended to secure State Soverignty along with the the 9th & 10th... But other than that- going back to the Ratifications by accepting them the congress agreed to those term period... or to paraphrase then Congresman Madison in relation to a ratification with- unacceptable terms- the state would be held as a nonmember of the union. But all states were accepted- even with secession rights retained.
@knitestalkers Now why did that take so many posts? Why didn't you just say something like, "no law is binding once a state opts out," thus rendering all contracts and treaties nearly worthless?
@ageinGamer lol..sorry I am a gabber and I like to cite things. But in truth The Fed Gov't is an agent of the States (States have to ratify Amends, can hold Constitutional Conventions & pick the Pres through the electoral college) the People are the States - it is easier to control the local gov't than a far removed one. As for Contracts that is what the ratification agreements were. So is it valid to go back that agreement which without they would not have been in the Union at all? (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) sorry.. It was an understood fact that secession did not mean no obligation. That party was still responsible for their Part of the Fed Debt up to that point. This fact was pointed to by William Rawle (U.S. Marshall helped supress the Whiskey Rebellion & taught the Constitution @ Westpoint) in his legal work- A View of the Constitution. Secession is just a w/draw from the protection of Union & is the last card in protecting its citizen's Soverignty. W/out it we aren't free.
@knitestalkers You know, I want to see you admit that the secessionists lost. This is all theory, weak theory, and you're entitled to it, but it isn't how the world works. There is no right to secession. The federal government won that fight. The Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation, the private musings of Bill Rawle -- none of these are considered legally binding. The Constitution, which says states can't be independent, is.
@ageinGamer ok the fed gov illegally invaded the south, occupied it, set up military dictators & puppet gov'ts contrary to the will of the people, happy? The Constitution doesn't say anything about secession 1 way or the other- nor that the Union is permanent or perpetual (unlike the Articles). You overlook the meaning of the 9th &10th amends & the whole ratification agreements that you keep avoiding. You say they ratified it but that same doc says they can leave- ratification doc legal or not?
@knitestalkers I overlook nothing -- you are assigning those amendments a meaning they lack. And the Constitution (which you only sometimes consider law) grants the president the power to put down insurrection so the invasion was legal.
The ratification documents are legal but not law. They are considerations, not conditions. Example: SC wanted Constitution to read "no OTHER religious test" in Article 6, but that was never adopted. A signing statement that can't be considered part of Con. LAW.
@ageinGamer Wrong again.. The ratifications had both suggestions and terms... uhm when they say they have the right to leave based on what makes their people happy... that is not a suggestion but a term to which the other states and congress agree to by letting them become states. Other wise they ah what is the word? Fraudulantly entered into an agreement with those States, which would have been considered non binding in a legal since. (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) Congress never noted their legal objection nor did they send it back. & Article 1 sec 8 does allow for the supression of rebellion (to that you are correct) however article 4 section 4 shows the manner in which that supression has to happen- the president can't just do it on his own- plus art 1 sec 8 covers the power of Congress. I consider the Constitution to be Law.. Lincoln just ignored it. (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) since there is no permission on the part of certain states to enter to supress a "rebellion" because it was not a rebellion but Legally elected State governments acting as such- respecting the will of their people & retiring from the Union. To which stopping is a power NOT granted to the Federal Government Specifically nor is Secession denied Specifically to the States (even today under Constitutional Law) & therefore falls under the 9th and 10th amendments. (con't)
@ageinGamer (con't) btw I found a Feb 1861 speech by Lincoln in which (and I am paprphrasing) the Secession crisis was not a crisis and basicly the most important thing is the vote on the Tarriff in which he goes on and on and on about in favour of protectionism.
@knitestalkers Now, if you feel that strongly about your semi-informed politics, I suggest you get involved. Go to a Teabagger rally or something. Vote Ron Paul, and much good may it do you. But if you think you're fixing things by venting your spleen 500 characters at a time, you really should go back on the medication.
(1) 7 states seceded BEFORE the Morrill tariff was passed.
(2) If they hadn't seceded, it wouldn't have been able to pass through the Senate. The vote in the Senate was 25-14 in favor of the tariff. If the 12 southern senators hadn't vacated their seats, the vote would have been 26-25 AGAINST the tariff.
(3) Buchanan was the president that signed the tariff into law, not Lincoln.
(4) VP of the CSA was named Alexander Hamilton Stephens.
KayBeeEee1983 4 months ago
EVERYTHING THAT I LEARN IN SCHOOL ABOUT ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND ALEXANDER HAMILTON WAS A LIE.
I will tell me kids the truth about history. Would you???
moctezuma112 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Another lie from the Confederate traitors, who were loyal to the British crown and their lopsided trade and colonialism. The Tariff was imposed to protect the USA against the wicked Banking schemes of the British empire. Confederates betrayed the Constitution of the USA.
mitomke 4 months ago
SO SAD, BUT SO TRUE!!!
lookingforspace09 4 months ago
This revisionist crap is easily debunked. The Morrill Tariff was easily blocked by the southern democrats controlling the Senate -- but since their states seceded before it was officially sent back to the House, it's hard to make the argument that it was the primary cause of the war.
"Democracy is hard! Let's abandon that Constitution we ratified and go rape our slaves in the corner," I imagine them saying.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Unfortunately in a Letter to CAPT Fox Lincoln admitted that he started the war with his actions a Ft Sumter. & in his 1st inaug address he stated that Not only did he not care about slavery in the south but that he was willing to make it untouchable and then stated that the only way an invasion would happen is if TAXES were not paid. & Davis' 1 inaug address speaks of economics as a main issue not slavery... try reading the original record not what the Lincoln Cult teaches you.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
Comment removed
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers Lincoln started the war with what actions at Ft. Sumpter? The rebels attacked a federal holding with their illegal navy and captured the fort. And are you really going to point to Lincoln's first innaug. as evidence it was economic rather than slavery? The word taxes appears once (and it *was* Lincoln's job as chief executive) while a solid two thirds of the speech addresses slavery! A bold move on your part.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Did you read his 1st inaug adress? You know "I have no intent to disturb slavery where it exists"... and near the end he states that he would support making an amendment to make it untouchable and also he states that invading a state would be a great crime no matter what the cause... he defends the right of the south to have slaves did you even read his speech? he then goes on to say that if taxes are not paid then there will be an invasion... it is called read the speech.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. THIS IS THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL DISPUTE." You shouldn't lie about a famous speech and THEN encourage people to read it -- you may run into someone able to understand it.
Lincoln threatening to invade, I suppose: "The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer "It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous"
knitestalkers 5 months ago
"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments."
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer "Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer "If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?"
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer " It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." wow is this the same speech you are talkin about? He admits Slavery means nothing to him & is not his cause. but I will continue... with his 1st inaug address
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers He swears to preserve the Union -- the Union that some were attacking because of slavery. He is also sworn to uphold the Constitution -- the Constitution that the secessionists were breaking.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer his foucus was preserving the Union in his words. Since he was the pursuer his reasons are the reason for the war- he clearly states its not a war against slavery for him. While the Original 7 did mention slavery as a reason it was not their full reason collectively. But I find that Lincoln's threat of invasion if taxes are not paid a little more telling- especially when you look at his Mercantilist Past and His Economic Policies as Dictator. He was shady on the economic front.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers I would hardly call a threat you just made up 'telling.'
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer & Lincoln did more to destroy our constitution with his war than anything the C.S.A. could have done- had they won our liberties would have been more secure. And not to mention slavery would have ended peacefully (most likely) b/c the U.S. would not have had to worry about the Fugative slave law (as Lincoln Noted) and slavery would have become too expensive to keep up. Which the Border Southern states were learning. Slavery is less about hatred and more about greed.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers Your point?
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Lincoln's explanation of the Union is historicly Ignorant. He himself states one that the actions of the south were revolutionary then goes on to talk about the people have a revolutionary right. He also forgets that only 1/3 of the colonial white male population (no where near a majority- let alone the whole of the empire) wanted to leave Britian. And Suprise Britian was not destroyed as he claimed would happen to the U.S. & he forgets some states were left out of union for a time.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers Is this all stuff your Grand Wizard tells you, or just the delusions of a semi-literate paranoiac? What Lincoln may have remembered, was that the Revolutionary War was not about the United Kingdom splitting in two, but an overseas colony breaking off.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer My GrandWizard? LOL .... I AM A JEW! & the Largest military Jewish cemetary outside of the State of Israel is a Confederate one in Virginia... lol. Judah Benjamin..uh Sephardic Jew- like my wife. Dumbass. & So because the Colonies were over seas that made it ok? But because the South is Just South it makes it wrong? What logic! What about Canada? & the other 2/3 of the colonies' population? Hello it is Secession...
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers Paranoiac then. Thought so. I am pleased to (apparently) be the first to relieve you of the ignorance of the difference between imperial colonies, territories, and founding members of federations. Virginia and South Carolina, at least, would rightly have been considered by Lincoln integral to the United States. Had Liberia still been a U.S. holding at the time, its loss would not have been referred to as destroying the nation or the like.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Imperial Colonies still belong to the King. The diff w/ A Fed Gov is that it takes the States to create that Gov & with drawl from that Union doesn't destroy said Fed only Changes the # in it & relieves the other states from having be involved in Mutual protection of Said State. If it destroys then what entity Invaded the South? You still have the problem of States retaining the right to secede & New England debating secession first under Pres. Jefferson & Madison etc etc.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer "Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one."
knitestalkers 5 months ago
" If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it?"
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer "We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before?"
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
knitestalkers 5 months ago
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service." wait for it .... wait for it.......
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer and here it is..."To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."....lol same speech yet who is the Revisonist? Play your B.S. on someone that hasn't studied.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers A moron can study and never understand what he's reading. Yes, as I've said, Lincoln was offering many political concessions to avoid a war. Then the traitors still rebelled. Then he invaded. And when the southern slave states removed themselves from the democratic process, the northern states used legislation to kill slavery. When the rebellion was put down, slavery was done in the United States. Coincidence?
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Hum? unfortunately for you Lincoln's entire political record speaks other wise. He and many other Northern Poiticians stated that the the territories & northern areas were basicly to be a white preserve. In fact Lincoln tried on many occasions to foster the idea of Deporting Blacks out of the U.S.- an idea which according to Gen. Ben Butler was kept until his death. He also clearly states Emancipation was a punishment for the "rebellion". So your point goes nowhere.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers Yawn. Who cares? This has nothing to do with the treason that caused the war, and none of that other stuff ever happened so -- so what?
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer only because the money Lincoln actually secured from congress to do so was stolen by the man he put in charge.....lol ahhhh stings don't it?
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Lincoln supported Illiniois' laws again interracial relations. Some Northern states amend their constitutions to remove black suffurage. Some imposed laws that required blacks to post a form of deposit $500 (cost limiting at that time) per person to ensure "good behavior" in order to live there. The Ironic part is that 1000's of southern whites had their suffurage removed & given to former slaves- which some northern states themselves were not doing. All to secure Republican Votes.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers Again, you're mad-on for Lincoln is cute, but he's dead, buddy: you gotta let it go. Can we get back to the issue at hand?
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer lol concessions? You are grasping at straws now. And the Southern states democraticly voted to secede. Tennesse lists the vote by the people in their secession ordnance. Even Salmon P. Chase admitted it in the shameful Texas v White case (which btw he should have recused himself from if he had any respect for the Law). The legal backflips after the war alone speak to the truth- the South was Right and Lincoln was a tyrant.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer so if you actually were paying attention and I know you didn't- you'd know Lincoln's concern was the Union Not slavery in that speech... or more correctly pay your taxes or else. but i will let you have slavery if you do... some humanitarian. He was a master of rhetoric, & contratictory which is why that speech left everyone guessing as to if we'd have a war or not.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Funny how he says the Gov will not assail you- then procedes to imprison anyone that disagrees w/ any policy domestic or war related... I am talking about people that just complained about taxes or wanted peace (they just expressed opinion- they did not fight). I find a few thing hilarious and quite ironic but I will not expect you to find it as amusing....
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Irony #1 Francis K. Howard was imprisoned at ft. McHenry b/c he was editor of a paper that critisized the Lincoln for denying civil rights in MD & starting a war w/out Congress' consent. (which they eventually rubber stamped) The Irony is that Ft. McHenry was where his Grandfather Fracis Scott Key Penned the "Star Spangled Banner"... You should read American Bastille.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer irony #2... Thousands of European Immigrants enlisted in the federal army (with promises of land grants etc.- whole units could not even speak english) to teach the grandsons of Thomas Jefferson & Patrick Henry how to be good "Americans". Thomas G. Jefferson died for the cause... Europe opened its prison doors and dumbed its trash here & Lincoln said fight for me. Rape, pillage, KILL.... you have alot of reading.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers What does this have to do with the southern states' reason for rebellion? What you're having trouble wrapping your little head around is that claims that Lincoln was wrong or criminal or genius or gay or whatever have nothing to do with slavery's role in the Civil War. I'm not here to defend anyone's practices or behavior -- I'm just here to point out to revisionist idiots that slavery was, in fact, the primary cause of the Civil War. These attempts to derail don't interest me.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Wow, again it was A cause for secession.... not the War. Again their can only be a war in the case of secession if there is a persuer...and at that point it is the persuer's reasons Not the persuee's reasons that are the cause of the war. Secession and War are two seperate acts. And Lincoln Quite Clearly States that his purpose was the "preservation of the Union" & that slavery had no baring on his choice. I put that there b/c you keep talking of treason- which it was not.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer "It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them;"
knitestalkers 5 months ago
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Lincoln 1st aug address. h t t p ://w w w . bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers Yes. And after the confederates attacked federal property, the conflict became forced.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
Comment removed
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer just so I you understand I will state it again- you are a little slow. The SOUTH TRIED to pay for ft sumter and their part of the federal debt.... Lincoln refused to even igknowledge then while having Seward- lie to them and say peace was workable- Lincoln then sent a messager to Gov. of S.C.- no response allowed. Skipping over Davis. This was a direct challenge to Soverignty & Lincoln Knew it hence his letter already posted. Only a horse died, no P.O.W.s. All agresion stopped.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers It's bizarre then, that the 'Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union' that South Carolina released when they turned traitor a month before they attacked the fort (like anyone trying to buy property!) ONLY MENTIONS SLAVERY.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Again that is one state... One out 11 that sucessfully seperated for a period of time. Actully 5 mention slavery- Mississippi has the most hilarious reason.. you should read it but again slavery was not the only reason. Especially seeing as each state had their own reason- then Davis put out his Inaug Address- then you have decades of history of complaints.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers Never said slavery was the only reason -- just the prevalent one.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Slavery was an important reason for secession in the original 7. I never denied that. However you equate secession with war- which at best is ignorance & at worst dishonest. There can only be war if persued. And Lincoln persued.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer "Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury.The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day" -GA
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer "Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects."- GA
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors.- GA
knitestalkers 5 months ago
This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. - GA
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. -GA
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. - GA
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.- Mississippi
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system. It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause. -Mississppi
knitestalkers 5 months ago
The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer , and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States -VA
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer , by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government,- Missouri
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; - Missouri
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof:-Missouri
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society,- KY
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will- KY
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government:- KY
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers The property this document is referring to is slaves.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer you are assuming and you know what they say about that don't you? No in KY.... and other southern states actual property was seized (not just slaves- and btw Lincoln fired one general for freeing slaves pre-emancipation proc -which itself had exemptions- and reversed anothers orders to free slaves) you have a lot to catch up on in terms of reading actual history- original document not Lincoln Cultist's twisting of the facts.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer An incursion has been instigated and actually perpetuated into a sister State the inevitable consequences of which were murder rapine and crimes even more horrible. The felon chief of that murderous band has been canonized as a heroic martyr by public meetings by the press and pulpit of all of the Northern States- FL unpublished found by National Parks and Services (NPS) historian
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer – others of the party have been demanded by the Governor of the State they invaded and their surrender refused by the Governors of two States of the Confederacy, demanded not as fugitives from service but as fugitives from justice charged with treason and murder.- FL unpublished found by National Parks and Services Historian.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer The Congressional halls where the members should meet with fraternal feelings, a just regard for the interests of all the States there represented and respect for the feelings of all its members has been prostituted to the daily denunciation and vituperation of the slave holding States as sanctioning oppression robbery and all villainies,- FL unpublished foud by NPS historian.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer thus subjecting the members from these States to the degradation of gross and constantly repeated insults, and compelling the exclusion from our public press of the debates of our national Legislature or the circulation of the most incendiary matter.- FL unpublished Foud by NPS historian
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer As to the sacrifice of lives which recent acquisitions have caused how small is the proportion of Northern blood shed or laurels won in the Mexican war.- FL unpub found by NPS Historian- also intresting to note that Florida was not the only state to mention this.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Additional territory is generally only acquired by conquest or purchase. In either case the slaveholding States contribute at least this equal proportion of men or money – we think much more than an equal proportion. The revenues of the General Government are almost entirely derived from duties on importations. FL unpub
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer It is time that the northern consumer pays his proportion of these duties, but the North as a section receiving back in the increased prices of the rival articles which it manufactures nearly or quite as much as the imposts which it pays thus in effect paying nothing or very little for the support of the government.- Fl Unpb
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers "By the agency of a large proportion of the members from the non slaveholding States books have been published and circulated amongst us the direct tendency and avowed purpose of which is to excite insurrection and servile war with all their attendant horrors. A President has recently been elected, an obscure and illiterate man without experience in public affairs (con't)
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@knitestalkers "or any general reputation mainly if not exclusively on account of a settled and often proclaimed hostility to our institutions and a fixed purpose to abolish them. It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act. (con't)
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@knitestalkers "This has never been charged by any one. But it has been announced by all the leading men and presses of the party that the ultimate accomplishment of this result is its settled purpose and great central principle. That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less. (con't)
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@knitestalkers "Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. (con't)
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@knitestalkers "Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves." -- Ibid.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Again- I did not deny that slavery was a Cause for secession. But it was not the only reason which you also have stated. So this is a mute point.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer if you can't even understand your hero's own words I can't help you. so whats your excuse for deporting a us cong from ohio or putting out an arrest warrant for a sitting u.s. supreme court justice? or the imprisionment of over 13k civilians from maine - ohio 7 & beyond on rumor alone? Or shutting down over 300 newspapers or litteraly color coding ballets so Soldiers could see who was voting correctly? or letting NV in union w/out proper procedure b/c he thought he'd lose reelection?
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers Is the issue that Lincoln was a politician, or that he didn't want to lose his job? I know you're mad at -- um -- whatever you're so mad at, but none of that changes the fact that the southern states turned their back on the Constitution they ratified to preserve slavery and white supremacy.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Again- there was a laundry list of reasons and the South did not turn its back on the constitution. The 9th & 10th Amend allow for secession, ratification agreements do the same- the very principle of the founding allow for it. We were never a conglomerate "United States" with states subservient to their own agent until 1865. The States are the Union & the people are the States. The ounders argued against disunion but never saud it was illegal. The compact was violated by Lincoln.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer You're not upset that Lincoln destroyed the Constitution to "save the union"? awesome. No no I understand- you love his dictatorial style. You can't just say what the south did was treason and expect me not to respond. Its not derailing when you bring it up-only when I respond? There is a reason Lincoln hoped Davis would escape and Chief Justice Chase did legal back flips to make sure he never saw a court room& Davis WANTED to be tried. After 2yrs in prison & denial of even council.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers I commented on this video to correct the revisionist claims that slavery was not a cause (or even the main cause) of the Civil War. Attacks on Lincoln's methods or crimes or racism just don't have any bearing. You are having an argument that has nothing to do with me. I'll say it again: Lincoln's dead, and the Constitution survived him. The rebellion failed and so has slavery. You should write a letter to your favorite Supreme Court jurist and ask if secession rights are settled.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer it wasn't - it was a cause for secession. Oh you mean the Jurists that have unconstitutionally decided that they are the end all be all of the constitution? Or the case "Law" in which Salmon Chase decided on in which the case had nothing to do with secession & where the 3 justices not appointed by Lincoln dessented and Chase actually should have recused himeself because he was a person of intrest in the case? The one where the real case part that was eventually overturn? That one?
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer or are you talking about the fact that Chase used the 14th amend to get Davis off from being tried (which was never properly ratified just declared - OH & PA actually resended their ratfication of it over fed coruption) all because he new Davis would win in court. lol... Pres Johnson Had top Prosecutors Say they wouldn't touch it because Davis would win. Hence the Legal backflips so NO the issue is not settled.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer just so we are striaght.. The founders fought a war to free themselves from oppression to put 8 now 9 unelected lawyers in office to be the soul judge of the limits of their own power & that of the Fed Gov't? Yeah that sounds reasonable. You keep saying that it is treason and rebllion but you don't cite anything that legally backs up your statements or even historically. You sound more and more like a puppet. Secession & WAR are 2 seperate things therefore your reasoning is flawed.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers Well here's your opportunity to wrap your argument up succinctly by naming that time in the history of the world where members of a nation (kingdom, city-state, etc.) broke away from their parent state without months of negotiation or any new legislation and DIDN'T have to fight for it.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Belgium seceded from the Netherlands in 1830. Norway from Sweden in 1905. Singapore from the Malaysian Federation in 1965. 15 republics seceded from the Soviet Union. The Czech Repubic & Slovakia were created out of Czechoslovakia through secession. All done PEACFULLY & the CSA tried to negotiate...pre-war & during the war even while the south was winning. Lincoln Rebuffed them.... so your framing of the statement was faulty.... try again jack!
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers Who did they try to negotiate with? What legislation could they possibly have proposed with their representatives recalled from Congress? The southern states vowed that they would quit the U.S. if Lincoln won the election and then did. That's an ultimatum, not negotiation. The president at the time called it illegal and so did his successor. Why am I not surprised you couldn't understand my challenge? No territory has ever seceded w/o a new law or a fight.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Jefferson Davis sent delegates to Washington D.C. Lincoln used Seward to spin tails of peacefully resolving the issue maybe you need to read more. What is next? You going to tell me that Black, Jewish, Native American and Hispanic Confederates are all myths too? you still have more than a few problems w/ your case like the Founders themselves recognized secession as legal, 3 states retained the secession rights & Congress did not challenge it-but let them in the Union-est it as law.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers ? Clearly I'm missing something. Nobody's as stupid as you're pretending to be. Jefferson Davis' authority to send delegates was as president of states in open rebellion. This is not an example of negotiating to break off. And apparently you are back to thinking (or still thinking -- if that's the right word) I'm claiming the war was to end racism. Get a clue, Cletis.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer wow nice deflection & non answer to my charges... Are you actually going to answer my questions/statements or are you going to continue to waste my time w/ rhetoric? You have not explained how they were in rebellion you have not addressed secession rights retained,- new england's actions under Jefferson & Madison nor theirs in return... the actions of actually estblish the Constitution or the Uses of the 9th & 10th Amend nor the Legal back flips of U.S. Gov etc etc. Still Waiting.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers What questions? You've already acknowledged that the slave states declared secession because they felt slavery was threatened by the new Republican administration. The Union army invaded after the attack on Ft. Sumter. Were there Native Americans in the south? Um -- sure? The Confederate States of America lost the war and the U.S. currently has 50 states and laws against slavery. What specifically are you having trouble wrapping your head around?
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer they were restated above.Yes secession in part over slavery. Again Davis sent delegates to d.c to negotiate peaceful resolution & to pay for Ft. Sumter etc. Instead of meeting w/ them Lincoln played games- message SC Gov saying he was going to reprovision Ft Sumter. Something he knew would force Davis' Hand (hence Abe's letter to Capt Fox) b/c tensions over the fort were already made known. No one died & agressions stoped after. Lincoln was trying to mock & test CSA Soverignty.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers It wasn't a game. Lincoln didn't recognize CSA sovereignty.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Sigh Lincoln had Seward tell the delegates that cooler heads would prevail, the Garrison would be removed & he was working on peacful solutions for Restoring Union.This was maintained until 7Apr1861. on the 8th Lincoln sent his letter to SC gov that he was going to reprovision not withdraw (against his cabint's advise). The SC Gov notified Confed Military. Hence the demand to surrender- the south was lied to & Soverignty directly threatened- how did they know it was just food?
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) Lincoln didn't allow them to inspect nor escort nor take the supplies to Ft Sumter which would have easied tensions instead of causing the Attack on Ft Sumter (to which he admitted to knowing in his letter to Capt Fox) and eventually the lives of some 620,000 people to include Southern Civilians Women, Children and Old men of which were free blacks and slaves.... so yes he treated it as a game which makes it so much worst.
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer The 5 "Civilized" tribes (Cherokee, Seminoles, Choctaw, Chickasaw & Creek) fought for the South... Hence Brigader General Watie Stand- Also a Cherokee Chief & last General to surrender. Yes the C.S.A. lost but it does not mean that the U.S. was right nor does it mean it was legal to invade & force union, Install a military dicatorship- force amend state constitutions, remove sufferage from the population- among many other things. To include starting the genocide on plains Indians.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers Oh, you're still arguing 'cause you think it wasn't RIGHT. You disagree... Gosh. Maybe you should sue president Lincoln or something. Try to get him impeached.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer deflect deflect- some rhetoric..But nothing of real substance coming out of your keyboard... you are starting to bore me. Running out of and actual argument are we?
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@knitestalkers What argument? You are literally the only one arguing. Yes, you're mad at a dead American President. Yes, you wish the Civil War had gone another way 145 years ago. Sorry, but it happened the way it happened -- what does any of it have to do with me? Tell you what: you start a petition to overturn the result of the Civil War and I'll sign it so long as you promise to send me a picture of your face when you get your answer.
ageinGamer 4 months ago
@ageinGamer It has everything to do with you as a "Citizen" of the U.S. in the since the war "changed the intent & meaning of the Union" not by legal actions but by Blood. To paraphrase Lysander Spooner (to which I am sure you have no idea how important he was to Abolition movement) the war made more slaves than it freed. Alot of what we are arguing about in 2days politics can be laid @ Lincoln's feet b/c of the war & his policies. If You'd rather be ignorant to your "slavery" that is fine.
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) but don't fain intellectualism, patriotism or "righteous cause" when you have clearly demonstrated your lack of caring & lack of knowledge on the afore subject. And before you pull that tired race card again...(lest we forget your Grandwizard Comment) the term "Slavery" was used in strickly Lysander Spooner's meaning on the outcome of the war.BTW he that wrote the arguement that no one has ever refuted-The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (Abt 1845).
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer oh and Davis' authority was based of the right of the people to pick their own leaders- ie abolish the old and instate the new... and the previous post still stands. & this time no rhetoric or deflections or don't bother responding.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers Jefferson Davis was not elected in accordance with Article II of the Constitution ratified by those states he claimed to represent. Afraid that makes it invalid.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer Davis was elected (9 Feb 1861) provisional President in Constitutional Convention by the delegates sent by the States to set up the gov ie BEFORE the CSA constitution was even adopted. Then once it was adopted & things were finished being set up he was elected under Article 2 (6 Nov 1861) & even the U.S. had President Cyrus Griffin (Resigned 4 Mar 1789 - Washington elected 30 Apr 1789) so your point, while cute- is invalid. (continued)
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@ageinGamer(Continued) U.S. Const Article 7: The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.- THE 9th state ratified the Constitution on June 21, 1788 New Hamp. It took until 1789 for things to be up and running... so did that make President Cyrus Griffin illegitament? He Stayed in Office until he resigned in 1789- Washington took office about a 2 months (4 Mar-30 Apr) later.... lol.
knitestalkers 5 months ago
@knitestalkers I don't know or care. Seems to (like everything else you've babbled on about) have little to do with the topic at hand.
ageinGamer 5 months ago
@ageinGamer you seem to do this when you have no real responses. Yawn you bore me. But At least you admitt you don't know what you are talkin about that is the first step in recovery. We have already gone over this Slavery was a cause for secession not the war- b/c it was not Lincoln's reason for forcing Union nor the War. And you are the one that keeps saying secession it treason without any facts to back it up..I only answered YOUR CLAIM. Alright Skippy say something of worth or don't bother.
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@knitestalkers I'd just be repeating myself. Congratulations! You're the first person ever to find someone you disagree with on the Internet!
The war was settled. The rebellion was illegal if for no other reason than the rebels lost the war. I understand that it sticks in your craw (though not precisely why), but it just doesn't interest me that much. You agree with the secessionists and hate the U.S.'s actions in the war. Don't care. My country kicked the confederates' asses.
Questions?
ageinGamer 4 months ago
@ageinGamer When all is said and done you rely on "Might Makes Right"...good job on your mental skills, research and any legal argument which you did not make or historical arguments from the "founding up to 1860" again good job on that massive brain of yours, glad to see the public school system has done its job. So when the same "heros" of the Civil War started open genocide on the Plains Indians to make way for the rail roads was that right & legal too? They won..
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) or how about U.S. Marine & diplomat involvment in the overthrow of the legit peaceful gov of Hawaii? Was that Legal? They Won? Would you like more examples or has the retardedness of you mental skills sunk in? How about the defeated U.S. backed invasion of Cananda after the Civil War by Irish Immigrants (which almost caused war with Britian)..oh no they lost so it wasn't legal. Or how about Grant's plan to invade Mexico imediately after Lee surrendered? (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) oh wait he was told to abandon that for various reasons or how about Pres Grants plan to annex part of Mexico? oh wait cooler smarter head prevailed on that on... Your logic is at the heart of what it is to be an Imperialist. Lincoln was president during the largest mass execution in U.S. History- to which he paired the # down b/c Killing that many Sioux might flip foreign oppinion to the C.S.A. (abt 39 from abt 300) who were upset over being lied to/stolen from again.(con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) but who cares the sioux lost right? that makes it legal right? lol Mr Dodge of one of the big railroad company (to which all this havoc was in part to benifit) actually suggested that they be used as slaves for constructing the railroads-Shermans opinion won out- kill as many as possible & put the rest on reservations. Again they won so does that make it right or legal? Good Job skippy have fun with your Might makes right reasoning- to which enslavement can also be applied.
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@knitestalkers Wait a minute. You mean to tell me that there is injustice in the world?
No. It's too much: I won't believe it.
Have you started your petition to impeach Lincoln, yet?
ageinGamer 4 months ago
@knitestalkers Look, dude: the title of this video is the Morrill Tariff, and you just reached Hawaii. Obviously, it's really important to you that complete strangers share your views, so I guess I'm sorry to disappoint. The southern states ratified a constitution that disallowed electing their own president or starting their own post office or navy and the southern states decided to ignore it. I agree with Buchanan, Lincoln and Grant that that was illegal. (con't)
ageinGamer 4 months ago
@knitestalkers Now, does that mean that I agree with every single thing those or any government official has done or ever will do? No. It takes two parties to fight a war, and nobody involved can do it without getting blood on their hands.
ageinGamer 4 months ago
@ageinGamer You still fail to reach an actual legal argument you do not have to agree- just don't put crap out that you have not backed up. Davis and Benjamin and Lee did not want to secede either- but their states called them to duty and they answered. It takes 2 parties to fight but the aggressor is the one that forced the fight when the other just wishes to leave in peace. Lincoln invaded choosing war and blood (when non had been spilt) while the south aggetated for peace. (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) but it also takes 2 in the cases of genocide & butchery as well. And so your logic w/ the idea of not agreeing with what the gov does is the exact same as mine. But you only showed that after your Might makes Right comments... I disagree with the legality of what Licoln did to the South based on personal study- that is all. Lincoln if you followed his career at all, was a staunch Mercantilist, Rail Road lobbyist & lawyer.. a very Rich on at that. (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) that used his positions to Corruptly I might add gain $ for himself & other friends. One of the first acts congress did was cram through an increase in the Morril Tax before Lincoln took office... Republicans were & still are reborn WHIGS. When he took office he called an emergency session in congress why? To nationalized the Rail roads & pick where the new progects would start... suprise he picked an area near land he owned.... (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer t(con't) he did many simular things... for Lincoln he could not let the South go Because they paid the majority of the taxes by either imports or forced buying of Northern goods (r/t to the tariff) & south goods suffered overseas b/c of that tarriff. Hence Davis' 1st inaug speech... & the CSA ban on "internal improvements" so yes the war was over that tax for Lincoln.. you can't do all the "fun stuff" if the citizens can leave. (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) and funny thing the Idea that the Union created the States and the indestructable union did not come into existance until 1830's b/c the whigs were tired of being beaten politically. You need more than a surface understanding if you are to understand what actually happened during the 1860's.
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@knitestalkers What is wrong with you? Is it congenital? Does your nurse know you're on the Internet? I want to hear you admit that the fighting is over. It is not the 1860's. The Civil War is over and whether you or I or anyone agrees with it, the U.S. won. Slavery's over. There is no Morrill Tariff. Hawaii's a state now and the Euro-American genocide against the Americans is all but complete. These are facts. I know you really want to talk about your feelings, but I'm not your therapist.
ageinGamer 4 months ago
@ageinGamer LOL..have you ever served in the Military? I have. Ever gone to war for your "country"? I have. The basic oath that every service member swears is to "uphold & defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies- foreign & domestic". Question how do you fullfil that oath without studying what that Document actually means? The answer is you can't. It is your Duty (ever hear of the word?) to disobey illegal orders, you can go to jail if you don't. (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) when you study and you find that the "Gov't for the People by the People" are blantently disobeying what they themselves swear to uhold... it makes a mockery of not just the system, the people but of every servicemember that served or died for those principles. The Patriot Act- is illegal, Going to War w/out Congress Declaring the war- illegal, Having the Fed Gov't be the sole judge of its own power- illegal. Having a president that says it is ok to assasinate (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) American Civilians- illegal if acted upon. Having anyone but Congress in charge of the Money- is illegal. I could go on... all of this is a result of what happened in 1865. We do not live the "country" we were intended to live in. Either the Constitution is important or it is not.... what say you? & before you say anything- nothing that the C.S.A. did was against the U.S. Constitution as it was originally understood at the time of ratification. (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) if the original undstanding is not restored and the idea of a Living constitution is allowed to continue no one's person Liberty is safe. You really have no clue do you? I said the war was over but I also said that it was wrong and quite illegal. To put such things out of our minds is an insult to liberty and the foundations "our system"...
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) plus we are repeating the same mistakes over and over again... but you don't care as long as you got your tv, internet, somewhere to sleep right? You jump back and forth between right makes right and "No I don't agree with everything the gov't does" but you cited nothing that states that what Lincoln did was legal & the CSA was wrong. 1865 killed the Constitution and some Lincoln cultist even celebrate this fact openly... the book-Our Secret Constitution- comes to mind.
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@knitestalkers You don't know the first thing about me and I officially know more about you than I care to. Listen very carefully to this next part: I don't care. Now, when I say I don't care, it doesn't mean I don't care about the issues. It doesn't mean that I don't care about my country or its policies or any of that. I means I don't care what YOU think. All your touchy-feely fist-shaking rants are falling on disinterested ears.
ageinGamer 4 months ago
@ageinGamer HERE I will explain it in simple terms for you. If you really didn't care you would not respond nor would you have commented. I could care less about your politicis only in proving that you really have no clue it what you are talking about- to which you admitted.You talk of the states Ratifications binding them legally to the Constitution- VA, NY & RI retained the right of secession w/in their said documents Congress accepted them establishing States rights to secede. (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) and since every State is equal in the union secession is universal. Go ahead read them for yourself- not that you will. 10th amend-The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.- is secession talked about at all in the constitution? No it is not ergo it falls under the 9th&10th amend. But you don't care so that means you won't respond right?
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@knitestalkers Actually, this issue does interest me and I'm glad it's rolled around again. The Constitution (in Article IV) reserves for congress decisions regarding states, territories, and property of the federal government. It also prohibits others from several things any state would have to claim to be truly sovereign: post offices, treaties with foreign nations, etc. The constitution also gives command of state militias to the U.S. president. (con't)
ageinGamer 4 months ago
@knitestalkers So without the consent of congress in the form of actual legislation, these rules are binding to any entity that has agreed to abide by the Constitution. The fact that it doesn't specifically mention the word secession is no reason to think that these other restrictions aren't there. In other words: There are powers 'enumerated' within the Constitution that preclude any right to secession someone might assume. Now; right to revolution? Maybe. But you have to win those.
ageinGamer 4 months ago
@ageinGamer But while Militia is under the comand of the president- the officers served at the States will. Art 4 is still bound by Art 1 sec 8 & Article 4 sec 4 requires that State Authorities have to call for help to put down "insurrections" before the Fed can enter militarily. & again apart of the binding agreements (ratifications) accepted by congress state that secession is legal- based on what makes their people happy. And there again certain artciles of the constitution are bound (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) by other parts. The prohabition against states making treaties & the like only apply to states that are apart of the Union. Since Secession in not prohibited specificly to the states nor a power given specificly to the Fed Gov't it is a power reserved to the States or the People Per the 10th Amend. Do you know the story of the bill of rights or more specificly the 9th & 10th Amendments? It would help in clarifying my point even further... (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
(con't) Fed papr84- I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't with fed paper84) Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. - Hamilton. Hamilton's arguments back fired - the Anti-fedalists then proposed the 9th & 10th.... (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) so therefore it was to be understood that Congress and the rest of the Federal Gov was limited to the enumerated powers specifiaclly listed & all others belong to the states- impiled powers are invalid when it comes to the Fed govt, which is not so with State Govts. Senators Were appointed by the States (pre 17th) & Senators numbers (equal State Rep) can't be amended.Senate has to approve all treaties ie the States. Senators were recalled for violating state wishes(con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) The Senate was intended to secure State Soverignty along with the the 9th & 10th... But other than that- going back to the Ratifications by accepting them the congress agreed to those term period... or to paraphrase then Congresman Madison in relation to a ratification with- unacceptable terms- the state would be held as a nonmember of the union. But all states were accepted- even with secession rights retained.
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@knitestalkers Now why did that take so many posts? Why didn't you just say something like, "no law is binding once a state opts out," thus rendering all contracts and treaties nearly worthless?
ageinGamer 4 months ago
@ageinGamer lol..sorry I am a gabber and I like to cite things. But in truth The Fed Gov't is an agent of the States (States have to ratify Amends, can hold Constitutional Conventions & pick the Pres through the electoral college) the People are the States - it is easier to control the local gov't than a far removed one. As for Contracts that is what the ratification agreements were. So is it valid to go back that agreement which without they would not have been in the Union at all? (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) sorry.. It was an understood fact that secession did not mean no obligation. That party was still responsible for their Part of the Fed Debt up to that point. This fact was pointed to by William Rawle (U.S. Marshall helped supress the Whiskey Rebellion & taught the Constitution @ Westpoint) in his legal work- A View of the Constitution. Secession is just a w/draw from the protection of Union & is the last card in protecting its citizen's Soverignty. W/out it we aren't free.
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@knitestalkers You know, I want to see you admit that the secessionists lost. This is all theory, weak theory, and you're entitled to it, but it isn't how the world works. There is no right to secession. The federal government won that fight. The Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation, the private musings of Bill Rawle -- none of these are considered legally binding. The Constitution, which says states can't be independent, is.
ageinGamer 4 months ago
@ageinGamer ok the fed gov illegally invaded the south, occupied it, set up military dictators & puppet gov'ts contrary to the will of the people, happy? The Constitution doesn't say anything about secession 1 way or the other- nor that the Union is permanent or perpetual (unlike the Articles). You overlook the meaning of the 9th &10th amends & the whole ratification agreements that you keep avoiding. You say they ratified it but that same doc says they can leave- ratification doc legal or not?
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@knitestalkers I overlook nothing -- you are assigning those amendments a meaning they lack. And the Constitution (which you only sometimes consider law) grants the president the power to put down insurrection so the invasion was legal.
The ratification documents are legal but not law. They are considerations, not conditions. Example: SC wanted Constitution to read "no OTHER religious test" in Article 6, but that was never adopted. A signing statement that can't be considered part of Con. LAW.
ageinGamer 4 months ago
@ageinGamer Wrong again.. The ratifications had both suggestions and terms... uhm when they say they have the right to leave based on what makes their people happy... that is not a suggestion but a term to which the other states and congress agree to by letting them become states. Other wise they ah what is the word? Fraudulantly entered into an agreement with those States, which would have been considered non binding in a legal since. (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) Congress never noted their legal objection nor did they send it back. & Article 1 sec 8 does allow for the supression of rebellion (to that you are correct) however article 4 section 4 shows the manner in which that supression has to happen- the president can't just do it on his own- plus art 1 sec 8 covers the power of Congress. I consider the Constitution to be Law.. Lincoln just ignored it. (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) since there is no permission on the part of certain states to enter to supress a "rebellion" because it was not a rebellion but Legally elected State governments acting as such- respecting the will of their people & retiring from the Union. To which stopping is a power NOT granted to the Federal Government Specifically nor is Secession denied Specifically to the States (even today under Constitutional Law) & therefore falls under the 9th and 10th amendments. (con't)
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@ageinGamer (con't) btw I found a Feb 1861 speech by Lincoln in which (and I am paprphrasing) the Secession crisis was not a crisis and basicly the most important thing is the vote on the Tarriff in which he goes on and on and on about in favour of protectionism.
knitestalkers 4 months ago
@knitestalkers Now, if you feel that strongly about your semi-informed politics, I suggest you get involved. Go to a Teabagger rally or something. Vote Ron Paul, and much good may it do you. But if you think you're fixing things by venting your spleen 500 characters at a time, you really should go back on the medication.
ageinGamer 4 months ago