# The Southern War of Slavery celebrated in SC!



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Once again SC has embarrassed the nation - as if the Nullification Crisis, Ft. Sumter, Fritz Hollings and Strom Thurmond weren't enough - with the holding of a "secession gala" celebrating SC's decision to start a civil war.

Undoubtedly apologists for the Confederacy will say that I don't understand or appreciate Souther heritage and that the Civil War was about states right but what such apologists can never force themselves to admit is that ultimately it was about the a state's right to maintain the institution of slavery.

https://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/31/2011-begins-commemoration-of-150th-anniversary-of-the-civil-war/

"Robert Sutton, the Park Service historian, just sighs. He watched the states' rights-versus-slavery debate rage in the dozen years he spent as superintendent of the Manassas National Battlefield Park. He doesn't see any sign that anyone's going to change their mind.

One hundred and fifty years later, it is hard to come to grips with the fact that we had four million people enslaved," he said. "They have a difficult time accepting that their ancestors were fighting to protect the institution of slavery. Yes, there were social factors. Yes, there were economic factors. Yes, there were political factors. But when you boil it all down, slavery was the major factor."

If one can see how a Jew could be outraged by the sight of a Nazi banner why is it so hard to accept that an African American not have much the same reaction to a Confederate flag? Slavery may not be genocide but its not so far off either.

The South is a wonderful, economically dynamic place (Texas is anyway) but a serious blindspot regarding its history remains among far too many of its inhabitants.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I rather thought that the Federal government started your Civil War. South Carolina, as I understand, seceded from the Union, as it perceived it's legal right to do. Other States joined them, and the Federal Government decided to prevent them by military force. Whatever the reasons for secession, it was the Federal Government that started the war by mobilising it's army, and calling upon the States to mobilise their State's forces, to force the seceding States to re-join the Union.
Some 250,000 Black Americans were members of the Southern forces; hardly the action of people to whom the Confederate flag would be abhorrent....


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Slavery in North America existed for a couple hundred years under the British, 72 years under the United States, and about 3 years under the Confederate States.

Most Southerners were unhappy with the institution of slavery, as were the British, as were everyone else. But it was more of an economic necessity to the South than it was elsewhere. It was an inherited dependency, and a convenient target for the righteous outrage of those who were no longer dependent upon it.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

It was the North that invaded the South. The South was defending itself from invasion by hostile armies. Had nothing to do with slavery.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Beresford said:


> It was the North that invaded the South. The South was defending itself from invasion by hostile armies. Had nothing to do with slavery.


Let's get some facts straight shall we? Hostilities began on 12th April 1861 when Confederate forces attacked the US military post at Fort Sumter in SC.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Should have let them succeed. the "South' is nothing but a drain on 'northern' states tax dollars


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Other than the Earl's historically accurate response, I have not read one coherent reply to Karl89. As a matter of fact, I am somewhat shocked by them.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Let's get some facts straight shall we? Hostilities began on 12th April 1861 when Confederate forces attacked the US military post at Fort Sumter in SC.


They were mearly provoked by those Northern Scum!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> Undoubtedly apologists for the Confederacy will say that I don't understand or appreciate Souther heritage and that the Civil War was about states right but what such apologists can never force themselves to admit is that ultimately it was about the a state's right to maintain the institution of slavery.


Why do you suppose Lincoln waited over a year after hostilities began to issue the emancipation proclamation "if ultimately it was about the a state's right to maintain the institution of slavery??"


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why do you suppose Lincoln waited over a year after hostilities began to issue the emancipation proclamation "if ultimately it was about the a state's right to maintain the institution of slavery??"


He believed that he needed to wait until there was a Union victory in the Eastern Theatre, which turned out to be Antietam. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued a couple of months afterwards.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

KenR said:


> He believed that he needed to wait until there was a Union victory in the Eastern Theatre, which turned out to be Antietam. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued a couple of months afterwards.


So you agree that mischaracterizations such as "apologists can never force themselves to admit is that ultimately it was about the a state's right to maintain the institution of slavery" are specious and inflamatory??


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Once again SC has embarrassed the nation - as if the Nullification Crisis, Ft. Sumter, Fritz Hollings and Strom Thurmond weren't enough - with the holding of a "secession gala" celebrating SC's decision to start a civil war.
> 
> ...


Well said on all those points.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So you agree that mischaracterizations such as "apologists can never force themselves to admit is that ultimately it was about the a state's right to maintain the institution of slavery" are specious and inflamatory??


I agree with this from Karl89's original post:

One hundred and fifty years later, it is hard to come to grips with the fact that we had four million people enslaved," he said. "They have a difficult time accepting that their ancestors were fighting to protect the institution of slavery. Yes, there were social factors. Yes, there were economic factors. Yes, there were political factors. But when you boil it all down, slavery was the major factor."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

KenR said:


> I agree with this from Karl89's original post:
> 
> One hundred and fifty years later, it is hard to come to grips with the fact that we had four million people enslaved," he said. "They have a difficult time accepting that their ancestors were fighting to protect the institution of slavery. Yes, there were social factors. Yes, there were economic factors. Yes, there were political factors. But when you boil it all down, *slavery was the major factor*."


(Emphasis added)

I would concede "a major factor" but Lincoln's own actions clearly show that it was not THE major factor.

It's a small but I think relevent point.

Thank heavens the entire peculiar institution was abolished sooner than later.

Who is it that says "war never accomplishes anything??"


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Let's get some facts straight shall we? Hostilities began on 12th April 1861 when Confederate forces attacked the US military post at Fort Sumter in SC.


 How many countries would accept the maintenance of a fortified post held by a hostile power that controlled access to a major port? The refusal of Federal forces to evacuate Fort Sumter, and Fort Pickens at Pensocola, was itself a provocation. S.Carolina had seceded some months before, and argued that the Federal government had no right to maintain a fort in S.Carolina. 
The actual war began when the North invaded the South in June 1861, in what became W.Virginia.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> The actual war began when the North invaded the South in June 1861, in what became W.Virginia.


That's as maybe, but I didn't say anything about the start of the war either the point in time of a declaration of war or a date upon which both sides agree the war started. I am talking about when the actual fighting began, and which side it was the started the actual fighting, as I wrote, "hostilities began".


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

It is an established historical fact that the American Civil war was about States' Rights. Two of those rights were:

a) The right of the states to secede from the Union
b) Maintain slave labor (as outlined in the constitution)

For a) there is no exit clause in the US Constitution for a state, so this was unexplored territory. Even Lincoln after the war wanted to take the approach of "it wasn't possible, so we can't punish the states for trying to do it" but the congress of the time.

On b), slavery was an economic factor, and although barbaric, it was outlined in constitution as an allowed practice. Based on our own 10th amendment (State's maintain any rights not outlined in the constitution), it can be argued that it takes a constitutional amendment to remove slavery (requiring 2/3 of states ratification). The federal government did not do that, hence violating states rights again.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Ignoring the moral factor here about the evils inherent in slavery, the war, I would suggest, was fought over States' Rights. It was not fought over slavery, per se. The States that became the Confederacy seceded because they feared that the Northern States, which considered Federal Law paramount over State law were likely to gain a majority in Congress which would enable Congress to impose Federal Laws that would be against the interest of Southern States' Laws. Would the Federal Government, under Lincoln, have abolished slavery? I'm inclined to think not. Slavery would, I think, have eventually withered in the S.States, as it had elsewhere, once capitalist economics had become more fully understood. Afterall, workers can be controlled by means other than slavery!
South Carolina is, one could argue, simply celebrating an aspect of it's identity. Many regions celebrate aspects of their identity that make the inhabitants feel as if they are special, or different, or unique. Especially when they are dominated by another culture, or what they perceive to be another culture. European regions cling on to regional dalects or languages, which are of no actual benefit to them, but which merely serve to perpetuate their difference from the rest of their Country. Ireland celebrates it's independence from a country that it is still economically, socially and politically tied to, even though it could be argued that Ireland's position, size and economy suggests that it would make more sense for it's population if was still part of Britain. Nevertheless, I, emotionally, appaud it's independence, even though it's independence actually makes life for the Irish, in this current economic climate, worse. S.Carolina is simply clinging onto it's heritage, even if the Confederate States of America would now be a poverty stricken third world country if seccession had been allowed to succeed!


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

I had really hoped people wouldn't take the bait on the original post and it would be left to languish and die the death that such a stupid post deserved...alas....... Per one small example, I fail to see how a Ball held by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in a local Charleston chapter impugns the entire State of South Carolina and/or should be embarrassing to the entire Nation. This was an act by an isolated social group, not the state legislature. If single individuals or extremely small groups have this power, Texas has a great deal for which it must answer (e.g., Lyndon Johnson or George Bush, depending on one's point of view). And, by the same compelling logic, I suppose all Americans should bow their respective heads in shame when overseas becasue we have produced Paris Hilton and/or have allowed Dancing with Stars to continue to air (and yes, I am ashamed of this). 

If the men of the times couldn't resolve the issues/rationales behind secession (absent armed conflict), I doubt this thread will. People are talking right past each other because, let's face it - few have an open mind about the causes of the Civil War and it makes us feel good about ourselves, when they fall short, to judge historical figures by modern measures. I do find it interesting that those who actually fought and killed each other during the Civil War, by and large, took a rather higher estimation of their enemys' motives and character than historians have in the last 20 or so years (at least with respect to the Confederate side).

Now, for a real conversation: Discuss how General Sherman was the moral forefather of Dresden, Hiroshima, 9-11, and other war crimes which sought to deliberately target, attack, kill, or cause terror among defenseless civilian populations.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

Actually, in 1860 southern states believed strongly in federalism and had their own issues with the concept of states rights because northern states were "nullifying" the fugitive slave law. These were not state laws, these were federal laws that protected slavery, upheld by the supreme court. South Carolina wrote an actual document that spelled out their reasons for secession, but few people have actually read it. Other southern states produced similar statements.

Read the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" and decide for yourself if slavery was the primary reason for secession. Note how South Carolina described their situation as similar to the American Revolution, and yet I've never heard that the reason the American Revolution was fought due to whether or not colonies had the right to secede and form their own country.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Epaminondas said:


> 1) I suppose all Americans should bow their respective heads in shame when overseas becasue we have produced Paris Hilton and/or have allowed Dancing with Stars to continue to air (and yes, I am ashamed of this).
> 
> 2) Now, for a real conversation: Discuss how General Sherman was the moral forefather of Dresden, Hiroshima, 9-11, and other war crimes which sought to deliberately target, attack, kill, or cause terror among defenseless civilian populations.


1) That's why the terrorists hate us!! 

2) The precident for smiting civilian targets was established by God at Sodam and Gomora.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 2) The precident for smiting civilian targets was established by God at Sodam and Gomora.


Yes, let's blame recent modern history on myth.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Bandit44 said:


> Read the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" and decide for yourself if slavery was the primary reason for secession. Note how South Carolina described their situation as similar to the American Revolution, and yet I've never heard that the reason the American Revolution was fought due to whether or not colonies had the right to secede and form their own country.


Few documents written by 'statesmen' and politicians at any place at any time in history designed to validate a rationale for war, secession, changes in taxation, or pretty much anything else can be taken at face value and anyone who does so would be a fool.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So you agree that mischaracterizations such as "apologists can never force themselves to admit is that ultimately it was about the a state's right to maintain the institution of slavery" are specious and inflamatory??


Nope, just a statement of fact.

There is a lot of historical revisionism going on in this thread. The States Rights argument is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the real reason for the war, slavery. If you read some of the statements from secession leaders in Mississippi, South Carolina, etc before the start of the "War of Northern Aggression", it is clear that primary factor leading up to secession was slavery and the fear that the institution would be outlawed as part of the democratic process. Once the Constitution was adopted in replacement of the Articles of Confederation, secession was no longer an option. (Please note that the Constitution was adopted by all states in existence at the time of its adoption.)

It's interesting to note that the many in the south tried to use the States Rights BS be an excuse for segregation, Jim Crow laws, anti voting laws, etc.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

blairrob said:


> Few documents written by 'statesmen' and politicians at any place at any time in history designed to validate a rationale for war, secession, changes in taxation, or pretty much anything else can be taken at face value and anyone who does so would be a fool.


Great, instead of actually addressing the document, substitute an ad hominem. I did not suggest taking this document at face value, but I did suggest that we consider the words of the actual historical actors instead of perpetuating the same tired myths. Maybe Abe Lincoln had was holding the SC legislature hostage and forced them to say slavery was the primary cause of secession. Perhaps these men were under the control of Mary Todd who conjured up a spirit and possessed them into writing the Declaration. Certainly, we should not take this at face value; there has to be an explanation!


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> Once the Constitution was adopted in replacement of the Articles of Confederation, secession was no longer an option.


 Why?



MichaelS said:


> It's interesting to note that the many in the south tried to use the States Rights BS be an excuse for segregation, Jim Crow laws, anti voting laws, etc.


States Rights BS?? So the confirmation of the rights of States in the 10th Amendment - meaningless BS? Simply because a right is used to defend something with which you disagree does not make the underlying right "BS." What other part of the Bill of Rights do you consider to be BS?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Bandit44 said:


> Actually, in 1860 southern states believed strongly in federalism and had their own issues with the concept of states rights because northern states were "nullifying" the fugitive slave law. These were not state laws, these were federal laws that protected slavery, upheld by the supreme court. South Carolina wrote an actual document that spelled out their reasons for secession, but few people have actually read it. Other southern states produced similar statements.
> 
> Read the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" and decide for yourself if slavery was the primary reason for secession. Note how South Carolina described their situation as similar to the American Revolution, and yet I've never heard that the reason the American Revolution was fought due to whether or not colonies had the right to secede and form their own country.
> 
> https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp


The first paragraph of this document references slavery and as you read the documetn there are other references.

"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue"

Other states had similar reasons. The economic elite who were in power in the south were dependent on an agrarian economy based on the economics of slavery. They didn't want to lose this power or the wealth it brought them. They also couldn't accept that in democracy/republic they were living in, popular view of slavery was changing and the majority of people could act in a manner as specified in the constitution to outlaw slavery. Many if not most of these people could not see the "writing on the wall" that slavery was on its way out.

The southern propaganda machine was excellent and they incited many poor whites (who they would never have associated with commonly) to rise up to defend the "honor" of their States and State's Rights.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Epaminondas said:


> Why?
> 
> States Rights BS?? So the confirmation of the rights of States in the 10th Amendment - meaningless BS? Simply because a right is used to defend something with which you disagree does not make the underlying right "BS." What other part of the Bill of Rights do you consider to be BS?


The tenth amendment (in the bill of rights):

Amendment X
"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. "

Where does this allow secession?
Where does this not allow the 13th amendment which outlaws slavery:

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[2]"


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Once the Constitution was adopted in replacement of the Articles of Confederation, secession was no longer an option.



Epaminondas said:


> Why?


read the constitution and the Federalist Papers written by the authors of the constitution.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> Once the Constitution was adopted in replacement of the Articles of Confederation, secession was no longer an option.
> 
> read the constitution and the Federalist Papers written by the authors of the constitution.


Further: the Articles of Confederation were abandoned with the adoption of the US Constitution. We were no longer a "Confederation" but a Union.

Also, the Union won.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> The tenth amendment (in the bill of rights):
> 
> Amendment X
> "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. "
> ...


1) The 10th Amendment doesn't specifically allow secession, but it confirms that the State have rights to the extent not otherwise expressly given to the federal governemnt by the Constitution. My point in referring you to the 10th Amendment was to chasten you on referring to states rights arguments as BS - go back and read what I said. The Constitution doesn't address secession AT ALL - which is why it was an open question at the time.

2) I said nothing about the 13th amendment and don't see how its germain to what was being discussed as it was ratified AFTER the civl war. A Consitutional amendment is a perfectly wonderful thing and I never said word one about how states rights were or were not impacted by the 13th Amendment. You are either confused or raising a straw man argument.

3) I'd still like to know why once "the Constitution was adopted in replacement of the Articles of Confederation, secession was no longer an option."


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

"3) I'd still like to know why once "the Constitution was adopted in replacement of the Articles of Confederation, secession was no longer an option."

In my opinion it is because the confederation was a differnt type pf government. It was a loose confederation in which the states were recognized as soverign. This didn't work well hence the constitutional convention. The Constitution created a totally new type of government that was a Union, not a confederation. It replaced the confederation.

"From the first of the federalist papers (

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world."

Very interesting 3rd pargraph: "Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government. "

Alexander Hamilton's description of why he is writing the Federalist Papers:

"I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:

THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY

THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION

THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT

THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT

ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION

and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY."

Ect. If youread these papers it is clear that the Constitution replaces the Federation. Once the Constitution was adopted, this replaced the Federation.

You might also want to read the Anti Federalist Papers
https://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/intro.html

There were a lot of intersting arguments on both sides but the Constitution and a Republic won out over the Confederation and all states eventually ratified it (all members of the constitutional convention from all states also agreed with the docuemtn before it was sent to be ratified).

Plus, the Union won.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

"1) The 10th Amendment doesn't specifically allow secession, but it confirms that the State have rights to the extent not otherwise expressly given to the federal governemnt by the Constitution. My point in referring you to the 10th Amendment was to chasten you on referring to states rights arguments as BS - go back and read what I said. The Constitution doesn't address secession AT ALL - which is why it was an open question at the time."

My argument here is that the people in power in the south, used this argument as a reason for secession but in reality, they were worried primarily about slavery. I see it as plain and simple when I read their arguments for secession and when I read the history of the time including newspapers, the rise of the abolitionist movement, etc. It is disingenuous to look at the argument of states rights alone as valid without looking at the history of the time and why secession was proposed by the southern leaders in their own words. No slavery issue then no secession.

Again, the Union won.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

"2) I said nothing about the 13th amendment and don't see how its germain to what was being discussed as it was ratified AFTER the civl war. A Consitutional amendment is a perfectly wonderful thing and I never said word one about how states rights were or were not impacted by the 13th Amendment. You are either confused or raising a straw man argument."

I mentioned the 13th amendment to show that the Republic did have the legal "Power" to abolish slavery in the constitution. This is what the southernors were afraid of and what they said would be stepping on their States rights.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> Once the Constitution was adopted in replacement of the Articles of Confederation, secession was no longer an option.
> 
> read the constitution and the Federalist Papers written by the authors of the constitution.


I have read the Constituion - many times and I've read most, if not all, of the Federalist Papers. It doesn't really matter what's in the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are not law - it's argumentation (why don't you give me a citation to the disucssions, if any, of secession in the Federalist Papers); they were basically op/ed pieces for g-d's sake.

It's what's in the Constitution that matters and the Constituion neither allows nor prohibits secession, does it? So, again, I ask under what law or rules was secession no longer an option after the "Constitution was adopted in replacement of the Articles of Confederation?" That's what you asserted and I'd like to know how you can make such a bold statement. Secession has been considered by northern and southern states at various times in U.S. history prior to the Civil War and I'm aware of no caselaw or constitutional principle that would lead one to believe that States could not secede or that the decision of a State to join the Union was an irrevocable act forever binding upon its citizenry in perpetuity for infinite generations to come. If, in order to go into effect, the Constitution needed to be approved by the sovereign States which, by the express terms of the document, only gave up the powers specifically enumerated and conferred to the federal government or specifically prohibited (See Artcile I, Section 10) in the Constitution - where in the Constitution does it provide that a State does not have the right to secede or to rescind it's approval? If a State can join the Union, presumably, it can remove itself from the Union as the Constitution states nothing about the States having surrendered their sovereignty or that a ratification was in perpetuity.

I'm not saying secession was constitutional or non-constituional - I see good arguments on both sides. I'm merely stating that you've said a lot of silly, indefensible, and half thought-out things as if they were fact. Better minds than yours, at the time, had pondered the consitutional, political, and legal issues and justifications for secession and if finding the answer had been as simple and self-evident as reading the Federalist Papers or the Constitution, certainly huge amounts of principled blood could have been spared.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> I mentioned the 13th amendment to show that the Republic did have the legal "Power" to abolish slavery in the constitution. This is what the southernors were afraid of and what they said would be stepping on their States rights.


Well, what a tangent. No one quesioned that a consitutional amendment could empower the federal government to do so.

And, no, it wasn't what the South was afraid of - they had more immediate concerns. At the time (circa. 1860) there was no chance that the requisite number of States (3/4) would have voted to amend the Constituion to prohibit slavery where it existed and the South could have prevented anymore States from joining the Union if they feared such a likelihood.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

I would argue that the federalist papers do matter because they show the intent of the authors of the constitution. That said, being a scientist and not an attorney, I can't provide valid legal arguments for or against secession, just my understanding of what I read.

I will go back to my original statement that the secession was not based on States Rights. That was a spurious argument used by the southern elite who were worried about losing rights to slavery. They knew that under the constitution, an amendment could be passed outlawing slavery therefore overruling any “states rights” to slavery. The use of the term States Rights allowed them to create a smokescreen which helped recruit people to fight for the honor of their states. I really don’t think the poor whites that bore the brunt of the war would have cared about slavery (which they never could have afforded or benefitted from) without the States Rights-Honor arguments-bull.

I would also argue (from a less than knowledgeable legal point) that is an amendment to the constitution can be made that prohibits something previously allowed by some states (consider prohibition) then the activity is not a State Right but governed under the constitution.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Epaminondas said:


> Well, what a tangent. No one quesioned that a consitutional amendment could empower the federal government to do so.
> 
> And, no, it wasn't what the South was afraid of - they had more immediate concerns. At the time (circa. 1860) there was no chance that the requisite number of States (3/4) would have voted to amend the Constituion to prohibit slavery where it existed and the South could have prevented anymore States from joining the Union if they feared such a likelihood.


They did know that public support for an amendment was growing and that with a growing country, the balance of power could change even with the Missouri compromise.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> "3) I'd still like to know why once "the Constitution was adopted in replacement of the Articles of Confederation, secession was no longer an option."
> 
> In my opinion it is because the confederation was a differnt type pf government. It was a loose confederation in which the states were recognized as soverign. This didn't work well hence the constitutional convention. The Constitution created a totally new type of government that was a Union, not a confederation. It replaced the confederation.
> 
> ...


Lost of words, but you've not defended your assertion "Once the Constitution was adopted in replacement of the Articles of Confederation, secession was no longer an option. " And, you haven't defended it because you can't and your sole response becomes, putting aside the legality, constitutionality, justice, or rightness of the arguments for secession, is that might makes right becasue the Union won. Well, you're right on the that point, but you've addressed none of the others. By your logic, Marxism was correct and proper because the Bolsheviks beat the White Army - not very compelling.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

AN INTERSTING QUOTE FROM THE fEDERALIST PAPER #58: 

"Lastly, it would facilitate and foster the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us."

Not directly related to slavery but more toward procedural issues but clearly indocates the intent of the authors regarding secession.

I should shut up know!!!!!!


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> I would argue that the federalist papers do matter because they show the intent of the authors of the constitution. That said, being a scientist and not an attorney, I can't provide valid legal arguments for or against secession, just my understanding of what I read.


 They provide some insight into the intent of some of the drafters. But, I don't recall disucssion of secession and don't forget, there were anti-federalists as well.



MichaelS said:


> I will go back to my original statement that the secession was not based on States Rights. That was a spurious argument used by the southern elite who were worried about losing rights to slavery. They knew that under the constitution, an amendment could be passed outlawing slavery therefore overruling any "states rights" to slavery. The use of the term States Rights allowed them to create a smokescreen which helped recruit people to fight for the honor of their states. I really don't think the poor whites that bore the brunt of the war would have cared about slavery (which they never could have afforded or benefitted from) without the States Rights-Honor arguments-bull.


There wasn't even a proposal for such an amendment - it wasn't even on the radar screen. In fact, the Dred Scott decision pretty much cut the other way and diminished the rights of free states to keep slavery OUT of their states. Oh, OK - the vast majority of the Southern army was brainwashed by the clever, media manipulating, planter class? The vast majority of Union troops were not fighting to end slavery (and many left their units after the Emancipation Proclimation) and the vast majority of Southerners were not fighting to preserve it. You should take your impression at face value; you don't think most poor whites cared about slavery - probably true. You think they were motivated by manipulation and guile. I think they faced long odds, disease, starvation, death because they viewed their states as their homeland and it was being threatened by outside forces.

You can cast it as a slavery issue - I think its inextricably linked - but to say the Civl War is a result of Slavery is to put your own "spin" on it for moralizing purposes and I think overly narrows the causal factors. I can think of it as having come down quite cleary to economics and wealth - basically, as a property rights issue. The abolition of the cotton gin, and related efficient harvesting equipment, would likely have produced a similar reaction in the South - at least among the planter class. The abolition of slavery meant the liquidation/elimination of the preponderance of the South's capital/wealth. So you say slavery, I say economics. Still, as I said above, there were other factors. I tend to take Robert E. Lee's statement at face value that he could not wage war against his State so he waged war to Defend it. He had no slaves; Grant's wife did (though he sold them) - complicated, complicated times and motivations.



MichaelS said:


> I would also argue (from a less than knowledgeable legal point) that is an amendment to the constitution can be made that prohibits something previously allowed by some states (consider prohibition) then the activity is not a State Right but governed under the constitution.


Yes, I think I would agree if I understand you. No one is arguing that if a consitutional amendment is passed that confers specific powers to the federal government, they can also be claimed by a State.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

This is now way beyond my ken, so I'll leave you to it gents.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> AN INTERSTING QUOTE FROM THE fEDERALIST PAPER #58:
> 
> "Lastly, it would facilitate and foster the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us."
> 
> ...


Interesting. One man's opinion. Too bad they didn't address that in the Constitution.

I'm done too - back to work.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> Again, the Union won.


Judge shopping or stacking the SCOTUS helps, but winning the war helps even moreso!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Epaminondas said:


> "the vast majority of Southerners were not fighting to preserve it. You should take your impression at face value; you don't think most poor whites cared about slavery - probably true. You think they were motivated by manipulation and guile. I think they faced long odds, disease, starvation, death because they viewed their states as their homeland and it was being threatened by outside forces.


The reason given by most Black people who joined the army of the Confederacy, or worked for the Confederacy, was that they were defending their country against foreign invasion.
Vide https://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm for some details and anecdotes. 
When Fremont began freeing slaves in what became West Virginia (I think) Lincoln sacked him for exceeding his orders, and because active abolitionism by the federal army could be unpopular in the North.
Only 4.95% of whites in the South owned slaves; the majority of Southern soldiers were, clearly, not defending their own interests. Defending their State's rights was what they were concerned with, and their State itself, of course.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

I know I said I would shut up but here are a couple of things:

Legal opinion re the right to secceed:

That issue was settled in the 1869 United States Supreme Court case Texas v. White[5] In that case, the court determined that the drafters intended the perpetuity of the Union to survive:
"	By [the Articles of Confederation], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union

(I know it's wikipedia but I'm being too lazy to check the sources)
Also, I was wrong to think that the Articles gave the right to seceed as shown above, they instead appear to prevent it.

The end of the Confederation:

According to their own terms for modification (Article XIII), the Articles would still have been in effect until 1790, the year in which the last of the 13 states ratified the new Constitution. The Congress under the Articles continued to sit until November 1788,[23][24][25][26] overseeing the adoption of the new Constitution by the states, and setting elections. By that date, 11 of the 13 states had ratified the new Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Revision_and_replacement

"Article XIII. Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state."

Anyway, it's all moot as the North Won and that (as well as a number of court cases over the years re secession and states rights, look them up, there are a lot) makes it right!

To poorly paraphrase Toranaga when speaking to the Pilot in James Clavell's Shogun: It's legal to depose your king if you win! The Union won!


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

So. No state can succeed. It's like the Mafia or the Hotel California -- "you can never leave." Like, if you have a profitable state and other states attach their socialist suckers to your economy and bleed you out through the Federal government because they have implemented unaffordable social programs, you just have to support their failed state economies? Still, the USA is a pretty good place. Can states, like California, be _expelled_ because of their mismanagement?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

This is good stuff.

Nice to see so many people are still STUCK IN THE PAST and still sore about getting their butt kicked in the war.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Chouan said:


> The reason given by most Black people who joined the army of the Confederacy, or worked for the Confederacy, was that they were defending their country against foreign invasion.
> Vide https://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm for some details and anecdotes.
> When Fremont began freeing slaves in what became West Virginia (I think) Lincoln sacked him for exceeding his orders, and because active abolitionism by the federal army could be unpopular in the North.
> Only 4.95% of whites in the South owned slaves; the majority of Southern soldiers were, clearly, not defending their own interests. Defending their State's rights was what they were concerned with, and their State itself, of course.


For another more realistic and actual historical view of the above revisionist history:

https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2...tory-thousands-of-black-confederate-soldiers/


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Liberty Ship said:


> So. No state can succeed. It's like the Mafia or the Hotel California -- "you can never leave." Like, if you have a profitable state and other states attach their socialist suckers to your economy and bleed you out through the Federal government because they have implemented unaffordable social programs, you just have to support their failed state economies? Still, the USA is a pretty good place. Can states, like California, be _expelled_ because of their mismanagement?


Yup, you can't withdrawl and nope, we can't kick out a state. If you hate it here so much and hate us "socialist suckers" move to Somalia; they don't have any dang jack booted federal government to keep you down!


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> This is good stuff.
> 
> Nice to see so many people are still STUCK IN THE PAST and still sore about getting their butt kicked in the war.


As Shelby Foote put it "Southerners are very peculiar about that war".


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> This is good stuff.
> 
> Nice to see so many people are still STUCK IN THE PAST and still sore about getting their butt kicked in the war.


If the colonial rabble had not rebelled against their lawful sovereign in 1775, none of these subsequent problems would have occurred!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> For another more realistic and actual historical view of the above revisionist history:
> 
> https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2...tory-thousands-of-black-confederate-soldiers/


Some valid points made, and some rather less so. Little evidence offered though, in either direction. The fact remains that Black people fought for the Confederacy. 
I'm not from the South, and have no connection of any kind with the former Confederacy, I'm just expressing a view.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Some valid points made, and some rather less so. Little evidence offered though, in either direction. The fact remains that Black people fought for the Confederacy.
> I'm not from the South, and have no connection of any kind with the former Confederacy, I'm just expressing a view.


In WWII the Germans forced some Russian prisoners of war to fight for them against the allies in France. Does that make them supporters of the nazis? I don't think so. The fact that somne blacks were forced or hoodwinked into fighting for the south is pretty much meaningless in an argument on whether or not the war was fought based on slavery.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Beresford said:


> If the colonial rabble had not rebelled against their lawful sovereign in 1775, none of these subsequent problems would have occurred!


We won so we are lawful!! As a French Canadian geophysicist told me when I asked why their license plate says "I Remember" (Je me souviens): "You kicked the bast-rds out". (I don't think he was an anglophile!).


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

There is no such thing as a successful rebellion. If it fails it fails, if it succeeds, it is a legitimate insurrection, and thus not a rebellion.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

"Did U.S. servicemen ever serve as stable assistants, aides to Commissioned officers, cooks, teamsters, ect ? They certainly did. Plus many eye witness accounts of black Confederates testify that even some in these positions did occasionally carry arms. It would be wrong to claim that the bulk of black Confederates working in factories, repair shops, and hospitals far away from the battlefields, were soldiers even in today's standard. Most of these would NOT be considered "soldiers" but "employees of the Army". Nether the less we must be careful not to continuing to inject nineteenth century discriminatory bias on men that in today's Army would be considered soldiers. If they were serving on the battlefield or immediately behind frontlines of battle performing military service, then we should consider the modern Army equivalent."

Dr. Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission, observed that Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's troops in occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 ******* must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the ******* had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."

Numbers are clearly open to question, but their existence seems beyond doubt.

https://www.calebstriumph.com/black_confederates/black_confederates.html


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> In WWII the Germans forced some Russian prisoners of war to fight for them against the allies in France. Does that make them supporters of the nazis? I don't think so. The fact that somne blacks were forced or hoodwinked into fighting for the south is pretty much meaningless in an argument on whether or not the war was fought based on slavery.


Many "Hiwis" volunteered to fight against Bolshevism. Better food and better conditions may have helped their deciosion. Turkmen, Cossacks, Kirghiz, Bashkirs, Tartars, as well as Georgians, Ossetians and Chechens volunteered to fight for the Nazis, as they saw any enemy of Soviet Russia as their friend. 
Were the Kit Carson Scouts forced to fight for the Americans? Or did they volunteer?
Britain's Indian Army fought loyally for their Imperialist oppressors through two world wars and many other, more localised campaigns. Were they forced to fight, or were they volunteers, fighting for what they saw as their country?
Because it doesn't make sense to us now, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Many "Hiwis" volunteered to fight against Bolshevism. Better food and better conditions may have helped their deciosion. Turkmen, Cossacks, Kirghiz, Bashkirs, Tartars, as well as Georgians, Ossetians and Chechens volunteered to fight for the Nazis, as they saw any enemy of Soviet Russia as their friend.
> Were the Kit Carson Scouts forced to fight for the Americans? Or did they volunteer?
> Britain's Indian Army fought loyally for their Imperialist oppressors through two world wars and many other, more localised campaigns. Were they forced to fight, or were they volunteers, fighting for what they saw as their country?
> Because it doesn't make sense to us now, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


I'm not talking about the people who volunteered to fight for the axis (although the term "volunteer" was very loose and shouldn't be considered to mean what we consider it to mean today). I'm talking about those who were forced or given no choice but to 'volunteer" for the German forces. These included prisoners of war and conscripts for countries conquered by the Germans.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Interesting "FAQ" from a google search "Texas right to secede"

_Q:	Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede? [BACK TO TOP] 
A:	
This heavily popularized bit of Texas folklore finds no corroboration where it counts: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1] (adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2] However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." (note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...")

Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other "free and independent State") from the United States. Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts"-including Abraham Lincoln himself-may have ever said).

Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

Likewise, each of the united States is "united" with the others explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [3]

Q:	Didn't the outcome of the "Civil War" prove that secession is not an option for any State? [BACK TO TOP] 
A:	
No. It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve. The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce.[4] Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government" (without ever explaining exactly how "the government" was "threatened" by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern control.[5]

The South's rejoining the Union at the point of a bayonet in the late 1860s didn't prove secession is "not an option" or unlawful. It only affirmed that violent coercion can be used-even by governments (if unrestrained)-to rob men of their very lives, liberty, and property.[6]

It bears repeating that the united States are "united" explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [7]_


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

More:

_Q:	Didn't the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White prove that secession is unconstitutional? [BACK TO TOP] 
A:	
No. For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White:

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

"...The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.

"...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union."
- Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)

It is noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.

What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union (they were - see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in "readmitting" a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true.

To be clear: Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions - one, a judicially contrived "interpretation" of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission. If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot - a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.

This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day.

Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself...

The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution - precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states.

It's no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a "constitutional" argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession.

An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served: presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government).

Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.

The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.

Q:	Is Texas really ripe for a secession movement? [BACK TO TOP] 
A:	
Probably not (yet). Texans generally aren't the rugged, independent, liberty-conscious folks they once were. Like most Americans, they happily acquiesce to the U.S. government's steady theft of their rights and property via unlawful statutes, programs, and activities.

Unfamiliar with historical or legal details, being largely products of public (i.e., government) "education," today's Texans easily adopt the "politically correct" myths that litter the landscape of American popular opinion. Many don't even know what the word secede means, and believe that the United States is a "democracy" (hint: it's not)[8].

But public opinion and ignorance won't stop us from suggesting that secession is still a good idea for people who value their rights and personal liberty more highly than the temporal affluence, comfort, and false security provided by the U.S. welfare/warfare state. By raising public awareness of even the concept of secession, we hope they might plant seeds that will some day yield a new resolve among Texans for liberty and self-government._


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

I belive your logic argument is flawed Apatheticviews.

it appears that your argument is somewhat based on the statement that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed". This is true, but it is all of the population that is governed. The argument that a state can seceed because that state's population does not consent to be governed woudl also allow any single county, town, village, etc to seceed if that countys'. towns', citys' etc population decides that it does not consent to be governed by the federal government.

The reported reading of Texas vs White is also flawed and incomplete. This has been argued ad neasueum in many forums and I am not qualified to repeat these arguments but it was a ruling of the Supreme court and unless withdrawn or overuled by a new case, stands. 

As to the comment on the war and the action of the President: 

"act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve. The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully,"

He was not acting outside of his authority and no court case in U.S. federal court has found this to be so. He was acting to preserve, protect, and defend the the Constitution (and therefore the union) as required to do so by his oath of office: 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If he had allowed the states to seceed, he would not have been defending the constitution which does not specifically allow secession. (It is interesting to note that the constitution also does not specifically allow the federal government to outlaw narcotics but it still does and has not lost any challenge to it's legal authority to regulate and prohibit these).

(Also, I agree with the statement that we are not a "democracy", we are a republic.)

This is getting old. The good guys won, the bad guys lost. People should get over it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> I'm not talking about the people who volunteered to fight for the axis (although the term "volunteer" was very loose and shouldn't be considered to mean what we consider it to mean today). I'm talking about those who were forced or given no choice but to 'volunteer" for the German forces. These included prisoners of war and conscripts for countries conquered by the Germans.


But you argued that the Black people who volunteered to fight for the Confederates were coerced or forced so to do, so I've given examples of people in a similar situation who did indeed volunteer to fight for a side that one would "naturally" see as their enemy. In any case, I'm not convinced that the Russians in the auxiliary Battalions encountered in Normandy were "forced" to fight, and I'm not aware of conquered foreign conscripts in the German army who were forcibly enlisted. I'm sure that some Black people were indeed forced or coerced to work for the Confederacy, as they were by their Federal liberators, but I doubt that a man who is forced into arms will fight for his oppressor; rather he would use his arms to acheive his liberty. This doesn't seem to have happened.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Chouan said:


> But you argued that the Black people who volunteered to fight for the Confederates were coerced or forced so to do, so I've given examples of people in a similar situation who did indeed volunteer to fight for a side that one would "naturally" see as their enemy. In any case, I'm not convinced that the Russians in the auxiliary Battalions encountered in Normandy were "forced" to fight, and I'm not aware of conquered foreign conscripts in the German army who were forcibly enlisted. I'm sure that some Black people were indeed forced or coerced to work for the Confederacy, as they were by their Federal liberators, but I doubt that a man who is forced into arms will fight for his oppressor; rather he would use his arms to acheive his liberty. This doesn't seem to have happened.


You need to read that reference a bit more. Most of the blacks that have been reported to be in the southern army (by generally revisionist history) were actually slaves serving as servant, cooks, laborers, etc. Most did not fight, they were not volunteers. The southern whites did not generally accept them on the battlefield in fighting positions. A few may have fought as confederate soldiers but they were extremely rare. At the end of the war there were instances when a desperate southern government offereed freedom for slaves who would enlist but again, these were the minority.

The argument that some blacks fought for the confederacy does not in any way dilute the argument that the Civil war was to a huge extent about slavery. The revisionist history of slavery in the south that is being fabricated that shows the slaves as happy and well treated becasue it was in the economic interest of their owners is a crock. There may have been some of this but there are much more verified instances of slavery being cruel, harsh, miserable and with no regard to the health and safety of the slaves.

There weren't no happy dancing ******* singing the praises of good ole Massa. What a fantasy.


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

Lots of semantics here…

Of course economics and other issues played a part BUT slavery was a factor and for the losers the part they are remembered most for (history is of course written by the victors). It is one thing to celebrate and remember those who gave there lives and/or served but it has to be done carefully for the South because it is another to celebrate the “southern cause” because doing so at least brings about an air of the support of slavery and is therefore potentially disgraceful. Sometimes when your ancestors do something shameful (and it is hard to get much more shameful than slavery, although others have) you just call it what it is and move forward, that single act is so bad it taints all others, regardless of the semantics or other issues.

Remember and celebrate those who served and sacrificed on both sides regardless of creed colour or religion—all equally, leave it at that. Learn from the mistakes of the past and move on or run the risk of repeating them. Of course take down the flag that is a sign of oppression.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> You need to read that reference a bit more. Most of the blacks that have been reported to be in the southern army (by generally revisionist history) were actually slaves serving as servant, cooks, laborers, etc. Most did not fight, they were not volunteers. The southern whites did not generally accept them on the battlefield in fighting positions. A few may have fought as confederate soldiers but they were extremely rare. At the end of the war there were instances when a desperate southern government offereed freedom for slaves who would enlist but again, these were the minority.
> 
> The argument that some blacks fought for the confederacy does not in any way dilute the argument that the Civil war was to a huge extent about slavery. The revisionist history of slavery in the south that is being fabricated that shows the slaves as happy and well treated becasue it was in the economic interest of their owners is a crock. There may have been some of this but there are much more verified instances of slavery being cruel, harsh, miserable and with no regard to the health and safety of the slaves.
> 
> There weren't no happy dancing ******* singing the praises of good ole Massa. What a fantasy.


That slaves were happy is, I agree, something of a myth. Some slaves may have been happy. Some slaves may have been well treated. Some slaves may have lived better, more comfortable lives than poor whites either in the south, or in the North. Indeed, it is probable that some slaves were happy, well treated and comfortable, rather than may have been. There may have been the happy image that you ridicule. Even if that was the rule rather than the exception, none of that made or makes slavery acceptable. 
The current Black myth creating view seems to be similar, in that they argue that african slavery, ie slavery in Africa, was paternalistic and good, that slaves were treated as family members, and that it was only when the slaves were sold to Europeans that slavery became onerous. That is also a myth, invented to make the descendants of Africans involved in slavery in Africa, and in the trans-atlantic slave trade, feel better about their ancestors, and therefore themselves. Whydah and Elmina couldn't have operated without the African Kings supplying the slaves.
However, revisionist History isn't necessarily bad or wrong. Revisionist History that challenges an orthodox view, which makes people think again about what they thought was the "Truth", is right and good. Myth creation is, to me as a Historian, both bad and wrong. The supression of an inconvenient truth because it is awkward, or doesn't fit, is also bad and wrong.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Chouan said:


> Many "Hiwis" volunteered to fight against Bolshevism. Better food and better conditions may have helped their deciosion. Turkmen, Cossacks, Kirghiz, Bashkirs, Tartars, as well as Georgians, Ossetians and Chechens volunteered to fight for the Nazis, as they saw any enemy of Soviet Russia as their friend.
> Were the Kit Carson Scouts forced to fight for the Americans? Or did they volunteer?
> Britain's Indian Army fought loyally for their Imperialist oppressors through two world wars and many other, more localised campaigns. Were they forced to fight, or were they volunteers, fighting for what they saw as their country?
> Because it doesn't make sense to us now, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


Imperialist oppressors? India was much better off when it was part of the British Empire.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Beresford said:


> Imperialist oppressors? India was much better off when it was part of the British Empire.


What in Heaven's name do you base that on? Freedom is of no value? That's a ridiculous statement you're making. Some from that sub-continent may agree with you, but I doubt many. Indians take great pride in their country, and last I heard, were not seeking to re-establish rule by a 'benevolent' trading LLC from the UK or it's political masters.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

blairrob said:


> What in Heaven's name do you base that on? Freedom is of no value? That's a ridiculous statement you're making. Some from that sub-continent may agree with you, but I doubt many. Indians take great pride in their country, and last I heard, were not seeking to re-establish rule by a 'benevolent' trading LLC from the UK or it's political masters.


Yes, at this point probably most in the subcontinent no longer remember how much better things were before 1947. Now look at where they are--Pakistan overrun by Islamic terrorists, Bangladesh continually declining every year, India caught up in perpetual strife with Pakistan, Sri Lanka also a shadow of itself because of Tamil-Sinhalese ethnic rivalry and a former hardcore socialist government that destroyed it economically. And all of the subcontinent enslaved to corruption.

They have forgotten the prosperity and freedom they had as part of the Empire, with British laws, justice and a system of fair play for all.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

'We regret driving out the British,' say Aden's former rebels

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6981556.ece


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Beresford said:


> 'We regret driving out the British,' say Aden's former rebels
> 
> https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6981556.ece


Interesting article, even though the link won't work for me. (I did find iot for myself though)


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Beresford said:


> 'We regret driving out the British,' say Aden's former rebels
> 
> https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6981556.ece


Aden is not in part of the Indian subcontinent, we both know that, and we both know it is _completely_ irrelevant to your post above. One country that has lost its economy after independence and has some positive sentiment towards British rule does not correlate to every one of the British Empires former colonies nor India in particular; surely you know that is an ridiculous argument? You might as well say it also proves Canada was better off as a British colony?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> This is getting old. The good guys won, the bad guys lost. People should get over it.


I agree.

Even after victory and nearly 150 years, Yankees keep regurgitating the same tired Johnny Reb stereotypes!!


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Canada is still part of the former Empire and maintains its British heritage, that is why it is succeeding.

As a Canadian, please support the effort to restore the Navy and Air Force to its Royal heritage.



> An Urgent Appeal to our Supporters to Restore the Royal Honour to Canada's Navy & Air Force
> Posted by Restore The Honour at 6:32 PM . Thursday, January 6, 2011
> 0 comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

blairrob said:


> Aden is not in part of the Indian subcontinent, we both know that, and we both know it is _completely_ irrelevant to your post above. One country that has lost its economy after independence and has some positive sentiment towards British rule does not correlate to every one of the British Empires former colonies nor India in particular; surely you know that is an ridiculous argument? You might as well say it also proves Canada was better off as a British colony?


The fact is the same situation obtains in almost every part of the former British realms. Most former colonies have declined into anarchy, barbarism or tribal conflict since HM Government has left, and most will tell you they were much better off under British rule.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Beresford said:


> Canada is still part of the former Empire and maintains its British heritage, that is why it is succeeding.
> 
> As a Canadian, please support the effort to restore the Navy and Air Force to its Royal heritage.


 Yes the pro-monarchist movement is gathering steam :rolleyes2:and may soon have supporters under 70 years of age other than the odd misfit that gloms onto the Royal Family to try to find some group that will accept him outside the confines of a psychiatric institution.



Beresford said:


> Most former colonies *have declined into anarchy, barbarism or tribal conflict* since HM Government has left, and most will tell you they were much better off under British rule.


I don't understand why you are now bringing UK football fans and British hooliganism into the argument; then again your paternalistic utopian view of colonialism is beyond the comprehension of most not born in the 19th century.

Blair


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

blairrob said:


> I don't understand why you are now bringing UK football fans and British hooliganism into the argument; then again your paternalistic utopian view of colonialism is beyond the comprehension of most not born in the 19th century.
> 
> Blair


LOL!

Could be because I'm a descendant of British colonials and hear about how good things were when we had sugar plantations and shipping companies. No more plantations, and German U-boats took out the ships. . . .


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

Beresford said:


> snip.....
> 
> As a Canadian, please support the effort to restore the Navy and Air Force to its Royal heritage.


+1, my Mother served in the RCN during the conflict in the late 30's and 40's.

BTW, I have made two of her uniform buttons into cufflinks.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

blairrob said:


> What in Heaven's name do you base that on? Freedom is of no value? That's a ridiculous statement you're making. Some from that sub-continent may agree with you, but I doubt many. Indians take great pride in their country, and last I heard, were not seeking to re-establish rule by a 'benevolent' trading LLC from the UK or it's political masters.


Of course "freedom" has value. Look at Iraq. I'm sure that the Iraqis are much happier with their freedom than they were under Saddam Hussein. They have freedom to be controlled by tribal leaders, freedom to be killed by religious fanatics, freedom to be shot by mercenaries acting for the UN if they step out of line.
Haiti is free; Haiti acheived it's own freedom from the French in 1804 and has clearly enjoyed it's freedom ever since. Puerto Rico has been controlled by a colonial oppressor, with no freedom (certainly no freedom to vote in it's oppressor's elections) since 1898. Given a choice, where would people rather live? In the colony of Puerto Rico, or in freedom in Haiti?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Every tyrant knows that many otherwise decent people will glady trade Freedom for safety.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Of course "freedom" has value. Look at Iraq. I'm sure that the Iraqis are much happier with their freedom than they were under Saddam Hussein. They have freedom to be controlled by tribal leaders, freedom to be killed by religious fanatics, freedom to be shot by mercenaries acting for the UN if they step out of line.
> Haiti is free; Haiti acheived it's own freedom from the French in 1804 and has clearly enjoyed it's freedom ever since. Puerto Rico has been controlled by a colonial oppressor, with no freedom (certainly no freedom to vote in it's oppressor's elections) since 1898. Given a choice, where would people rather live? In the colony of Puerto Rico, or in freedom in Haiti?


I don't think Tibetans prefer life under Chinese rule. Iraq was not occupied under Hussein, they were an independent country under a dictator. They were occupied _after_ he was overthrown. It's because of this outside intervention those things you mention have evolved, which contradicts your argument. Your picking and choosing countries for comparison is silly unless we poll the entire world. I'm pretty sure Finland prefers being independent of Russia, Norway of Germany. I am quite surprised you are supporting the colonialism argument. If a country chooses to remain a colony, good on them. If they don't, good on them. Clearly, there is a price to be paid for freedom. Your sarcasm and choice of comparisons are irrelevant, but if you wish, I'll compare the colony of Algeria and the freedom of Singapore, or the freedom of the Czech republic and occupied Afghanistan.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I'm just pointing out that freedom, by itself, is meaningless. Iraq is regarded as having freedom, and is now under its own government. The Iraqis have the freedom to bomb each other, and have the freedom to follow religious extremism. They didn't have that freedom under Sadam Hussein. Hussein's regime prevented the sectarian violence that followed. Is living under a dictator freedom? Or does freedom only not exist when ruled by another country? Like the people of Puert Rico. 
Can I just correct your error regarding Algeria. Algeria wasn't a colony, but was a Department of metropolitan France. Algeria returned deputies to the French parliament and Algerians, with certain educational qualifications, could vote for the President of France. Now it is an independent country, with freedom.


----------

