# The Confederacy and States' Rights



## Kevin_Kennedy

This thread is in response to an off-topic discussion in a thread on Israel's right to exist.



Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy: The Confederate States were well within their rights to secede from the Union.  It was Lincoln that was wrong by invading them and forcing them back into a Union against their free will.
> 
> *You are 100% right the South had a right to secede, and we are so fortunate that AL smash mouthed them and knee dropped them, breaking the collective back of states' rights.  Thank God for Lincoln.  If the Founders had it wrong on that issue, so be it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founders didn't have it wrong on that issue, Lincoln did.  He destroyed states' rights and set us up for the gargantuan state we live under today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The industrial revolution was already well on its way to eroding states' rights. That would have happened with or without Lincoln. It's also unlikely that a confederate South could have survived independently for very long.
Click to expand...


I see no reason why the industrial revolution would have eroded states' rights, so I'll need you to clarify that position.  As to the south not being able to survive independently, they certainly thought they were able to.  They also did it successfully for the duration of the Civil War.  Regardless of whether they could or not, it was their decision to make and Lincoln had no right to use force to make that decision for them.


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, my great grandfather fought on the side that won, and decided the legality of that issue. The Civil War is over and done with. We decided that the United States was what the name said. Time to move on to today's issues, like a health care system that gives us what we pay for. Issues like energy independence. Issues like dealing with the warming world. Issues of asymetric warfare as practiced by various religious or ideological groups.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I see no reason why the industrial revolution would have eroded states' rights, so I'll need you to clarify that position.


Interstate commerce was exploding, and a number of people had a major stake in keeping its rules uniform. Just look at the railroads.


> As to the south not being able to survive independently, they certainly thought they were able to.  They also did it successfully for the duration of the Civil War.


Not very well: the lack of manufacturing infrastructure doomed them from the beginning. 


> Regardless of whether they could or not, it was their decision to make and Lincoln had no right to use force to make that decision for them.


Very few governments would allow a portion of their country to secede peacefully, unless the central government were so weak that it simply couldn't stop it. I don't see how you determine that the use of force was governed by any kind of "rights" issue: you'll need to elaborate on that.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Old Rocks said:


> Well, my great grandfather fought on the side that won, and decided the legality of that issue. The Civil War is over and done with. We decided that the United States was what the name said. Time to move on to today's issues, like a health care system that gives us what we pay for. Issues like energy independence. Issues like dealing with the warming world. Issues of asymetric warfare as practiced by various religious or ideological groups.



The war didn't decide the legality of anything concerning states' rights.  Notice the Constitution was never amended to change states' rights or make secession illegal.  One can discuss history and current events.  If you see no reason to discuss the issue then there was no reason to respond.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason why the industrial revolution would have eroded states' rights, so I'll need you to clarify that position.
> 
> 
> 
> Interstate commerce was exploding, and a number of people had a major stake in keeping its rules uniform. Just look at the railroads.
> 
> 
> 
> As to the south not being able to survive independently, they certainly thought they were able to.  They also did it successfully for the duration of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not very well: the lack of manufacturing infrastructure doomed them from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of whether they could or not, it was their decision to make and Lincoln had no right to use force to make that decision for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very few governments would allow a portion of their country to secede peacefully, unless the central government were so weak that it simply couldn't stop it. I don't see how you determine that the use of force was governed by any kind of "rights" issue: you'll need to elaborate on that.
Click to expand...


Interstate commerce wouldn't have been effected by states' rights as the Constitution gives the authority to regulate interstate commerce to the federal government.  Had there been any discrepancies the federal government would have sought to change them.

Yet they were advancing towards more manufacturing.  Prominent Confederates Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both expected that slavery would soon fall under it's own weight by simply not being economical, which is the same way it was ended in many of the northern states.

However, the United States never was one central nation with one part simply wanting to break away.  The United States was comprised of individual sovereign states that came together and formed a federal government to act as their agent, not a national government to act as their oppressor.  Secession is a legitimate right of the states.  The Constitution doesn't forbid them to secede from the Union, therefore they have the right to do so.  Also, upon ratification Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island all reserved the right to leave the Union if they felt it became tyrannical.


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL. Well, we are the United States of America. However much you might not like that, that is how it is. I have worn the uniform of this nation, I do not intend to see it descend into a set of Balkan states. I am sure that there are many that I normally cross swords with in the liberal versus conservative political debate that see the issue exactly the same as I do.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Well, we are the United States of America. However much you might not like that, that is how it is. I have worn the uniform of this nation, I do not intend to see it descend into a set of Balkan states. I am sure that there are many that I normally cross swords with in the liberal versus conservative political debate that see the issue exactly the same as I do.



Yes, we are the U.S.A., and the right to self-government is probably the most American of principles.  Lincoln destroyed that principle.


----------



## Sunni Man

"The War of Northern Aggression", also known in the northern states, as the Civil War.

Was an illegal war and violated the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Sunni Man said:


> "The War of Northern Aggression", also known in the northern states, as the Civil War.
> 
> Was an illegal war and violated the Constitution.



Not the only thing Lincoln did to violate the Constitution.  Such as shutting down opposition newspapers in the north and deporting a U.S. Congressman from Ohio to the Confederacy for some comments he made in opposition to the administration.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The United States was comprised of individual sovereign states that came together and formed a federal government to act as their agent, not a national government to act as their oppressor.  Secession is a legitimate right of the states.  The Constitution doesn't forbid them to secede from the Union, therefore they have the right to do so.  Also, upon ratification Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island all reserved the right to leave the Union if they felt it became tyrannical.


I'm going to assume for argument's sake that all the above is accurate (although I have strong doubts). I'm sure that many people in the north, including Lincoln, were genuinely worried that allowing a peaceful secession would leave the remainder of the US vulnerable to foreign aggression. Certainly would have been my top concern if I were in the White House at that time. And of course, balkanization is never good for business.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States was comprised of individual sovereign states that came together and formed a federal government to act as their agent, not a national government to act as their oppressor.  Secession is a legitimate right of the states.  The Constitution doesn't forbid them to secede from the Union, therefore they have the right to do so.  Also, upon ratification Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island all reserved the right to leave the Union if they felt it became tyrannical.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume for argument's sake that all the above is accurate (although I have strong doubts). I'm sure that many people in the north, including Lincoln, were genuinely worried that allowing a peaceful secession would leave the remainder of the US vulnerable to foreign aggression. Certainly would have been my top concern if I were in the White House at that time. And of course, balkanization is never good for business.
Click to expand...


I've never heard of Lincoln saying anything of the sort, so maybe you could provide a quote of Lincoln's betraying this concern?  However, whether or not that's the case is irrelevant.  You don't take the rights of some people away because you're worried that the remainder of the U.S. would be vulnerable to attack by some imagined threat.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I agree with you, KK.  Lincoln was committed to the Union, period.  I think the South had the right to secede, I think some of the Founders thinking was wrong, and I think Lincoln fixed all of that it by telling the secessionists, "No, over your dead bodies!" and preceded to kill them.  Good!


----------



## Gunny

Old Rocks said:


> Well, my great grandfather fought on the side that won, and decided the legality of that issue. The Civil War is over and done with. We decided that the United States was what the name said. Time to move on to today's issues, like a health care system that gives us what we pay for. Issues like energy independence. Issues like dealing with the warming world. Issues of asymetric warfare as practiced by various religious or ideological groups.



I like that ... "decided the legality of the issue."  It decided who had the best war-making capability, and capability to outlast the other in what amounted to a war of attrition.


----------



## Gunny

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Well, we are the United States of America. However much you might not like that, that is how it is. I have worn the uniform of this nation, I do not intend to see it descend into a set of Balkan states. I am sure that there are many that I normally cross swords with in the liberal versus conservative political debate that see the issue exactly the same as I do.



It's not a REAL difficult issue to see.  The US Civil War ended in 1865.  It's 2009.  We ARE the United States of America, as you say.  As far as present reality is concerned, there's nothing to think about.

However, it does NOT preclude an intellectual discussion of a REAL event in history, nor does it have any bearing on the topic other than as a cheap means to deflect from actually discussing the US Civil War in an intelligent and informed manner.  

Odd how you and your cronies are quick to bash anyone on the right who dares mention patriotism, but you can throw that "patriot" card and wave the flag with the best of them when it suits you.


----------



## Gunny

JakeStarkey said:


> I agree with you, KK.  Lincoln was committed to the Union, period.  I think the South had the right to secede, I think some of the Founders thinking was wrong, and I think Lincoln fixed all of that it by telling the secessionists, "No, over your dead bodies!" and preceded to kill them.  Good!



Yeah, it's worked out wonderfully.  The Fed govt has steadily encroached into every facet of our lives and usurped any powers the Constitution gives the states it so desires.  Little good has come of that.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> I agree with you, KK.  Lincoln was committed to the Union, period.  I think the South had the right to secede, I think some of the Founders thinking was wrong, and I think Lincoln fixed all of that it by telling the secessionists, "No, over your dead bodies!" and preceded to kill them.  Good!



So you think it's good that Lincoln denied them their right to their own self-government?  Did you also think the British correct in trying to deny the same right to the 13 colonies when they seceded from the British monarchy?


----------



## Xenophon

The issue was settled by force of arms.

Yes you can leave, but they will not let you go peacefully.


----------



## JBeukema

Gunny said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you, KK.  Lincoln was committed to the Union, period.  I think the South had the right to secede, I think some of the Founders thinking was wrong, and I think Lincoln fixed all of that it by telling the secessionists, "No, over your dead bodies!" and preceded to kill them.  Good!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's worked out wonderfully.  The Fed govt has steadily encroached into every facet of our lives and usurped any powers the Constitution gives the states it so desires.  Little good has come of that.
Click to expand...



The defeat of the Confederate War for Independence was the beginning of the end of the united States as envisioned by the FF and written into the Constitution.


----------



## JBeukema

America has never believed in self-deteremination for anyone but America. Look at VietNam, where we stepped in to crush the populary revollution shortly after they threw off the chains of French Colonialism, all in the name of 'defeating Communism'.


----------



## Gunny

JBeukema said:


> America has never believed in self-deteremination for anyone but America. Look at VietNam, where we stepped in to crush the populary revollution shortly after they threw off the chains of French Colonialism, all in the name of 'defeating Communism'.



You are oversimplifying a complex situation.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JBeukema said:


> America has never believed in self-deteremination for anyone but America. Look at VietNam, where we stepped in to crush the populary revollution shortly after they threw off the chains of French Colonialism, all in the name of 'defeating Communism'.



We supported the states that seceded from the Soviet Union.


----------



## JBeukema

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has never believed in self-deteremination for anyone but America. Look at VietNam, where we stepped in to crush the populary revollution shortly after they threw off the chains of French Colonialism, all in the name of 'defeating Communism'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We supported the states that seceded from the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...


We refused to supprt their right to self-determination whenever it wasn't our system or in our interest. Justr like Central America. See: banana republics; Cuba, Batista...

We also support the tyranny of the Czar when the Red Revolution began.

It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them'
-Alfred Adler


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JBeukema said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has never believed in self-deteremination for anyone but America. Look at VietNam, where we stepped in to crush the populary revollution shortly after they threw off the chains of French Colonialism, all in the name of 'defeating Communism'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We supported the states that seceded from the Soviet Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We refused to supprt their right to self-determination whenever it wasn't our system or in our interest. Justr like Central America. See: banana republics; Cuba, Batista...
> 
> We also support the tyranny of the Czar when the Red Revolution began.
> 
> It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them'
> -Alfred Adler
Click to expand...


Good point.  Well, we supported their right to secede from the Soviet Union at any rate.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

So once again we get to hear from the people that think somehow fighting to keep slavery was a States right. That enslavement of other people was a right the States should be able to keep.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

RetiredGySgt said:


> So once again we get to hear from the people that think somehow fighting to keep slavery was a States right. That enslavement of other people was a right the States should be able to keep.



The southern states fought for their independence.  To say that they fought to defend slavery would be saying that the northern states were fighting to end slavery, which is absolutely not the case whatsoever.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my great grandfather fought on the side that won, and decided the legality of that issue. The Civil War is over and done with. We decided that the United States was what the name said. Time to move on to today's issues, like a health care system that gives us what we pay for. Issues like energy independence. Issues like dealing with the warming world. Issues of asymetric warfare as practiced by various religious or ideological groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war didn't decide the legality of anything concerning states' rights.  Notice the Constitution was never amended to change states' rights or make secession illegal.  One can discuss history and current events.  If you see no reason to discuss the issue then there was no reason to respond.
Click to expand...


The states joined the union agreeing to abide by the Constitution.  The Constitution prohibits states from making laws that conflict with federal law for starters.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you, KK.  Lincoln was committed to the Union, period.  I think the South had the right to secede, I think some of the Founders thinking was wrong, and I think Lincoln fixed all of that it by telling the secessionists, "No, over your dead bodies!" and preceded to kill them.  Good!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's worked out wonderfully.  The Fed govt has steadily encroached into every facet of our lives and usurped any powers the Constitution gives the states it so desires.  Little good has come of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The defeat of the Confederate War for Independence was the beginning of the end of the united States as envisioned by the FF and written into the Constitution.
Click to expand...


The founding fathers envisioned an eventual breakup of the United States into two or more nations?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

NYcarbineer said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my great grandfather fought on the side that won, and decided the legality of that issue. The Civil War is over and done with. We decided that the United States was what the name said. Time to move on to today's issues, like a health care system that gives us what we pay for. Issues like energy independence. Issues like dealing with the warming world. Issues of asymetric warfare as practiced by various religious or ideological groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war didn't decide the legality of anything concerning states' rights.  Notice the Constitution was never amended to change states' rights or make secession illegal.  One can discuss history and current events.  If you see no reason to discuss the issue then there was no reason to respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states joined the union agreeing to abide by the Constitution.  The Constitution prohibits states from making laws that conflict with federal law for starters.
Click to expand...


Not true at all.  The Supremacy Clause only applies to those laws which the government is enacting in accord with the Constitution, but the majority of federal laws are unconstitutional.  Since the Constitution doesn't prohibit secession then secession is clearly a legitimate power of the states.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's worked out wonderfully.  The Fed govt has steadily encroached into every facet of our lives and usurped any powers the Constitution gives the states it so desires.  Little good has come of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defeat of the Confederate War for Independence was the beginning of the end of the united States as envisioned by the FF and written into the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founding fathers envisioned an eventual breakup of the United States into two or more nations?
Click to expand...


The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart.  If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.  John Quincy Adams

Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.  Thomas Jefferson

As you can see, the founders thought it better to peacefully separate than to be bound together by force.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So once again we get to hear from the people that think somehow fighting to keep slavery was a States right. That enslavement of other people was a right the States should be able to keep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The southern states fought for their independence.  To say that they fought to defend slavery would be saying that the northern states were fighting to end slavery, which is absolutely not the case whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.

You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.


----------



## JBeukema

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So once again we get to hear from the people that think somehow fighting to keep slavery was a States right. That enslavement of other people was a right the States should be able to keep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The southern states fought for their independence.  To say that they fought to defend slavery would be saying that the northern states were fighting to end slavery, which is absolutely not the case whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.
> 
> You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.
Click to expand...


Slavery was a convenient catch-all that touched on all the underlying issues. It was not slavery itself that was contested, but the abuse of power by the fed, the powers being coalesced in DC, the control of the union by powerful businessmen...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JBeukema said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The southern states fought for their independence.  To say that they fought to defend slavery would be saying that the northern states were fighting to end slavery, which is absolutely not the case whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.
> 
> You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was a convenient catch-all that touched on all the underlying issues. It was not slavery itself that was contested, but the abuse of power by the fed, the powers being coalesced in DC, the control of the union by powerful businessmen...
Click to expand...


Except for that little minor detail that the Congress and the Courts ALL backed up the Souths right to slavery, I mean lets just ignore that little fact. The Federal Government passed laws and affirmed those laws in the Supreme Court ALWAYS in favor of the SOUTH. The only oppression was on the Northern non slaves states FORCED by law and the Federal Government to honor the rights of slave owners. FORCED by law to return men and women and children to slavery. Even though slavery was ILLEGAL in those Northern States.

The ONLY issue that drove the South out was slavery and the idiotic fear that all of a sudden the Government was gonna back track on its commitment to honor the South's supposed right to slavery. You may want to actually look up the articles draw up by the radical Southern States, they list as the reason for leaving the threat to their right to ENSLAVE other men, women and children.


----------



## JBeukema

You already tried this once before, and your assertions were dismantled by the very people in this thread, and by others. Your nearsightedness is apparent once again, as you are unable to grasp anything beyond the superficial.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JBeukema said:


> You already tried this once before, and your assertions were dismantled by the very people in this thread, and by others. Your nearsightedness is apparent once again, as you are unable to grasp anything beyond the superficial.



Ya cause I am not right. Go ahead tell us all about the Supreme Court ruling against Slavery. Tell us about how the Federal Government did not repeatedly make agreements to allow a Slave state for every free state. 

The only superficial fool here is you.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The war didn't decide the legality of anything concerning states' rights.  Notice the Constitution was never amended to change states' rights or make secession illegal.  One can discuss history and current events.  If you see no reason to discuss the issue then there was no reason to respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The states joined the union agreeing to abide by the Constitution.  The Constitution prohibits states from making laws that conflict with federal law for starters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  The Supremacy Clause only applies to those laws which the government is enacting in accord with the Constitution, but the majority of federal laws are unconstitutional.  Since the Constitution doesn't prohibit secession then secession is clearly a legitimate power of the states.
Click to expand...


  The states under the Constitution don't have the authority to decide which laws are or aren't constitutional.  If a state thinks a law is unconstitutional their constitutional recourse is to challenge it in the courts, not secede.

Secession is prohibited de facto because secession requires breaking federal laws.


----------



## NYcarbineer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So once again we get to hear from the people that think somehow fighting to keep slavery was a States right. That enslavement of other people was a right the States should be able to keep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The southern states fought for their independence.  To say that they fought to defend slavery would be saying that the northern states were fighting to end slavery, which is absolutely not the case whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.
> 
> You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.
Click to expand...


Of course.  Simple (rhetorical) question.  If secession wasn't about slavery, how was it that only slave states seceded?  Some sort of extraordinary coincidence?


----------



## editec

Thank GOD and Lincoln that the vile slavers were crushed.


----------



## JBeukema

NYcarbineer said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states joined the union agreeing to abide by the Constitution.  The Constitution prohibits states from making laws that conflict with federal law for starters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  The Supremacy Clause only applies to those laws which the government is enacting in accord with the Constitution, but the majority of federal laws are unconstitutional.  Since the Constitution doesn't prohibit secession then secession is clearly a legitimate power of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states under the Constitution don't have the authority to decide which laws are or aren't constitutional.  If a state thinks a law is unconstitutional their constitutional recourse is to challenge it in the courts, not secede.
> 
> Secession is prohibited de facto because secession requires breaking federal laws.
Click to expand...

*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.*

That includes the right to tell the fed to fuck off and die. Only slaves are denied the right to leave. The right to secede is summed up in the need to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So once again we get to hear from the people that think somehow fighting to keep slavery was a States right. That enslavement of other people was a right the States should be able to keep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The southern states fought for their independence.  To say that they fought to defend slavery would be saying that the northern states were fighting to end slavery, which is absolutely not the case whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.
> 
> You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.
Click to expand...


They also left the Union for the high tariffs that Lincoln promised to enact, which is why he had absolutely no support in the south and high support in states like Pennsylvania.  However, we're not talking about why they seceded.  You said they *fought* for slavery, which is not the case.  They fought for their independence.  One of the reasons they seceded was slavery, though not the only reason.  However, they intended to secede peacefully.  It was Lincoln that made that impossible.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

NYcarbineer said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states joined the union agreeing to abide by the Constitution.  The Constitution prohibits states from making laws that conflict with federal law for starters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  The Supremacy Clause only applies to those laws which the government is enacting in accord with the Constitution, but the majority of federal laws are unconstitutional.  Since the Constitution doesn't prohibit secession then secession is clearly a legitimate power of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states under the Constitution don't have the authority to decide which laws are or aren't constitutional.  If a state thinks a law is unconstitutional their constitutional recourse is to challenge it in the courts, not secede.
> 
> Secession is prohibited de facto because secession requires breaking federal laws.
Click to expand...


The Constitution does not deny the states the right to do so, therefore they have the right under the 10th Amendment.  The system of federalism set up by the founders wasn't meant to favor the federal government by giving it a monopoly on deciding what is and what is not constitutional.  Why would the founders, who feared a powerful central government and believed in the sovereignty of the states, give such a power to the federal government?  They wouldn't, and they didn't.

No, secession does not require breaking any federal laws.  It requires that the states take back the powers that they ceded to the federal government in accepting the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

NYcarbineer said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The southern states fought for their independence.  To say that they fought to defend slavery would be saying that the northern states were fighting to end slavery, which is absolutely not the case whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.
> 
> You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  Simple (rhetorical) question.  If secession wasn't about slavery, how was it that only slave states seceded?  Some sort of extraordinary coincidence?
Click to expand...


Yet if it was solely about slavery why did five slave states remain in the Union?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The southern states fought for their independence.  To say that they fought to defend slavery would be saying that the northern states were fighting to end slavery, which is absolutely not the case whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.
> 
> You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also left the Union for the high tariffs that Lincoln promised to enact, which is why he had absolutely no support in the south and high support in states like Pennsylvania.  However, we're not talking about why they seceded.  You said they *fought* for slavery, which is not the case.  They fought for their independence.  One of the reasons they seceded was slavery, though not the only reason.  However, they intended to secede peacefully.  It was Lincoln that made that impossible.
Click to expand...


Slavery was indeed the cause from which all other secondardy causes flowed.

And the South fired on Old Glory at Ft Sumter.

Stay in reality, KK.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.
> 
> You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Simple (rhetorical) question.  If secession wasn't about slavery, how was it that only slave states seceded?  Some sort of extraordinary coincidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet if it was solely about slavery why did five slave states remain in the Union?
Click to expand...


Easy enough.  Delaware's slave population was very, very small.  Kentucky tried to play neutral until both North and South invaded it.  Maryland was swamped by Lincoln with federal troops.  Missouri's rebels got their ass kicked when the rose up.  Give us the other state, please.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.
> 
> You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also left the Union for the high tariffs that Lincoln promised to enact, which is why he had absolutely no support in the south and high support in states like Pennsylvania.  However, we're not talking about why they seceded.  You said they *fought* for slavery, which is not the case.  They fought for their independence.  One of the reasons they seceded was slavery, though not the only reason.  However, they intended to secede peacefully.  It was Lincoln that made that impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was indeed the cause from which all other secondardy causes flowed.
> 
> And the South fired on Old Glory at Ft Sumter.
> 
> Stay in reality, KK.
Click to expand...


The south did fire on Fort Sumter, after they tried to purchase all federal property in the south and pay their portion of the national debt and Lincoln refused to even meet their delegation.  Lincoln knew that the south didn't want a Union fort within their borders, and the fact that they didn't fire on Fort Sumter until Lincoln tried to re-supply it shows that they were content to let it stand until it ran out of supplies and had to be abandoned.  However, they were not willing to allow a permanent Union base on their soil.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Simple (rhetorical) question.  If secession wasn't about slavery, how was it that only slave states seceded?  Some sort of extraordinary coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet if it was solely about slavery why did five slave states remain in the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy enough.  Delaware's slave population was very, very small.  Kentucky tried to play neutral until both North and South invaded it.  Maryland was swamped by Lincoln with federal troops.  Missouri's rebels got their ass kicked when the rose up.  Give us the other state, please.
Click to expand...


West Virginia is the fifth border state.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet if it was solely about slavery why did five slave states remain in the Union?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy enough.  Delaware's slave population was very, very small.  Kentucky tried to play neutral until both North and South invaded it.  Maryland was swamped by Lincoln with federal troops.  Missouri's rebels got their ass kicked when the rose up.  Give us the other state, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> West Virginia is the fifth border state.
Click to expand...


WV seceded from Virginia and was accepted into the Union by Congress as a state.  This is really your only case under statute and law for the legality of secession, though I happen to agree with you that it was legal.  We just can't build a compelling enough case.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy enough.  Delaware's slave population was very, very small.  Kentucky tried to play neutral until both North and South invaded it.  Maryland was swamped by Lincoln with federal troops.  Missouri's rebels got their ass kicked when the rose up.  Give us the other state, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> West Virginia is the fifth border state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WV seceded from Virginia and was accepted into the Union by Congress as a state.  This is really your only case under statute and law for the legality of secession, though I happen to agree with you that it was legal.  We just can't build a compelling enough case.
Click to expand...


Accepted into the Union as a slave-state.  We can't build a compelling enough case that secession is legal?  How about the fact that the Constitution allows for the states to secede from the Union?  Sounds pretty compelling to me.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Point out in the Constitution where it says states can secede.  You can't.  And if you want to do it by inference, then you just affirmed Lincoln's wartime actions.

Can't have it both ways.  WV was a part of Virginia.  It did not become a slave state until the North accepted it as a state, which has nothing to with the discussion.

To remind you: slavery was the compelling reason for secession.  Your counter arguments, respectfully, have been compellingly weak and ineffective.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Point out in the Constitution where it says states can secede.  You can't.  And if you want to do it by inference, then you just affirmed Lincoln's wartime actions.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.  WV was a part of Virginia.  It did not become a slave state until the North accepted it as a state, which has nothing to with the discussion.
> 
> To remind you: slavery was the compelling reason for secession.  Your counter arguments, respectfully, have been compellingly weak and ineffective.



The Constitution does not have to spell out the powers of the states for them to be legitimate powers of the states.  The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says this.  Since the Constitution does not prohibit the states from seceding, they have the right to secede.

It has much to do with the discussion.  It proves that slavery couldn't have been the only issue on the table since the Union had slave states.

Slavery was a reason for secession.  Lincoln's promise of higher tariffs was another reason.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JBeukema said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  The Supremacy Clause only applies to those laws which the government is enacting in accord with the Constitution, but the majority of federal laws are unconstitutional.  Since the Constitution doesn't prohibit secession then secession is clearly a legitimate power of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The states under the Constitution don't have the authority to decide which laws are or aren't constitutional.  If a state thinks a law is unconstitutional their constitutional recourse is to challenge it in the courts, not secede.
> 
> Secession is prohibited de facto because secession requires breaking federal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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.*
> 
> That includes the right to tell the fed to fuck off and die. Only slaves are denied the right to leave. The right to secede is summed up in the need to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Click to expand...


Refresh the tree of liberty by armed rebellion to preserve slavery.  Now there's a cat 5 irony moment for you. 

First of all, better grow some bigger tougher boys the next time you try to secede or we'll kick your sorry asses again.

Secondly, there is no 'right' for states to secede.  Any more than there's any right for counties to secede from states, or towns to secede from counties, or you and your half acre to secede from your town.  

It's the kind of cartoonish imbecility that only the right can produce and perform with such entertaining alacrity.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.
> 
> You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Simple (rhetorical) question.  If secession wasn't about slavery, how was it that only slave states seceded?  Some sort of extraordinary coincidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet if it was solely about slavery why did five slave states remain in the Union?
Click to expand...


They were far enough north to have some sense??


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states under the Constitution don't have the authority to decide which laws are or aren't constitutional.  If a state thinks a law is unconstitutional their constitutional recourse is to challenge it in the courts, not secede.
> 
> Secession is prohibited de facto because secession requires breaking federal laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *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.*
> 
> That includes the right to tell the fed to fuck off and die. Only slaves are denied the right to leave. The right to secede is summed up in the need to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refresh the tree of liberty by armed rebellion to preserve slavery.  Now there's a cat 5 irony moment for you.
> 
> First of all, better grow some bigger tougher boys the next time you try to secede or we'll kick your sorry asses again.
> 
> Secondly, there is no 'right' for states to secede.  Any more than there's any right for counties to secede from states, or towns to secede from counties, or you and your half acre to secede from your town.
> 
> It's the kind of cartoonish imbecility that only the right can produce and perform with such entertaining alacrity.
Click to expand...


Where does the Constitution prohibit the states from seceding?

Since you say there's no right for counties or cities to secede from states are you willing to say that it was illegal for West Virginia to secede from Virginia and join the Union?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

NYcarbineer said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Simple (rhetorical) question.  If secession wasn't about slavery, how was it that only slave states seceded?  Some sort of extraordinary coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet if it was solely about slavery why did five slave states remain in the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were far enough north to have some sense??
Click to expand...


In other words, there was more to it than just slavery.  Such as Lincoln promising high tariffs during his campaign that would benefit the north at the expense of the south.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.*
> 
> That includes the right to tell the fed to fuck off and die. Only slaves are denied the right to leave. The right to secede is summed up in the need to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Refresh the tree of liberty by armed rebellion to preserve slavery.  Now there's a cat 5 irony moment for you.
> 
> First of all, better grow some bigger tougher boys the next time you try to secede or we'll kick your sorry asses again.
> 
> Secondly, there is no 'right' for states to secede.  Any more than there's any right for counties to secede from states, or towns to secede from counties, or you and your half acre to secede from your town.
> 
> It's the kind of cartoonish imbecility that only the right can produce and perform with such entertaining alacrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution prohibit the states from seceding?
> 
> Since you say there's no right for counties or cities to secede from states are you willing to say that it was illegal for West Virginia to secede from Virginia and join the Union?
Click to expand...


That's the only point pro-secession folks have.  The 10th Amendment is not interpreted as you wish.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet if it was solely about slavery why did five slave states remain in the Union?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were far enough north to have some sense??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, there was more to it than just slavery.  Such as Lincoln promising high tariffs during his campaign that would benefit the north at the expense of the south.
Click to expand...


All other causes flow from slavery and race.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refresh the tree of liberty by armed rebellion to preserve slavery.  Now there's a cat 5 irony moment for you.
> 
> First of all, better grow some bigger tougher boys the next time you try to secede or we'll kick your sorry asses again.
> 
> Secondly, there is no 'right' for states to secede.  Any more than there's any right for counties to secede from states, or towns to secede from counties, or you and your half acre to secede from your town.
> 
> It's the kind of cartoonish imbecility that only the right can produce and perform with such entertaining alacrity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution prohibit the states from seceding?
> 
> Since you say there's no right for counties or cities to secede from states are you willing to say that it was illegal for West Virginia to secede from Virginia and join the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the only point pro-secession folks have.  The 10th Amendment is not interpreted as you wish.
Click to expand...


Not interpreted as it says you mean.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were far enough north to have some sense??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, there was more to it than just slavery.  Such as Lincoln promising high tariffs during his campaign that would benefit the north at the expense of the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All other causes flow from slavery and race.
Click to expand...


Care to explain how tariffs have to do with slavery?


----------



## Centrism'sVoice

What everyone's ignoring is that slavery, which was considered repugnant even 150 years ago, was not nearly as big an issue as COTTON. 

New England's economy at the time was very heavily dependent on its textile mills, along with cheap cotton from the south. An independent confederacy would have been devastating to them economically: they would have to bid against the English mills for higher-priced material. 

They didn't call it "King Cotton" for nothing.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Centrism'sVoice said:


> What everyone's ignoring is that slavery, which was considered repugnant even 150 years ago, was not nearly as big an issue as COTTON.
> 
> New England's economy at the time was very heavily dependent on its textile mills, along with cheap cotton from the south. An independent confederacy would have been devastating to them economically: they would have to bid against the English mills for higher-priced material.
> 
> They didn't call it "King Cotton" for nothing.



Are you saying that since the New England states needed cheap cotton the southern states had no right to secede?

There's no reason why the Confederate States and United States couldn't have had free trade with each other, however.  It obviously would have been beneficial to both.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> What everyone's ignoring is that slavery, which was considered repugnant even 150 years ago, was not nearly as big an issue as COTTON.
> 
> New England's economy at the time was very heavily dependent on its textile mills, along with cheap cotton from the south. An independent confederacy would have been devastating to them economically: they would have to bid against the English mills for higher-priced material.
> 
> They didn't call it "King Cotton" for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that since the New England states needed cheap cotton the southern states had no right to secede?
Click to expand...

Not at all: I'm just explaining the Union's motivation for going to war to keep the southern states from seceding.





> There's no reason why the Confederate States and United States couldn't have had free trade with each other, however.  It obviously would have been beneficial to both.


Nothing obvious about it at all. If English mills bid higher, the confederacy would simply have sold to the highest bidder. That's the free market we all love so much...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Centrism'sVoice said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> What everyone's ignoring is that slavery, which was considered repugnant even 150 years ago, was not nearly as big an issue as COTTON.
> 
> New England's economy at the time was very heavily dependent on its textile mills, along with cheap cotton from the south. An independent confederacy would have been devastating to them economically: they would have to bid against the English mills for higher-priced material.
> 
> They didn't call it "King Cotton" for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that since the New England states needed cheap cotton the southern states had no right to secede?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all: I'm just explaining the Union's motivation for going to war to keep the southern states from seceding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason why the Confederate States and United States couldn't have had free trade with each other, however.  It obviously would have been beneficial to both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing obvious about it at all. If English mills bid higher, the confederacy would simply have sold to the highest bidder. That's the free market we all love so much...
Click to expand...


I see.  Well you're right, that's likely a reason why they wanted to force the south to remain in the Union.

If English mills were willing to pay more than of course that's where the cotton would have gone.  It's the right of a free people to be able to decide where they sell their goods and for what price.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> WV seceded from Virginia and was accepted into the Union by Congress as a state.  This is really your only case under statute and law for the legality of secession, though I happen to agree with you that it was legal.  We just can't build a compelling enough case.





			
				Article Four of The United States Constitution said:
			
		

> New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.



Did Virginia vote to allow WV to split off?



> The question of leaving the Union is not addressed by the Constitution. In _Texas v. White_, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), the Supreme Court suggested that the Constitution ordained the "perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union" The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States."[4][5]


Article Four of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



			
				SCOTUS said:
			
		

> *But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people*. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that
> the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence, and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States."* [n12]* *Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government.*


(emphasis added)

SCOTUS knew that the Constitution was clear on this matter, which is why they then tried to spin their statement by claiming something which the Constitution never says is somehow implied



> The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. *[p726]*   When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.... All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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.  Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.


Texas v. White
This assertion, however, is founded in no Constitutional text, and no phrase from the Constitution ca be cited to support it. Here we see that the entire matter was addressed not by the proper interpretation of constitutional law, but by the effective writing of new law from the bench- law that directly contradicts the text the court cites earlier in this publication.

America, if you recall, was founded in rebellion and built on the right to self-determination. The FF spoke oft of the rightfulness of armed rebellion and revolution in the face of tyranny. The only logical conclusion ios that both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution supports the right to secede as a less violent alternative to open revolution.

Here we see that the very purpose of this action was media spin and political correctness:



> It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.* If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.*



As you can see, the entire purpose for this illegal ruling was revisionism and the effort to make America look good, and avoid the stain of being called tyrants.

Of course, they had to admit that things had changed, lest it be said that they sent the army ofter American citizens



> And it is by no means a logical conclusion from the premises which we have endeavored to establish that the governmental relations of Texas to the Union remained unaltered.



I find this tidbit of interest, as well



> A great social change increased the difficulty of the situation. Slaves, in the insurgent States, with certain local exceptions, had been declared free by the Proclamation of Emancipation, and *whatever questions might be made as to the effect of that act under the Constitution.*..







JakeStarkey said:


> Point out in the Constitution where it says states can secede.  You can't.


I already did. Tenth Amendment. The COnastitution describes what authrity is denied the member States. All other Authority, unless otherwise designates to the Central Authority, is theirs.



> To remind you: slavery was the compelling reason for secession.  Your counter arguments, respectfully, have been compellingly weak and ineffective.



Slavery was not the real issue. It was the battleground for it touched on all the underlying concerns. The North was acting in the interest of rich businessmen. Everything we see today started with the Union's refusal tto recognize the CSA and the Confederate War for Independence.



NYcarbineer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states under the Constitution don't have the authority to decide which laws are or aren't constitutional.  If a state thinks a law is unconstitutional their constitutional recourse is to challenge it in the courts, not secede.
> 
> Secession is prohibited de facto because secession requires breaking federal laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *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.*
> 
> That includes the right to tell the fed to fuck off and die. Only slaves are denied the right to leave. The right to secede is summed up in the need to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> , there is no 'right' for states to secede.  Any more than there's any right for counties to secede from states, or towns to secede from counties, or you and your half acre to secede from your town.
Click to expand...


The tenth amendment says otherwise. Before the CWfI, the united States _were_. After the financial interests of the northern businessmen were deemed worth killing for,  it became 'the United States is'. All these things continue to the modern day.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Slavery was the real issue.  Tell you what -- post something from Davis, Benjamin, Stephens, Lincoln, Douglas, or someone important contemporary to the time that said it _wasn't _slavery.  Go for it.


----------



## JBeukema

Just ask RGS. He posted the official statements before, and they listed all the underlying issues upon which slavery touched.

I notice you ignored the fact that your claim that people born in the US have no right to self-determination was refuted.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Slavery was the real issue.  Tell you what -- post something from Davis, Benjamin, Stephens, Lincoln, Douglas, or someone important contemporary to the time that said it _wasn't _slavery.  Go for it.



Here is Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address.

Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address

In it he doesn't mention slavery even so much as one time.  However, he does say:



> It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon interchange of commodities.



As for Lincoln, he never opposed slavery.  He supported an amendment, and some say he wrote it himself, that would make slavery a permanent institution where it already existed.

"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." - Abraham Lincoln

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.  If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving alone I would also do that." - Abraham Lincoln


----------



## JBeukema

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was the real issue.  Tell you what -- post something from Davis, Benjamin, Stephens, Lincoln, Douglas, or someone important contemporary to the time that said it _wasn't _slavery.  Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address.
> 
> Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address
Click to expand...




			
				USMB said:
			
		

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kevin_Kennedy again.






			
				Jefferson said:
			
		

> Our present position has been achieved in a   manner unprecedented in the history of nations. It illustrates the American idea that   government rests upon the consent of the governed, and that i*t is the right of the people   to alter or abolish a government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it   was established.*



There you have it. If there is a right to revolt, then there is a right to secede, for what is cessation but a peaceable way of throwing off the chains of oppression while seeking to avoid the bloodshed of open revolution or violent rebellion?


----------



## JBeukema

Well, Jake asked and Kevin delivered.



> The declared purposes of the compact of Union from which we have   withdrawn were to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, to provide for the   common defence, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for   ourselves and our posterity; and when in the judgment of the sovereign States now   comprising this Confederacy it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was   ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, an appeal to the   ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned the government created by that   compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration   of Independence of 1776 defined to be inalienable. Of the time and occasion for its   exercise, they, as sovereign, were the final judges each for itself.


----------



## rightwinger

> West Virginia is the fifth border state.



There was no West Virginia until  Virginia seceeded.


----------



## JBeukema

rightwinger said:


> West Virginia is the fifth border state.
> 
> 
> 
> There was no West Virginia until  Virginia seceeded.
Click to expand...

Which means they recognized the sovereignty of the CSA. Else they would have recognized the delegates from the loyal areas of Virginia and declared the others under martial law and controlled by rebels and criminals. Instead they recognized the sovereignty of Virginia and the CSA as a separate entity and admitted the loyal regions as a new State. Legally, if Virginia was always considered a State like SCOTUS' ruling would state, then there *can be no West Virginia*,. as Virginia did not vote in the matter. Rather there is only Virginia, much of which was in chaos, but which was always a member of the Union.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Even though Virginia was in session at the time the creation of West Virginia was Un Constitutional and the Supreme Court agreed. The remedy was monetary rather then forcing West Virginia back into Virginia.


----------



## JBeukema

RetiredGySgt said:


> Even though Virginia was in session at the time the creation of West Virginia was Un Constitutional and the Supreme Court agreed. The remedy was monetary rather then forcing West Virginia back into Virginia.



Do you have a link to the SCOTUS decision?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am waiting for a major speech by Jefferson Davis, Benjamin Judah, Alexander Stephens, etc., that denies that slavery was the reason for secession.

None of you have done that far, so we can accept that none of them every spoke anything of the sort.

Come on, guys, you have to better.  JB, the Supreme Court and the Civil War scotch your entire convulsion of an argument.  Try again, please.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Come on, guys, you have to better.  JB, the Supreme Court and the Civil War scotch your entire convulsion of an argument.  Try again, please.


Actually, genius, I've shown how their attempts to weasel oput of it demonstrate my point and how the their own words argue against their conclusion. Seems you've forgotten that SCOTUS is not charged with making law, though they love to try.

The only applicable law is the 10th amendment.


----------



## editec

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point out in the Constitution where it says states can secede. You can't. And if you want to do it by inference, then you just affirmed Lincoln's wartime actions.
> 
> Can't have it both ways. WV was a part of Virginia. It did not become a slave state until the North accepted it as a state, which has nothing to with the discussion.
> 
> To remind you: slavery was the compelling reason for secession. Your counter arguments, respectfully, have been compellingly weak and ineffective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not have to spell out the powers of the states for them to be legitimate powers of the states. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says this. Since the Constitution does not prohibit the states from seceding, they have the right to secede.
> 
> It has much to do with the discussion. It proves that slavery couldn't have been the only issue on the table since the Union had slave states.
> 
> Slavery was a reason for secession. Lincoln's promise of higher tariffs was another reason.
Click to expand...

 

Tariffs had been going down under the political pressure the southern States were able to wield in Congress.

Tariffs  had damned little to do with causing the warbut the slavers insistence that they had  to expand slavery into the territories most certainly did.

Vile motherfucking slavers.

They should all have been hanged


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was the real issue.  Tell you what -- post something from Davis, Benjamin, Stephens, Lincoln, Douglas, or someone important contemporary to the time that said it _wasn't _slavery.  Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address.
> 
> Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address
> 
> In it he doesn't mention slavery even so much as one time.....
Click to expand...


Yet you have the Vice President of the Confederacy stating *slavery was the cornerstone* of their new government:"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to   allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest _forever   _all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as   it exists among us-the proper _status _of the negro in our form of civilization. 

_This   was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. _Jefferson, in his   forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would   split." He was right. 

...
...*Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are   laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white   man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.   [Applause.]
This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world,   based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. "
*​Modern History Sourcebook: Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883): Cornerstone Address, March 21, 1861


----------



## JakeStarkey

JB, you have shown nothing.  Give us speeches from the slavers and their supporters that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.  Should be easy if that is what they believed.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> JB, you have shown nothing.  Give us speeches from the slavers and their supporters that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.  Should be easy if that is what they believed.


All anyone needs to do is look at the Slave States Founding Documents to see it was primarily about slavery.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> I am waiting for a major speech by Jefferson Davis, Benjamin Judah, Alexander Stephens, etc., that denies that slavery was the reason for secession.
> 
> None of you have done that far, so we can accept that none of them every spoke anything of the sort.
> 
> Come on, guys, you have to better.  JB, the Supreme Court and the Civil War scotch your entire convulsion of an argument.  Try again, please.



I linked you to Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address where he made no mention of slavery whatsoever, but where he does talk about free trade being in the interest of the Confederacy.  I also gave you direct quotes from Abraham Lincoln that say he had no problem with slavery and only did what he did about slavery to hurt the Confederacy during the war.  To ignore this is simply dishonest on your part.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

editec said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point out in the Constitution where it says states can secede. You can't. And if you want to do it by inference, then you just affirmed Lincoln's wartime actions.
> 
> Can't have it both ways. WV was a part of Virginia. It did not become a slave state until the North accepted it as a state, which has nothing to with the discussion.
> 
> To remind you: slavery was the compelling reason for secession. Your counter arguments, respectfully, have been compellingly weak and ineffective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not have to spell out the powers of the states for them to be legitimate powers of the states. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says this. Since the Constitution does not prohibit the states from seceding, they have the right to secede.
> 
> It has much to do with the discussion. It proves that slavery couldn't have been the only issue on the table since the Union had slave states.
> 
> Slavery was a reason for secession. Lincoln's promise of higher tariffs was another reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tariffs had been going down under the political pressure the southern States were able to wield in Congress.
> 
> Tariffs  had damned little to do with causing the warbut the slavers insistence that they had  to expand slavery into the territories most certainly did.
> 
> Vile motherfucking slavers.
> 
> They should all have been hanged
Click to expand...


Yet Lincoln ran on a platform of higher tariffs which, as I've said before, is why he had no support in the south but high support in northern states like Pennsylvania.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was the real issue.  Tell you what -- post something from Davis, Benjamin, Stephens, Lincoln, Douglas, or someone important contemporary to the time that said it _wasn't _slavery.  Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address.
> 
> Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address
> 
> In it he doesn't mention slavery even so much as one time.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you have the Vice President of the Confederacy stating *slavery was the cornerstone* of their new government:"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to   allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest _forever   _all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as   it exists among us-the proper _status _of the negro in our form of civilization.
> 
> _This   was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. _Jefferson, in his   forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would   split." He was right.
> 
> ...
> ...*Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are   laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white   man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.   [Applause.]
> This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world,   based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. "
> *​Modern History Sourcebook: Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883): Cornerstone Address, March 21, 1861
Click to expand...


I don't deny slavery's role in the south's decision to secede, but to put such an idea squarely on the Confederate's is incorrect.  Lincoln himself touted similar ideas to the one expressed by Stephens.

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races... and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together in terms of social and political equality.  And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior.  I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Abraham Lincoln


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not have to spell out the powers of the states for them to be legitimate powers of the states. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says this. Since the Constitution does not prohibit the states from seceding, they have the right to secede.
> 
> It has much to do with the discussion. It proves that slavery couldn't have been the only issue on the table since the Union had slave states.
> 
> Slavery was a reason for secession. Lincoln's promise of higher tariffs was another reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tariffs had been going down under the political pressure the southern States were able to wield in Congress.
> 
> Tariffs  had damned little to do with causing the warbut the slavers insistence that they had  to expand slavery into the territories most certainly did.
> 
> Vile motherfucking slavers.
> 
> They should all have been hanged
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet Lincoln ran on a platform of higher tariffs which, as I've said before, is why he had no support in the south but high support in northern states like Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that and that whole being against the expansion of slavery and "a house divided against itself cannot stand" thingy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

KK: I don't deny slavery's role in the south's decision to secede, but to put such an idea squarely on the Confederate's is incorrect. Lincoln himself touted similar ideas to the one expressed by Stephens.
*
Good to see you backing up, Kevin, that's real smart.  Slavery was the root cause for South and North.  Lincoln said flatly, "The South ain't agonna go nowhere, sir diddly bob, and the slaves are not gonna be in the Territories."  By the great Jehovah, Father Abraham did smite down the arabs of the South, did he not?*


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> KK: I don't deny slavery's role in the south's decision to secede, but to put such an idea squarely on the Confederate's is incorrect. Lincoln himself touted similar ideas to the one expressed by Stephens.
> 
> Good to see you backing up, Kevin, that's real smart.  Slavery was the root cause for South and North.  Lincoln said flatly, "The South ain't agonna go nowhere, sir diddly bob, and the slaves are not gonna be in the Territories."  By the great Jehovah, Father Abraham did smite down the arabs of the South, did he not?



Backing up?  Read the entire thread.  I've said the entire time that slavery was a reason that the southern states seceded, but not the only reason.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> ....
> Lincoln himself touted similar ideas to the one expressed by Stephens.
> 
> ...



To make a statement like that shows you have read little of Lincolns writings and confine yourself to the cherrypicked Sooo'thren side of history meme.

Educate yourself on the complex creature - and politician, that Lincoln was.

And spend a little time reading more than secess blogs.  
You can start with the Lincoln/Douglass debates.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lincoln himself touted similar ideas to the one expressed by Stephens.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To make a statement like that shows you have read little of Lincolns writings and confine yourself to the cherrypicked Sooo'thren side of history meme.
> 
> Educate yourself on the complex creature - and politician, that Lincoln was.
> 
> And spend a little time reading more than secess blogs.
> You can start with the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
Click to expand...


That quote was from the Lincoln/Douglas debates.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lincoln himself touted similar ideas to the one expressed by Stephens.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To make a statement like that shows you have read little of Lincolns writings and confine yourself to the cherrypicked Sooo'thren side of history meme.
> 
> Educate yourself on the complex creature - and politician, that Lincoln was.
> 
> And spend a little time reading more than secess blogs.
> You can start with the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That quote was from the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
Click to expand...

Is that all you read?

There were 7 of them and they were quite lengthy.

Would you care to see some other quotes if we are going to do the cherry picked quote thing?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> To make a statement like that shows you have read little of Lincolns writings and confine yourself to the cherrypicked Sooo'thren side of history meme.
> 
> Educate yourself on the complex creature - and politician, that Lincoln was.
> 
> And spend a little time reading more than secess blogs.
> You can start with the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That quote was from the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that all you read?
> 
> There were 7 of them and they were quite lengthy.
> 
> Would you care to see some other quotes if we are going to do the cherry picked quote thing?
Click to expand...


Go ahead and post them.  The point is that the same point made by Stephens, that African-Americans are inferior, was the same point made by Abraham Lincoln years earlier.  No quote you can provide is going to change what Lincoln said.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That quote was from the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all you read?
> 
> There were 7 of them and they were quite lengthy.
> 
> Would you care to see some other quotes if we are going to do the cherry picked quote thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go ahead and post them.  The point is that the same point made by Stephens, that African-Americans are inferior, was the same point made by Abraham Lincoln years earlier.  No quote you can provide is going to change what Lincoln said.
Click to expand...

How about this:

"I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man" 

Or this:

"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. 
I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites-causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

That is nowhere close to what Stephens felt about "the negro" and his belief slavery was the "natural and moral condition" of the black race.


----------



## paperview

That's just a few snippets.

There are plenty more.  Maybe if you read a few of Lincolns debates and speeches you might know what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> That's just a few snippets.
> 
> There are plenty more.  Maybe if you read a few of Lincolns debates and speeches you might know what the hell you're talking about.



I've read plenty.  In one of your quotes he still says that black people are inferior to white people.  Let's also not forget his support for the Corwin Amendment.

Lincoln certainly was against the spread of slavery, but not slavery itself.  He wanted those jobs for white people and wanted to deport black people out of America.


----------



## paperview

"The difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties . . . [in] this contest," he declared,
 "is, that the former consider slavery a moral, social and political wrong, while the latter do not consider it either a moral, social or political wrong. . . . The Republican party . . . hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it an evil, they will not molest it in the States where it exists . . . ; but they will use every constitutional method to prevent the evil from becoming larger. . . They will, if possible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate peaceable extinction, in Gods own good time."

Lincoln considered slavery a moral wrong.

The confederates, as Stephens outlined in his Cornerstone Speech, considered slavery the natural and moral condition of the blacks.

To compare them as same philosophies is asinine.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just a few snippets.
> 
> There are plenty more.  Maybe if you read a few of Lincolns debates and speeches you might know what the hell you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read plenty.  In one of your quotes he still says that black people are inferior to white people.  Let's also not forget his support for the Corwin Amendment.
> 
> Lincoln certainly was against the spread of slavery, but not slavery itself.  He wanted those jobs for white people and wanted to deport black people out of America.
Click to expand...

"Slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro" is surprise! a statement against slavery itself.

And the American Colonization Society was originally started by abolitionists.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> "The difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties . . . [in] this contest," he declared,
> "is, that the former consider slavery a moral, social and political wrong, while the latter do not consider it either a moral, social or political wrong. . . . The Republican party . . . hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it an evil, they will not molest it in the States where it exists . . . ; but they will use every constitutional method to prevent the evil from becoming larger. . . They will, if possible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate peaceable extinction, in Gods own good time."
> 
> Lincoln considered slavery a moral wrong.
> 
> The confederates, as Stephens outlined in his Cornerstone Speech, considered slavery the natural and moral condition of the blacks.
> 
> To compare them as same philosophies is asinine.



Sure he did, which is why he was content to let it continue where it already existed.  Also when he gave the Emancipation Proclamation it only applied to areas where there no was Union presence.  Which means he never freed a single slave.

Stephens is not indicative of every Confederate.  Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery, and along with Jefferson Davis believed that it would collapse under its own weight.


----------



## JBeukema

What would become of the Blacks has no bearing on the right to secede. Do try to stay on-topic.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just a few snippets.
> 
> There are plenty more.  Maybe if you read a few of Lincolns debates and speeches you might know what the hell you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read plenty.  In one of your quotes he still says that black people are inferior to white people.  Let's also not forget his support for the Corwin Amendment.
> 
> Lincoln certainly was against the spread of slavery, but not slavery itself.  He wanted those jobs for white people and wanted to deport black people out of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro" is surprise! a statement against slavery itself.
> 
> And the American Colonization Society was originally started by abolitionists.
Click to expand...


Yet the noted abolitionist Lysander Spooner hated Lincoln.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties . . . [in] this contest," he declared,
> "is, that the former consider slavery a moral, social and political wrong, while the latter do not consider it either a moral, social or political wrong. . . . The Republican party . . . hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it an evil, they will not molest it in the States where it exists . . . ; but they will use every constitutional method to prevent the evil from becoming larger. . . They will, if possible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate peaceable extinction, in Gods own good time."
> 
> Lincoln considered slavery a moral wrong.
> 
> The confederates, as Stephens outlined in his Cornerstone Speech, considered slavery the natural and moral condition of the blacks.
> 
> To compare them as same philosophies is asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he did, which is why he was content to let it continue where it already existed.  Also when he gave the Emancipation *Proclamation it only applied to areas where there no was Union presence.  Which means he never freed a single slave.*
> 
> Stephens is not indicative of every Confederate.  Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery, and along with Jefferson Davis believed that it would collapse under its own weight.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct, in that he freed the Slaves in only non-Union states, (although most Union states had already, by and large, abolished slavery, and he shrewdly did not want to antagonize the slave states loyal to the Union by setting their slaves free. ) 

 But you are wrong in saying the Proclamation did not free a single slave -

Approx. 20,000 were freed immediately on January 1, 1863. 
& hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South

It ended up by being a clever strategy - that worked!


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read plenty.  In one of your quotes he still says that black people are inferior to white people.  Let's also not forget his support for the Corwin Amendment.
> 
> Lincoln certainly was against the spread of slavery, but not slavery itself.  He wanted those jobs for white people and wanted to deport black people out of America.
> 
> 
> 
> "Slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro" is surprise! a statement against slavery itself.
> 
> And the American Colonization Society was originally started by abolitionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the noted abolitionist Lysander Spooner hated Lincoln.
Click to expand...

Someone has been reading Lew Rockwell.  lol.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties . . . [in] this contest," he declared,
> "is, that the former consider slavery a moral, social and political wrong, while the latter do not consider it either a moral, social or political wrong. . . . The Republican party . . . hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it an evil, they will not molest it in the States where it exists . . . ; but they will use every constitutional method to prevent the evil from becoming larger. . . They will, if possible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate peaceable extinction, in Gods own good time."
> 
> Lincoln considered slavery a moral wrong.
> 
> The confederates, as Stephens outlined in his Cornerstone Speech, considered slavery the natural and moral condition of the blacks.
> 
> To compare them as same philosophies is asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he did, which is why he was content to let it continue where it already existed.  Also when he gave the Emancipation *Proclamation it only applied to areas where there no was Union presence.  Which means he never freed a single slave.*
> 
> Stephens is not indicative of every Confederate.  Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery, and along with Jefferson Davis believed that it would collapse under its own weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you are correct, in that he freed the Slaves in only non-Union states, (although most Union states had already, by and large, abolished slavery, and he shrewdly did not want to antagonize the slave states loyal to the Union by setting their slaves free. )
> 
> But you are wrong in saying the Proclamation did not free a single slave -
> 
> Approx. 20,000 were freed immediately on January 1, 1863.
> & hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South
> 
> It ended up by being a clever strategy - that worked!
Click to expand...


The five border states did not free their slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation, and New Orleans, I believe it was, was under Union control and no slaves were freed.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro" is surprise! a statement against slavery itself.
> 
> And the American Colonization Society was originally started by abolitionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the noted abolitionist Lysander Spooner hated Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone has been reading Lew Rockwell.  lol.
Click to expand...


Daily.

But the fact remains that Lysander Spooner despised Lincoln.


----------



## paperview

> Daily.
> 
> But the fact remains that Lysander Spooner despised Lincoln.



Wow.

Lysander Spooner - an anarchist who advocated violence and slave revolts despised Lincoln.

Stop the presses!

lol.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Daily.
> 
> But the fact remains that Lysander Spooner despised Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Lysander Spooner - an anarchist who advocated violence and slave revolts despised Lincoln.
> 
> Stop the presses!
> 
> lol.
Click to expand...


Advocated violence?  Spooner opposed Lincoln's violent Civil War because he knew that the southern states had the right to secede, and that if it really was about freeing the slaves then the U.S. could have found a peaceful way to do so like every other country in the world did up to that point.

Advocated slave revolts?  That's the reason Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation.  He wanted to incite the slaves in the south to rise up and attack.


----------



## Citizen

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So once again we get to hear from the people that think somehow fighting to keep slavery was a States right. That enslavement of other people was a right the States should be able to keep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The southern states fought for their independence.  To say that they fought to defend slavery would be saying that the northern states were fighting to end slavery, which is absolutely not the case whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The South withdrew from the Union because OF SLAVERY. They claimed Lincoln would somehow magically abolish it. THAT was the entire reason for the war. The only State Right that they were worried about was the right to keep slaves.
> 
> You delusional idiots amaze me to no end.
Click to expand...



Maybe you could point out the part of the US Constitution that prohibits the states that voluntarily joined the union from voluntarily leaving it, if that is their wish.

If not just shut up about it, unless you want to discuss something like Lincoln's violation of the US Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Virginia proposed a requirement for a two-thirds majority to enact laws regulating commerce and levying tariffs, which were the chief revenue of the federal government. Virginia withdrew its amendment at the Convention in the interest of adopting the Constitution, but ratification was with the understanding that it could be rescinded if the powers granted the federal government were used to oppress, and that Virginia could them withdraw from the Union.

Let us not forget that there were at least 250,000 slaves held in the 19 Northern states that fought for the union, which were not freed during the war, but had to wait until the 13 amendment was ratified.

The war was really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on the side of the South.

The South knew that it was their import trade that drew from the peoples pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, which were mainly expended in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These were the reasons the people of the North did not wish the South to secede from the Union.

In December 1860, the Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce:

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coast wise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We would lose our trade with the South, with all its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."

One more example would be the NY Times on March 22, 1861.

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States. It is apparent that the people of the principle seceding states are for commercial independence. They dream that the centers of traffic can be changed from the Northern to Southern ports...by a revenue system verging on free trade."

So, now maybe you can understand why we refer to the war as, The War of Northern Aggression. 

Just in case you did not know, the vast majority of the farmers in the South never owned slaves, plowed their own fields, and fought against Northern aggression.

Also, part of our Southern heritage is the fact that our forefathers fought against Northern aggression when the North was forcing the South to pay for most of the Northern improvements, paid for by the federal government, via tariffs imposed upon the South.

As examples, in 1840 the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. The South paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which has a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. 

The South was paying tribute to the North, and the only way to stop it was to withdraw from the Union they had voluntary entered, with nothing included in the US Constitution to prevent such separation. 

A great constitutional failure would be correct it that secession did not violate the US Constitution, while the suspension of Habeas Corpus did violate that document, as did the invasion of the South by the Northern armies.

In March 1861, over one hundred leading commercial importers in New York, and a similar group in Boston, informed the collector of customs that they would not pay duties on imported gods unless the same duties were collected at Southern ports. This was followed by a threat from New York to withdraw from the Union and establish a free-trade zone. Prior to these events, Lincoln's plan was to evacuate Fort Sumter and not precipitate a war, but now he determined to reinforce it rather than suffer prolonged economic disaster in a losing trade war. The reinforcement was met with force by the South, and the war was upon us.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daily.
> 
> But the fact remains that Lysander Spooner despised Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Lysander Spooner - an anarchist who advocated violence and slave revolts despised Lincoln.
> 
> Stop the presses!
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advocated violence?  Spooner opposed Lincoln's violent Civil War because he knew that the southern states had the right to secede, and that if it really was about freeing the slaves then the U.S. could have found a peaceful way to do so like every other country in the world did up to that point.
> 
> Advocated slave revolts?  That's the reason Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation.  He wanted to incite the slaves in the south to rise up and attack.
Click to expand...

I'm going to ask this nicely:  Are you still in High School?


----------



## paperview

Citizen said:


> Maybe you could point out the part of the US Constitution that prohibits the states that voluntarily joined the union from voluntarily leaving it, if that is their wish.
> 
> If not just shut up about it, unless you want to discuss something like Lincoln's violation of the US Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus.



Your very own Confederate president suspended Habeas Corpus as well, tigerboy.

<crap snipped>


> Just in case you did not know, the vast majority of the farmers in the South never owned slaves, plowed their own fields, and fought against Northern aggression.


Here we go again.  Yes, a majority did, but about 25 -30% of southern families that owned slaves was not a minuscule amount.

Keep in mind, some southern states actually were a MAJORITY population.  You read right - more slaves than free folks. 

Slavery was the blood and engine of the south.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Lysander Spooner - an anarchist who advocated violence and slave revolts despised Lincoln.
> 
> Stop the presses!
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Advocated violence?  Spooner opposed Lincoln's violent Civil War because he knew that the southern states had the right to secede, and that if it really was about freeing the slaves then the U.S. could have found a peaceful way to do so like every other country in the world did up to that point.
> 
> Advocated slave revolts?  That's the reason Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation.  He wanted to incite the slaves in the south to rise up and attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm going to ask this nicely:  Are you still in High School?
Click to expand...


There's no nice way to ask that, as you are insinuating that my intelligence must be less than yours by comparing me to a high school student.  However, the answer is no.


----------



## JakeStarkey

paperview said:


> Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you could point out the part of the US Constitution that prohibits the states that voluntarily joined the union from voluntarily leaving it, if that is their wish.
> 
> If not just shut up about it, unless you want to discuss something like Lincoln's violation of the US Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your very own Confederate president suspended Habeas Corpus as well, tigerboy.
> 
> <crap snipped>
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you did not know, the vast majority of the farmers in the South never owned slaves, plowed their own fields, and fought against Northern aggression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we go again.  Yes, a majority did, but about 25 -30% of southern families that owned slaves was not a minuscule amount.
> 
> Keep in mind, some southern states actually were a MAJORITY population.  You read right - more slaves than free folks.
> 
> Slavery was the blood and engine of the south.
Click to expand...


Kevin has still not even touched on his burden of proof.  Let's add to the weight bearing down, down, down.  90% of every dollar of capital in the South, directly and directly, supported the cotton empire.

Kevin, that means all those yeoman farmers were supporting the plantation economies and their slaves by selling the masters all the goodies necessary for continuing slave planting, harvesting, and transporting.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Advocated violence?  Spooner opposed Lincoln's violent Civil War because he knew that the southern states had the right to secede, and that if it really was about freeing the slaves then the U.S. could have found a peaceful way to do so like every other country in the world did up to that point.
> 
> Advocated slave revolts?  That's the reason Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation.  He wanted to incite the slaves in the south to rise up and attack.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to ask this nicely:  Are you still in High School?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no nice way to ask that, as you are insinuating that my intelligence must be less than yours by comparing me to a high school student.  However, the answer is no.
Click to expand...

I did ask sincerely because the level of your understand of the subject seems quite elementary.


----------



## JakeStarkey

KK, I don't think you are still in high school.  But you have clearly and unequivocably not carried your burden of proof.  Please concede.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you could point out the part of the US Constitution that prohibits the states that voluntarily joined the union from voluntarily leaving it, if that is their wish.
> 
> If not just shut up about it, unless you want to discuss something like Lincoln's violation of the US Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your very own Confederate president suspended Habeas Corpus as well, tigerboy.
> 
> <crap snipped>
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you did not know, the vast majority of the farmers in the South never owned slaves, plowed their own fields, and fought against Northern aggression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we go again.  Yes, a majority did, but about 25 -30% of southern families that owned slaves was not a minuscule amount.
> 
> Keep in mind, some southern states actually were a MAJORITY population.  You read right - more slaves than free folks.
> 
> Slavery was the blood and engine of the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kevin has still not even touched on his burden of proof.  Let's add to the weight bearing down, down, down.  90% of every dollar of capital in the South, directly and directly, supported the cotton empire.
> 
> Kevin, that means all those yeoman farmers were supporting the plantation economies and their slaves by selling the masters all the goodies necessary for continuing slave planting, harvesting, and transporting.
Click to expand...


What burden of proof have I not touched on?  I notice that you still completely ignore the quotes that you asked for.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to ask this nicely:  Are you still in High School?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no nice way to ask that, as you are insinuating that my intelligence must be less than yours by comparing me to a high school student.  However, the answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did ask sincerely because the level of your understand of the subject seems quite elementary.
Click to expand...


By all means continue to try and undermine the legitimacy of what I posted by questioning my level of intelligence rather than addressing the points that I made.


----------



## rdean

Let me just point out that the Confederacy is NOT dead.  It even has it's own political party.  Only it's not called the "Confederate" Party, oh no, it's called the "Republican" Party.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no nice way to ask that, as you are insinuating that my intelligence must be less than yours by comparing me to a high school student.  However, the answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> I did ask sincerely because the level of your understand of the subject seems quite elementary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By all means continue to try and undermine the legitimacy of what I posted by questioning my level of intelligence rather than addressing the points that I made.
Click to expand...

I believe I did, but it's kind of hard when you consider a legitimate argument to be "Lysander Spooner hated Lincoln!" (so there!) and Alexander Stephens had the same philosophy as Lincoln regarding blacks.

I mean really...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rdean said:


> Let me just point out that the Confederacy is NOT dead.  It even has it's own political party.  Only it's not called the "Confederate" Party, oh no, it's called the "Republican" Party.



You're aware that it was Lincoln and the Republican Party that opposed the Confederates, right?  I also hope you're aware that RetiredGySgt is a Republican and does not believe that the states have the right to secede, as he has argued in this very thread.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did ask sincerely because the level of your understand of the subject seems quite elementary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By all means continue to try and undermine the legitimacy of what I posted by questioning my level of intelligence rather than addressing the points that I made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe I did, but it's kind of hard when you consider a legitimate argument to be "Lysander Spooner hated Lincoln!" (so there!) and Alexander Stephens had the same philosophy as Lincoln regarding blacks.
> 
> I mean really...
Click to expand...


You mentioned abolitionists having started the whole Colonization trend, and I mentioned that Lysander Spooner, a noted abolitionist, hated Lincoln.  You then pointed out that it should be no surprise that someone who advocated violence and slave rebellions would hate Lincoln, when Lincoln himself supported violence and slave rebellions.  Then you tried to cast dispersions on my intellect to try and nullify my points rather than actually address the hypocrisy of your statement.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin, none of the contemporaries of the Civil War agree with you in their writings.  Not one said it was not slavery.  They all recognized that slavery and race drove the argument of secession, states' rights, the economies, immigration, the tariff, the territories, etc.

You have conceded in fact because you have posted no evidence demonstrating the contemporaries agreed with you.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> By all means continue to try and undermine the legitimacy of what I posted by questioning my level of intelligence rather than addressing the points that I made.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I did, but it's kind of hard when you consider a legitimate argument to be "Lysander Spooner hated Lincoln!" (so there!) and Alexander Stephens had the same philosophy as Lincoln regarding blacks.
> 
> I mean really...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mentioned abolitionists having started the whole Colonization trend, and I mentioned that Lysander Spooner, a noted abolitionist, hated Lincoln.  You then pointed out that it should be no surprise that someone who advocated violence and slave rebellions would hate Lincoln, when Lincoln himself supported violence and slave rebellions.  Then you tried to cast dispersions on my intellect to try and nullify my points rather than actually address the hypocrisy of your statement.
Click to expand...

You seem to fail to understand that not all abolitionists were cut from the same thread - and now, in a really stunning blow to your own argument, you are calling Lincoln an even more radical abolitionist than he really was, while at the same time saying he echoed the beliefs of the VP of the confederacy who called slavery the cornerstone of the confederacy. 

And the funniest thing is, you don't even know you did it!


----------



## rdean

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me just point out that the Confederacy is NOT dead.  It even has it's own political party.  Only it's not called the "Confederate" Party, oh no, it's called the "Republican" Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're aware that it was Lincoln and the Republican Party that opposed the Confederates, right?  I also hope you're aware that RetiredGySgt is a Republican and does not believe that the states have the right to secede, as he has argued in this very thread.
Click to expand...


Oh please.  Lincoln died in what, 1865 or something?  Since then, the Southern White wackos ran from the Democratic Party to the Republican party, thereby making the Republican party the party of choice for the Aryans, for the Klan, those that want to replace "science" with "mysticism".  You know, those that worship a blue-eyed Jesus.  Those that look back "fondly" on slavery and yearn for the "good old days".
The Republican Party has a shrinking base of old and uneducated.  Ironically enough, the very people that need health care the most.  Once again, fighting against their own self interest.  Pathetic.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Wow, that's unkind and some of it unfair.  But you are right about the Demo racists coming over beginning in 1968 to the GOP (Nixon's Southern Strategy) or George Wallace's clear cut straight out racist American Party.  Ever since the whites in the South have generally been Republican.  Not all are racists, but almost all Southern white racists are Republican.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Before you yerks tell us about Brother Byrd, tell us about Brother Strom Thurmond, the once-Democrat candisate of the 1948 all-racist Dixiecrat Party and then long-time Republican senator from SC with the black daughter.


----------



## rdean

JakeStarkey said:


> Wow, that's unkind and some of it unfair.  But you are right about the Demo racists coming over beginning in 1968 to the GOP (Nixon's Southern Strategy) or George Wallace's clear cut straight out racist American Party.  Ever since the whites in the South have generally been Republican.  Not all are racists, but almost all Southern white racists are Republican.



No one said the "truth" is "kind".


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin, none of the contemporaries of the Civil War agree with you in their writings.  Not one said it was not slavery.  They all recognized that slavery and race drove the argument of secession, states' rights, the economies, immigration, the tariff, the territories, etc.
> 
> You have conceded in fact because you have posted evidence demonstrating the contemporaries agreed with you.



I have conceded because I've demonstrated that the contemporaries agreed with me?  Interesting argument.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I did, but it's kind of hard when you consider a legitimate argument to be "Lysander Spooner hated Lincoln!" (so there!) and Alexander Stephens had the same philosophy as Lincoln regarding blacks.
> 
> I mean really...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mentioned abolitionists having started the whole Colonization trend, and I mentioned that Lysander Spooner, a noted abolitionist, hated Lincoln.  You then pointed out that it should be no surprise that someone who advocated violence and slave rebellions would hate Lincoln, when Lincoln himself supported violence and slave rebellions.  Then you tried to cast dispersions on my intellect to try and nullify my points rather than actually address the hypocrisy of your statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to fail to understand that not all abolitionists were cut from the same thread - and now, in a really stunning blow to your own argument, you are calling Lincoln an even more radical abolitionist than he really was, while at the same time saying he echoed the beliefs of the VP of the confederacy who called slavery the cornerstone of the confederacy.
> 
> And the funniest thing is, you don't even know you did it!
Click to expand...


No, I'm afraid that's not the case.  Lincoln did attempt to incite the slaves to rise up against their masters, which is why he only tried to free the slaves in the Confederacy as opposed to all of the slaves.  Did you want to address the hypocrisy of your post mocking Lysander Spooner for advocating slave uprisings and violence when Lincoln was an advocate of both?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oh, good catch, Kevin, and I fixed it, so you can fix yours as well to stay in tune.  Now read the next post and weep.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, good catch, Kevin, and I fixed it, so you can fix yours as well to stay in tune.  Now read the next post and weep.



Well actually I have posted evidence.  You're simply ignoring it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Let's see what CSA Vice-president Alexander Stephens said about African slavery and what he imputed to Thomas Jefferson about it. "But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution*. *Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.'  *He was right."  [Italics and bold are my emphasis].

This is known as Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech."  Interesting, isn't it.  You can read more at Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens.

Good night all.  Kevin, you may spend your time more profitably doing some reading in primary, contemporary sources instead of running around pounding "Sons of the South" nonsense.  Please, research what you supposedly believe.  We will go through each of the key figures if you insist on defending the indefensible.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Let's see what CSA Vice-president Alexander Stephens said about African slavery and what he imputed to Thomas Jefferson about it. "But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution*. *Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.'  *He was right."  [Italics and bold are my emphasis].
> 
> This is known as Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech."  Interesting, isn't it.  You can read more at Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens.



Maybe you're unable to read.  I don't deny that slavery was a reason that the southern states seceded.  It simply wasn't the only reason, and I have posted Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address where he talks about tariffs but not slavery.  I have also posted quotes from Abraham Lincoln that state he had no intention of ending slavery and that he even supported an amendment to make it a permanent institution.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see what CSA Vice-president Alexander Stephens said about African slavery and what he imputed to Thomas Jefferson about it. "But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution*. *Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.'  *He was right."  [Italics and bold are my emphasis].
> 
> This is known as Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech."  Interesting, isn't it.  You can read more at Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're unable to read.  I don't deny that slavery was a reason that the southern states seceded.  It simply wasn't the only reason, and I have posted Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address where he talks about tariffs but not slavery.  I have also posted quotes from Abraham Lincoln that state he had no intention of ending slavery and that he even supported an amendment to make it a permanent institution.
Click to expand...

Yet!  Yet!  Lincoln advocated slave uprisings like one of the most radical abolitionists at the time.

(Are you keeping track of this Jake?)
)


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see what CSA Vice-president Alexander Stephens said about African slavery and what he imputed to Thomas Jefferson about it. "But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution*. *Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.'  *He was right."  [Italics and bold are my emphasis].
> 
> This is known as Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech."  Interesting, isn't it.  You can read more at Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're unable to read.  I don't deny that slavery was a reason that the southern states seceded.  It simply wasn't the only reason, and I have posted Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address where he talks about tariffs but not slavery.  I have also posted quotes from Abraham Lincoln that state he had no intention of ending slavery and that he even supported an amendment to make it a permanent institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet!  Yet!  Lincoln advocated slave uprisings like one of the most radical abolitionists at the time.
> 
> (Are you keeping track of this Jake?)
> )
Click to expand...


Anything to hurt the Confederacy, not because he believed that the slaves deserved to be free.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're unable to read.  I don't deny that slavery was a reason that the southern states seceded.  It simply wasn't the only reason, and I have posted Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address where he talks about tariffs but not slavery.  I have also posted quotes from Abraham Lincoln that state he had no intention of ending slavery and that he even supported an amendment to make it a permanent institution.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet!  Yet!  Lincoln advocated slave uprisings like one of the most radical abolitionists at the time.
> 
> (Are you keeping track of this Jake?)
> )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything to hurt the Confederacy, not because he believed that the slaves deserved to be free.
Click to expand...

You see, this is where you lose folks who may actually think you know what your talking about.
Lincoln made it clear he was personally against slavery, and anyone who reads enough of his writings knows that, (and I've even posted some very germane quotes here) he also believed he did not have the constitutional power to abolish it.  There is a difference. 

With every new post, I am convinced you have read very little on the subject, or of Lincoln (except RW snippets).


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet!  Yet!  Lincoln advocated slave uprisings like one of the most radical abolitionists at the time.
> 
> (Are you keeping track of this Jake?)
> )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything to hurt the Confederacy, not because he believed that the slaves deserved to be free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, this is where you lose folks who may actually think you know what your talking about.
> Lincoln made it clear he was personally against slavery, and anyone who reads enough of his writings knows that, (and I've even posted some very germane quotes here) he also believed he did not have the constitutional power to abolish it.  There is a difference.
> 
> With every new post, I am convinced you have read very little on the subject, or of Lincoln (except RW snippets).
Click to expand...


Lincoln made many contradictory statements, yet his actions seem to support the notion that he did not believe slavery should be ended or equality given to black people.

- Supporting the Corwin Amendment
- Supporting the Illinois Constitution which made it illegal for black people to emigrate to Illinois
- Only freeing those slaves he had no way to actually free
- Supporting attempts to deport all black people out of the United States
- Supported and wanted to strengthen the Fugitive Slave laws
- Opposed black citizenship in Illinois
- Stopped the emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything to hurt the Confederacy, not because he believed that the slaves deserved to be free.
> 
> 
> 
> You see, this is where you lose folks who may actually think you know what your talking about.
> Lincoln made it clear he was personally against slavery, and anyone who reads enough of his writings knows that, (and I've even posted some very germane quotes here) he also believed he did not have the constitutional power to abolish it.  There is a difference.
> 
> With every new post, I am convinced you have read very little on the subject, or of Lincoln (except RW snippets).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln made many contradictory statements, yet his actions seem to support the notion that he did not believe slavery should be ended or equality given to black people.
> 
> - Supporting the Corwin Amendment
> - Supporting the Illinois Constitution which made it illegal for black people to emigrate to Illinois
> - Only freeing those slaves he had no way to actually free
> - Supporting attempts to deport all black people out of the United States
> - Supported and wanted to strengthen the Fugitive Slave laws
> - Opposed black citizenship in Illinois
> - Stopped the emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia
Click to expand...

Oh Geeze.  Lew Rockwell again.

You really need to expand your reading base.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, this is where you lose folks who may actually think you know what your talking about.
> Lincoln made it clear he was personally against slavery, and anyone who reads enough of his writings knows that, (and I've even posted some very germane quotes here) he also believed he did not have the constitutional power to abolish it.  There is a difference.
> 
> With every new post, I am convinced you have read very little on the subject, or of Lincoln (except RW snippets).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made many contradictory statements, yet his actions seem to support the notion that he did not believe slavery should be ended or equality given to black people.
> 
> - Supporting the Corwin Amendment
> - Supporting the Illinois Constitution which made it illegal for black people to emigrate to Illinois
> - Only freeing those slaves he had no way to actually free
> - Supporting attempts to deport all black people out of the United States
> - Supported and wanted to strengthen the Fugitive Slave laws
> - Opposed black citizenship in Illinois
> - Stopped the emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh Geeze.  Lew Rockwell again.
> 
> You really need to expand your reading base.
Click to expand...


Once again, avoid the issues and try to bring down my legitimacy.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made many contradictory statements, yet his actions seem to support the notion that he did not believe slavery should be ended or equality given to black people.
> 
> - Supporting the Corwin Amendment
> - Supporting the Illinois Constitution which made it illegal for black people to emigrate to Illinois
> - Only freeing those slaves he had no way to actually free
> - Supporting attempts to deport all black people out of the United States
> - Supported and wanted to strengthen the Fugitive Slave laws
> - Opposed black citizenship in Illinois
> - Stopped the emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Geeze.  Lew Rockwell again.
> 
> You really need to expand your reading base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, avoid the issues and try to bring down my legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Again, what you, apparently as a student of Lew, seem to have acquired, is the technique of word play and false inferences with half truths to lead you to false conclusions.

Answer me this: Was Lincoln in favor of the Dred Scott decision?

Yes or no.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Geeze.  Lew Rockwell again.
> 
> You really need to expand your reading base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, avoid the issues and try to bring down my legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what you, apparently as a student of Lew, seem to have acquired, is the technique of word play and false inferences with half truths to lead you to false conclusions.
> 
> Answer me this: Was Lincoln in favor of the Dred Scott decision?
> 
> Yes or no.
Click to expand...


I don't know off the top of my head and don't care to play into your game by looking it up.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, avoid the issues and try to bring down my legitimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what you, apparently as a student of Lew, seem to have acquired, is the technique of word play and false inferences with half truths to lead you to false conclusions.
> 
> Answer me this: Was Lincoln in favor of the Dred Scott decision?
> 
> Yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know off the top of my head and don't care to play into your game by looking it up.
Click to expand...

And that concludes this debate with manchild who thinks he can maintain cogent, historically acurate arguments about who Lincoln was.

Thank you very much and have a good evening.


Everyone, please tip your waiters.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what you, apparently as a student of Lew, seem to have acquired, is the technique of word play and false inferences with half truths to lead you to false conclusions.
> 
> Answer me this: Was Lincoln in favor of the Dred Scott decision?
> 
> Yes or no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know off the top of my head and don't care to play into your game by looking it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that concludes this debate with manchild who thinks he can maintain cogent, historically acurate arguments about who Lincoln was.
> 
> Thank you very much and have a good evening.
> 
> 
> Everyone, please tip your waiters.
Click to expand...


Yes, now try to make it look like I'm the one avoiding an intelligent discussion.


----------



## JBeukema

JBeukema said:


> What would become of the Blacks has no bearing on the right to secede. Do try to stay on-topic.






paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, this is where you lose folks who may actually think you know what your talking about.
> Lincoln made it clear he was personally against slavery, and anyone who reads enough of his writings knows that, (and I've even posted some very germane quotes here) he also believed he did not have the constitutional power to abolish it.  There is a difference.
> 
> With every new post, I am convinced you have read very little on the subject, or of Lincoln (except RW snippets).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made many contradictory statements, yet his actions seem to support the notion that he did not believe slavery should be ended or equality given to black people.
> 
> - Supporting the Corwin Amendment
> - Supporting the Illinois Constitution which made it illegal for black people to emigrate to Illinois
> - Only freeing those slaves he had no way to actually free
> - Supporting attempts to deport all black people out of the United States
> - Supported and wanted to strengthen the Fugitive Slave laws
> - Opposed black citizenship in Illinois
> - Stopped the emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh Geeze.  Lew Rockwell again.
> 
> You really need to expand your reading base.
Click to expand...



Have you ever considered addressing Kev's points instead of attacking his sources and repeating the same moronic statements time and again?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The point is this -- the contemporaries thought the slavery was the prime cause of the Civil War.

Whether the South had the right to secede (which I think they did), one towering man of History defied the Confederacy, mouth smashed and knee dropped them, breaking their whiny small-governtment Jeffersonia philosophies forever.

States' rights have been dead officially since 1865 and culturally since the 1960s.

Republican and Democratic parties are big-government parties.

We are never going back to small government unless an apocalyptic event occurs (at least technologically) that will result in the balkanization of the U.S.


----------



## editec

JakeStarkey said:


> The point is this -- the contemporaries thought the slavery was the prime cause of the Civil War.


 
Not just contemporaries, but the contemporary _LEADERS_ OF THE TREASON.



> Whether the South had the right to secede (which I think they did), one towering man of History defied the Confederacy, mouth smashed and knee dropped them, breaking their whiny small-governtment Jeffersonia philosophies forever.


 
I think the States do not have the right to secede. the floundering fathers spoke of the ETERNAL UNION throughout the FDERALIST PAPERS.

Nowhere is there any mention of any path leading to a state leaving the Republic.




> States' rights have been dead officially since 1865 and culturally since the 1960s.


 
No, not dead. Southern treason apologists continue to harp on that bankrupted theory to justify the treason of the CSA.



> Republican and Democratic parties are big-government parties.


 
Truth in spade there.



> We are never going back to small government unless an apocalyptic event occurs (at least technologically) that will result in the balkanization of the U.S.


 
Likely true.


----------



## Citizen

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin, none of the contemporaries of the Civil War agree with you in their writings.  Not one said it was not slavery.  They all recognized that slavery and race drove the argument of secession, states' rights, the economies, immigration, the tariff, the territories, etc.
> 
> You have conceded in fact because you have posted no evidence demonstrating the contemporaries agreed with you.



Another reason you are incorrect about slavery being the cause of the war of northeren aggression is the simple fact that slavery was never in danger because Lincoln pledged to enforce the fugitive slave law, declared he had no right or intention to interfere with slavery, and supported a new irrevocable constitutional amendment to protect slavery forever.

The real causes of the war of northern aggression was the unjust taxation and expenditure of taxes by the Government of the United States, and the change of the government from a confederated republic to a national sectional despotism.

The South did not need the North because it could buy the goods it needed from Europe, but the North needed the South as a market for Northern goods.

In order to perpetuate his war of Northern aggression, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, ordered the arrested Chief Justice Taney after the Justice' opinion holding the suspension of habeas corpus to be unconditional, replaced the civilian courts with military ones, imprisoned about 14,000 dissidents for varied opposition to the war, and closed about 300 newspapers.

The war between the North and South was a tariff war.  The war was further, not for principle, did not touch the question of slavery, but in fact was fueled by the Northern lust for sovereignty.


----------



## JakeStarkey

was caused by the South demanding that slavery be permitted in the territories (although it already had Dred Scott) and a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the national boundaries of slavery forever.

All warlike actions were done by the South, not the North. 

The seizing of federal properties and exiling of federal official was done by the South, not the North.  

Every action positive to fomenting war was taken by the South, not the North.

The South fired on Old Glory at Ft Sumter, not the North.

God turned His face from the South, and guided His hammer, even Abraham Lincoln, in defeating and despoiling an enemy of the nation, even as God upheld Joshua in the despoling of the Canaanites and taking the enemy's lands as their own.  Selah.  (It's fun to write like that!)

Anyway, every contemporary of the Civil War thought the main cause was slavery.


----------



## JBeukema

funny how you refuse to address the original question, now that you see that you're demonstrably wrong


----------



## JakeStarkey

JB, I have proved that slavery was the main cause with the simple statement of the Vice-President of the CSA's 'cornerstone speech.'  Not one has posted any other cause excluding slavery, not one.

They argue as poorly as do you on atheism, which requires more faith than believing in deity.

You really are too easy to defeat in this threads, JB.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JB, I have proved that slavery was the main cause with the simple statement of the Vice-President of the CSA's 'cornerstone speech.'



Noone ever denied that slavery was a factor, yet you continue to repeat yourself like a rabid fool on MSNBC. For those with poor memory, the question was regarding the right to secession as a peaceable alternative to open rebellion and war. The Constitution does not deny any such rights (making the law clear), and the words of several of the Founding Fathers were also cited as extra-constitutional clarification of the FF's intent and beliefs, upon which this nation was founded.

Once these facts were pointed out, and SCOUTS' dancing around the matter also referenced, you began this evasion, seeking instead to attack the CSA on the grounds of whether one approves of slavery, rather than addressing the matter at hand. Such actions as you have taken are classic and to be expected of one who knows he is wrong.


> They argue as poorly as do you on atheism, which requires more faith than believing in deity.



A pathetic ad hom, which is inaccurate in the first place. Theism requires _faith_ 
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Hebrews 11:1

My position is grounded in logical positivism and one does not accept a hypothesis for which there is no evidence. As one who makes decisions and draws conclusions based on reason and the evidence available rather than on glorified ignorance and superstition, I had, in the words of Laplace, 'no need for that hypothesis'. Now, if you wish to address that matter further, make a thread in the appropriate section and present all available evidence to support your hypothesis that your preferred deity exists.​ 
Until then, your baseless proclamation of 'victory' merely highlights the ignorance, arrogance, and intellectual dishonesty you have displayed throughout this discussion.

-J.T.B.​


----------



## JakeStarkey

JB, you just don't have what it takes to be a philosopher.  Constructive critical thinking comments do not equate to _ad hom_, while you, JB, misstated my position on faith.  Of course believing in deity requires faith.  However, atheism is a faith-belief system desperately in search of proof that does not exist -- empirical data and critical thinking skills fail your premise.

OK, back to the Confederacy  -- give me one contemporary that said _*slavery was not the prime cause*_ of the Civil War.  Until any of you can do that, you have conceded the argument.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> you, JB, misstated my position on faith.  Of course believing in deity requires faith.  However, atheism is a faith-belief system desperately in search of proof that does not exist -- empirical data and critical thinking skills fail your premise.



Your ignorance shows once again. Atheism is not a faith system at all. It is a word that simply means 'without [a-] deity/god[theos]'. He who makes the positive assertion that any thing exists bears the burden of proof. In the absence of evidence, the only logical and intellectually honest and sound conclusion is that such a thing does not exist, and said thing is not to be included in a sound model of the nature of things. Hence, the model is devoid of deity, fairies, invisible elephants, or a second sun orbiting Earth. 

Now this is the last I hall bother to address your ignorance and dishonesty. If you wish to parade your ignorance on this matter further, make a thread in the appropriate area of the forum.




> OK, back to the Confederacy  -- give me one contemporary that said _*slavery was not the prime cause*_ of the Civil War.  Until any of you can do that, you have conceded the argument.


Stlll you continue to evade the question at hand: the question of the positive (legal) right to cessation as well as the validity of cessation as a peacable alternative to the recognized 'natural right' to revolution, rebellion, and self-determination. Why do you refuse to address the matter this thread addresses? The only conclusion is that you do not address it because you realize you have no case, so you seek to distract with an irrelevant argument of motivation and the ethics of slavery.

Of course, you already conceded this point some time ago, so your drivel does nothing to further the discussion at hand. If you wish to address the ethics of slavery, you are free to go to the religion and ethics section and initiate such a discussion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Positive legal right is a fool's chase, JB.  You have lost that argument.  And you have no critical evidence that God does not exist.  JB, you are OK in your way, but you are wrong on these points.


----------



## editec

Citizen said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, none of the contemporaries of the Civil War agree with you in their writings. Not one said it was not slavery. They all recognized that slavery and race drove the argument of secession, states' rights, the economies, immigration, the tariff, the territories, etc.
> 
> You have conceded in fact because you have posted no evidence demonstrating the contemporaries agreed with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason you are incorrect about slavery being the cause of the war of northeren aggression is the simple fact that slavery was never in danger because Lincoln pledged to enforce the fugitive slave law, declared he had no right or intention to interfere with slavery, and supported a new irrevocable constitutional amendment to protect slavery forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True facts, but faulty logic.
> 
> Your logic might have had legs if the Republic had fired the first shot, of course, but the southern traitors fired on the Republic, remember?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real causes of the war of northern aggression was the unjust taxation and expenditure of taxes by the Government of the United States, and the change of the government from a confederated republic to a national sectional despotism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Tariffs were actually going DOWN right before the war started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The South did not need the North because it could buy the goods it needed from Europe, but the North needed the South as a market for Northern goods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah there's some truth in that, to be sure. But what the Republic really needed was revenues from those tariffs that consumers (both in the North and the South) paid for imported goods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to perpetuate his war of Northern aggression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (AKA *the putting down of the traitorous slavers*),
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln suspended habeas corpus,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (illegally, I note. Congress didn't grant him that right for over a year after he did it)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ordered the arrested Chief Justice Taney after the Justice' opinion holding the suspension of habeas corpus to be unconditional,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know that. Well Taney was right it WAS unconstiutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the civilian courts with military ones,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in those states which were in rebellion you mean? Perfectly consitutional that.  When the civilian government is in rebellion from Republic it no longer is a legally convened court.
> 
> Martial law was in place at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> imprisoned about 14,000 dissidents for varied opposition to the warand closed about 300 newspapers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> , Interesting. I knew that some southern Pols were imprisoned (Mayor of Baltimore was, I think, for example).
> 
> Can you link us to someplace where we can learn more about those 14,000, please?
> 
> No, I'm serious, I'd like to learn more about those charges.
> 
> 
> 
> The war between the North and South was a tariff war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't, lad.
> 
> Those tarrifs you think were the primary cause of the southern treason had been in place for fourscore and a few years already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war was further, not for principle, did not touch the question of slavery, but in fact was fueled by the Northern lust for sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the principle upon which that war was fought was the principle of the 'INDIVISIBLE UNION OF STATES" which one can read about over and over again in the FEDERALIST PAPERS.
> 
> I know you truly want to find some more noble justification for the Souther slavers treason, but sadly, the very people you seek to defend made it perfectly clear that their treason was in defence of their right to own slaves and additionally their right to expand slavery into the territories.
> 
> Now one can certainly understand why those people whose capital was almost completely invested in slavery would defend what they thought of as their property rights.
> 
> 
> I mean I can completely understand why the feared losing the right to own human beings, too.
> 
> OTOH, had I been CnC at the time, I'd have ordered hung every fucking slave owning officer in the CSA that the Union armies captured during the war.
> 
> Incidently, that would have been constiutional.
> 
> So thank you fucking lucky stars (and bars), that Lincoln, and not editec was POTUS during that period.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Editec concedes the facts above but not the logic. The Vice-President of the CSA said clearly and noted that he was following Thomas Jefferson's thinking the slavery was the 'prime cause' of the Civil War.

Has anyone been able to refute that premise?  Nope.

Do folks want to argue about the role of limited federal government?  Sure.  But Lincoln kicking ass on the South has nothing to do with the cause of the Civil War.  Lincoln told the South, "Don't do that, or I will murder you."  The South did that, and the Old South died.


----------



## Centrism'sVoice

JakeStarkey said:


> Editec concedes the facts above but not the logic. The Vice-President of the CSA said clearly and noted that he was following Thomas Jefferson's thinking the slavery was the 'prime cause' of the Civil War.
> 
> Has anyone been able to refute that premise?  Nope.


The premise that slavery was the prime cause of the war? Yes. The PRIME cause of the war, as I've said, was the Union trying to preserve its access to cheap cotton. Even at the time, the conflict was described as "a rich man's war and a poor man's fight." 

Slavery was a useful argument to galvanize both sides, but not much more.


----------



## Citizen

JakeStarkey said:


> JB, I have proved that slavery was the main cause with the simple statement of the Vice-President of the CSA's 'cornerstone speech.'  Not one has posted any other cause excluding slavery, not one.
> 
> They argue as poorly as do you on atheism, which requires more faith than believing in deity.
> 
> You really are too easy to defeat in this threads, JB.



Maybe, just maybe, your reading skills are lacking because I have posted the real reason for the war of northern aggression, which was unfair tariffs that took sixty or seventy million dollars per year in the shape of duties, from the South, to be expended in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests.

The main cause, of the war, was that the North wanted high tariffs on imported goods to protect its own manufactured products, while the South wanted low tariffs on imports and exports since it exported cotton and tobacco to Europe and imported manufactured goods in exchange.  High tariffs depressed the price for Southern exports and caused them to have to pay high prices for what they bought and got low prices for what they sold because of federal tariff policy which they were powerless to change.  The South felt that they were being dominated by the mercantile interests of the North who profited from these high tariffs.

The Morill tariff of March 1861 imposed the highest tariffs in US history, with over 50% duty on iron products and 25% on clothing; rates averaged 47%.

The Northern newspapers had called for peace through conciliation until the seceding states opted for low tariffs, essentially creating a free trade zone, which the North claimed would reduce the North's foreign commerce to less than one-half and their coast wise trade would pass into other hands.  One-half of their shipping would lie idle at their wharves, and their factories would be in ruin if the South was allowed to adopt free trade systems.

In March of 1861, the New York Times ran an editorial that claimed, it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are seceding for commercial independence.  They dream that the centers of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports by a revenue system verging on free trade.

Granted, without slavery the agricultural economy of the South would not have grown to the point that they could be fiscally independent from the North by being able to export their agricultural products to Europe and import finished goods from Europe without the need to deal with the North, but since slavery was not in danger, at that time, the real reason for the war was unjust tariffs.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Cotton production rested on the back of slaves ~ thus, your cause goes back to slavery.

Try again.


----------



## Citizen

JakeStarkey said:


> was caused by the South demanding that slavery be permitted in the territories (although it already had Dred Scott) and a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the national boundaries of slavery forever.
> 
> All warlike actions were done by the South, not the North.
> 
> The seizing of federal properties and exiling of federal official was done by the South, not the North.
> 
> Every action positive to fomenting war was taken by the South, not the North.
> 
> The South fired on Old Glory at Ft Sumter, not the North.
> 
> God turned His face from the South, and guided His hammer, even Abraham Lincoln, in defeating and despoiling an enemy of the nation, even as God upheld Joshua in the despoling of the Canaanites and taking the enemy's lands as their own.  Selah.  (It's fun to write like that!)
> 
> Anyway, every contemporary of the Civil War thought the main cause was slavery.



For your information, the reason the South was opposed to new states being formed as free states was that just gave the Northern interest more power to impost their will on the Southern states which were already out voted in Congress, thus the unjust tariff policy.

Lincoln was going to evacuate Fort Sumter before the Northern commercial interests claimed that they would not pay duties on any imported goods that were not collected at Southern ports, and New York even threatened to secede from the Union and establish a free trade zone if the South was allowed to operate a free trade zone, and after realizing he faced a losing trade war Lincoln reinforced the fort and the war was upon us.

You sound like the zealots on each side of every war, in that you claim that God is on your side, and not the other, although we are not privy to God's thoughts on the issue, just some posturing on the part of those making that claim.

Also since it was not in violation of the Constitution to withdraw from the Union they had voluntary joined they had every right to do so.


----------



## Citizen

JakeStarkey said:


> Cotton production rested on the back of slaves ~ thus, your cause goes back to slavery.
> 
> Try again.



Since slavery was not in danger at the time of the War, what has that got to do with anything?


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one is arguing really whether the South had the right to secede.  The argument is whether slavery was the prime cause.  Almost every last one of the contemporaries said it was slavery.  The "cornerstone speech" by the CSA vice-president said it best.

If you don't like that, OK, but your opinion does not count -- only the evidence does.  Counter the above.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> No one is arguing really whether the South had the right to secede.  The argument is whether slavery was the prime cause.  Almost every last one of the contemporaries said it was slavery.  The "cornerstone speech" by the CSA vice-president said it best.
> 
> If you don't like that, OK, but your opinion does not count -- only the evidence does.  Counter the above.



Why would anyone continue to counter what you say when you're going to continue to ignore it?


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, KK, you are not countering me, you are supposed to countering the evidence.  Stephens' speech evidences that your contention about the primacy of slavery is wrong.  Counter that.

Quite a number of you don't understand that your opinion is worth nothing here, only the evidence.  We all have to argue from first premise.  You stated that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, did not you not?  I gave you evidence that refuted your premise.

So it's not about you or me of Mother Theresa.  It's about the evidence.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> No, KK, you are not countering me, you are supposed to countering the evidence.  Stephens' speech evidences that your contention about the primacy of slavery is wrong.  Counter that.
> 
> Quite a number of you don't understand that your opinion is worth nothing here, only the evidence.  We all have to argue from first premise.  You stated that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, did not you not?  I gave you evidence that refuted your premise.
> 
> So it's not about you or me of Mother Theresa.  It's about the evidence.



I have said all along that slavery was a reason they seceded, it certainly wasn't the cause of the Civil War.  You've simply been ignoring that and all the evidence provided to support it.


----------



## Citizen

JakeStarkey said:


> No one is arguing really whether the South had the right to secede.  The argument is whether slavery was the prime cause.  Almost every last one of the contemporaries said it was slavery.  The "cornerstone speech" by the CSA vice-president said it best.
> 
> If you don't like that, OK, but your opinion does not count -- only the evidence does.  Counter the above.



Contrary to your beliefs, the evidence does support the fact that the South seceded over unjust tariffs, and that slavery was not in danger since Lincoln has already pledged to enforce the fugitive salve law, declared he had no right or intention to interfere with slavery, and supported a new irrevocable constitutional amendment to protect slavery forever.

Given that the South had Lincoln's guarantee that the institution of slavery was not in danger, why should they secede over slavery when it was unjust tariffs that was breaking their backs. 

The very fact that Congress had imposed unjust tariffs, against the interest of the South, that averaged 47% causing the South to pay an undue portion of federal revenues which were expended mostly in the North, combined with the fact that Fort Sumner, the fort blocking the Charleston harbor, which was going to be evacuated was instead reinforced, was the actual reason for the war.

Lest we forget, the South paid 87% of the tariffs in 1860.  They paid 83% of the $13,000,000 federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35,000,000 to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports.  The South was in fact paying tribute to the North, and secession was the only way to stop this practice.

Also if the abolition of slavery was the cause the Union fought for, why were the 250,000 slaves held in the Northern states not freed until the 13th amendment was passed, in lieu of freeing them at the start of the war?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Vice-president of the CSA disagrees with your argument.  He said slavery was the "prime" cause, and that Jefferson agreed with him.

So go argue with Stephens and Jefferson.

Sheesh, guys, the contemporaries believed the main problem was slavery.

That part of the debate is over.

What else do you wish to discuss?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> The Vice-president of the CSA disagrees with your argument.  He said slavery was the "prime" cause, and that Jefferson agreed with him.
> 
> So go argue with Stephens and Jefferson.
> 
> Sheesh, guys, the contemporaries believed the main problem was slavery.
> 
> That part of the debate is over.
> 
> What else do you wish to discuss?



Yet you're still ignoring all the evidence that has been provided to the contrary.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Positive legal right is a fool's chase, JB.  You have lost that argument.  And you have no critical evidence that God does not exist.  JB, you are OK in your way, but you are wrong on these points.



I *am* god and you cannot prove otherwise. 



JakeStarkey said:


> Cotton production rested on the back of slaves ~ thus, your cause goes back to slavery.
> 
> Try again.



Actually, it goes back to the economic interests of Union businessmen- the same financial interests that later led to the Monroe doctrine and our refusal to recognize the right to self-determination in Cuba and other nations. It all started in earnest with Lincooln.



JakeStarkey said:


> All warlike actions were done by the South, not the North.



Like keeping an armed fort in another nation's land? 




> God turned His face from the South, and guided His hammer, even Abraham Lincoln, in defeating and despoiling an enemy of the nation, even as God upheld Joshua in the despoling of the Canaanites and taking the enemy's lands as their own.  Selah.  (It's fun to write like that!)







JakeStarkey said:


> No one is arguing really whether the South had the right to secede.  The argument is whether slavery was the prime cause.



Motivations don't matter except to those who wish to convince their contemporaries to support one's actions.


----------



## paperview

Citizen said:


> ...
> 
> Lest we forget, the South paid 87% of the tariffs in 1860.  They paid 83% of the $13,000,000 federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35,000,000 to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports.  The South was in fact paying tribute to the North, and secession was the only way to stop this practice.



Please provide some links to back this data up.  And it would be nice if they were not CSA blogs.



> Also if the abolition of slavery was the cause the Union fought for, why were the 250,000 slaves held in the Northern states not freed until the 13th amendment was passed, in lieu of freeing them at the start of the war?


Because that would have antagonized the border states (of which you are referring) into possibly seceding and joining the CSA.

Easy.


----------



## bodecea

Sunni Man said:


> "The War of Northern Aggression", also known in the northern states, as the Civil War.
> 
> Was an illegal war and violated the Constitution.



The South never should have started it...agreed.


----------



## bodecea

Citizen said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cotton production rested on the back of slaves ~ thus, your cause goes back to slavery.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since slavery was not in danger at the time of the War, what has that got to do with anything?
Click to expand...


You could not have convinced those in power in the South of that...even tho Lincoln tried in his 1st Inaugural Speech.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

bodecea said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The War of Northern Aggression", also known in the northern states, as the Civil War.
> 
> Was an illegal war and violated the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The South never should have started it...agreed.
Click to expand...


Lincoln shouldn't have backed them into a corner with no other choice.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

bodecea said:


> Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cotton production rested on the back of slaves ~ thus, your cause goes back to slavery.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since slavery was not in danger at the time of the War, what has that got to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could not have convinced those in power in the South of that...even tho Lincoln tried in his 1st Inaugural Speech.
Click to expand...


You're ignoring the fact that Lincoln ran on a platform of higher tariffs which is why he had no support in the south.


----------



## editec

Citizen said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cotton production rested on the back of slaves ~ thus, your cause goes back to slavery.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since slavery was not in danger at the time of the War, what has that got to do with anything?
Click to expand...

 
Why not ask the people who started the war?

If one reads their own words one discovers that they started the war because the FEARED that slavery would be owtlawed eventually.

Plus, as they wanted to expand slavery into the territories, and thought that would not happen, they fought for their indpendence to do so.

Had they won their war for indepndence, there'd have more additional wars as they attempted to wrest control of the territories from the Republic , too.

Slavery was the root cause of the war.

Tariffs were annoying, but not annoying enough to rebel.


----------



## BolshevikHunter

It wasn't about Slavery. That is 1960's red diaper doper baby revisionist bullcrap. It was about State rights, all State rights which would include the right to own a slave. Read it and study it. I am talking about Books that were written on the subject prior to the 1960's. Plus, We all know the victors write the History Books, and what a cute story it is. It paints their cause as the righteous one, when in fact the Federal Government made slaves of The States and it's citizens.

Luckily, There were still Historian truth seekers that wrote alot of good pieces on The War Between The States.The was the War of Northern agression. The Federal Government wanted their power and they got it. The people lost, and you can see the result today. It has grown into an out of control monster. Slavery would have ended up being aboloshed anyway by the way. The compassionate Federal Government didn't even get around to treating Blacks as humanbeings until the 1960's. What a load of bullcrap. ~BH


----------



## JakeStarkey

BH is full of BS and KK knows better.

We have been through this thoroughly.

Slavery was, is, and forever will be the root, the "prime" cause of the war.  You will not find one contemporary of that conflict who wrote or said that it wasn't the cause.  Not one.


----------



## BolshevikHunter

JakeStarkey said:


> BH is full of BS and KK knows better.
> 
> We have been through this thoroughly.
> 
> Slavery was, is, and forever will be the root, the "prime" cause of the war.  You will not find one contemporary of that conflict who wrote or said that it wasn't the cause.  Not one.



Hey Jake, You seem to make it a habit of being full of bs here every day and everybody knows it bro. You're the perfect example of a good little sheople yes man. If you actually had studied what you are discussing than you would understand just how wrong you are. You don't have to swallow every load of revisionist bullcrap that you were fed by some Red diaper doper baby berkinstock wearing Proffessor. ~BH


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> BH is full of BS and KK knows better.
> 
> We have been through this thoroughly.
> 
> Slavery was, is, and forever will be the root, the "prime" cause of the war.  You will not find one contemporary of that conflict who wrote or said that it wasn't the cause.  Not one.



Lincoln himself said that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, as has already been proven to you in this thread.


----------



## Citizen

JakeStarkey said:


> BH is full of BS and KK knows better.
> 
> We have been through this thoroughly.
> 
> Slavery was, is, and forever will be the root, the "prime" cause of the war.  You will not find one contemporary of that conflict who wrote or said that it wasn't the cause.  Not one.



Speaking of contemporaries, would you consider the North American Review printed in 1862 as a contemporary, if so they wrote that: "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion."

An editorial in the Charleston Mercury, in 1860, stated:  "The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."

On January 21, 1861, just five days before Louisiana seceded fro the Union, the New Orleans Daily Crescent printed the following editorial: "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the peoples pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests... These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

Although you may not consider these sources to be contemporary, since they point out the real reason for the war of Northern aggression was really the unjust tariffs imposed on the South by the Northern controlled Congress, I do.


----------



## Polk

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We supported the states that seceded from the Soviet Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We refused to supprt their right to self-determination whenever it wasn't our system or in our interest. Justr like Central America. See: banana republics; Cuba, Batista...
> 
> We also support the tyranny of the Czar when the Red Revolution began.
> 
> It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them'
> -Alfred Adler
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.  Well, we supported their right to secede from the Soviet Union at any rate.
Click to expand...


But only because doing so was to our advantage. Not that it's a bad thing.


----------



## paperview

Citizen said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> BH is full of BS and KK knows better.
> 
> We have been through this thoroughly.
> 
> Slavery was, is, and forever will be the root, the "prime" cause of the war.  You will not find one contemporary of that conflict who wrote or said that it wasn't the cause.  Not one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of contemporaries, would you consider the North American Review printed in 1862 as a contemporary, if so they wrote that: "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion."
> 
> ....
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should *read* that article you refer to in the 1862 article in the North American Review.

Here it is: The North American review - Google Books


----------



## Citizen

paperview said:


> Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> BH is full of BS and KK knows better.
> 
> We have been through this thoroughly.
> 
> Slavery was, is, and forever will be the root, the "prime" cause of the war.  You will not find one contemporary of that conflict who wrote or said that it wasn't the cause.  Not one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of contemporaries, would you consider the North American Review printed in 1862 as a contemporary, if so they wrote that: "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion."
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should *read* that article you refer to in the 1862 article in the North American Review.
> 
> Here it is: The North American review - Google Books
Click to expand...


You seem to overlook the other articles I mentioned, except for the one from the North.


----------



## paperview

Citizen said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of contemporaries, would you consider the North American Review printed in 1862 as a contemporary, if so they wrote that: "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion."
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should *read* that article you refer to in the 1862 article in the North American Review.
> 
> Here it is: The North American review - Google Books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to overlook the other articles I mentioned, except for the one from the North.
Click to expand...

Er, there's a reason for that.

The other ones are der...from the South.

lol.

Kinda hard owing up to the fact you are fighting for the right to own people.  Even if it was pretty clearly stated in the Secession documents.

You didn't read the original article from the North American Review, did you.

You should.  You might find it quite interesting.


----------



## bodecea

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The War of Northern Aggression", also known in the northern states, as the Civil War.
> 
> Was an illegal war and violated the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The South never should have started it...agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln shouldn't have backed them into a corner with no other choice.
Click to expand...


HOw did he back the South into a corner?


(this I got to hear.....)


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

bodecea said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South never should have started it...agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln shouldn't have backed them into a corner with no other choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HOw did he back the South into a corner?
> 
> 
> (this I got to hear.....)
Click to expand...


Refusing to meet with the Confederate delegates sent by Jefferson Davis to try and pay for all federal property in the Confederacy and the Confederates' portion of the national debt.  By trying to resupply a Union fort within South Carolina's borders knowing full well that the south would try to stop him from doing so.  Lincoln provoked the south into attacking to stir up public sentiment against the Confederates, since before Fort Sumter most in the north believed that the states had the right to secede peacefully.


----------



## Equat

What difference does it make if the Confederacy had the right to secede? They, like Cuba, were granted peaceful succession from the US. Since they attacked Sumter, they experienced a response the same as Castro would receive if he were foolish enough to attack Guantanamo.


----------



## rdean

The Confederacy and States' Rights

Oops, I thought it was about the Republican Party.


----------



## Charles Stucker

Equat said:


> What difference does it make if the Confederacy had the right to secede? They, like Cuba, were granted peaceful succession from the US. Since they attacked Sumter, they experienced a response the same as Castro would receive if he were foolish enough to attack Guantanamo.


First - old thread.
Second- Bullshit.
Lincoln had *Absolutely NO Intention* of allowing the Southern states to secede. Fort Sumter was a convenient excuse, but rest assured that Lincoln was quite clear in his determination to prevent secession. Misinformed jackasses like you are the reason socialism advances today.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conclusion does not follow from the premise, Charles Stucker.  That is one of the more ignorant comments this month on the forum.


----------



## Equat

Do you disagree with the timeline of sucession at wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The word is spelled "secession".  Equat, KK is often wrong, for instance, most in the North thought secession was lawful.  However, KK is spot on that Lincoln set up the South by forcing it to fire on the national flag, which infuriated the northern Democrats and brought the North down upon the South.


----------



## Charles Stucker

Equat said:


> Do you disagree with the timeline of sucession at wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter ?



Not in the least.
But even without Fort Sumter, Lincoln was seeking *ANY* excuse to attack the secessionist states.
Do you recall that Lincoln *NEVER* even while blockading Southern ports, recognized they had seceded? 
A nation does not blockade their own ports, which is the fiction Lincoln maintained about Confederate ports. A nation announces their own ports are closed. 

Do you understand now? Read a book on Lincoln and the Civil war, trying to cover the ground here would take longer than this forum supports.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Lincoln made it clear in his inaugural address that he was going to invade the south if they refused to pay their taxes and tariffs to the federal government, and he forced the south's hand because he did not have northern sentiment on his side until Fort Sumter.


----------



## Equat

JakeStarkey said:


> The word is spelled "secession".  Equat, KK is often wrong, for instance, most in the North thought secession was lawful.  However, KK is spot on that Lincoln set up the South by forcing it to fire on the national flag, which infuriated the northern Democrats and brought the North down upon the South.



Thanks for the grammar correction. Regardless of Lincoln's alleged intentions, aren't war's fought based on who fire's first (e.g. the Japs in WWII)? Don't the vicotors have the priviledge of writing history and having the final say? Do we grant the Japs the right to blame the US for WWII since the US cut off Jap oil supply for refusing to leave China? Japs lost the right to write history like the Germans lost the right to blame the Russians for killing more Jews than the Germans in WWII because they lost. Do we grant the loosers of all our conflicts the final say in History? If not, then isn't it hypocritical to grant the Confederacy such a right? Note: The Japs & Germans don't dispute the US's right to occupy them and have the last word in history? They respect and love us and we them. They understand "Christian" forgiveness by practicing Christianity more than those who merely profess the religion.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Lincoln made it clear in his inaugural address that he was going to invade the south if they refused to pay their taxes and tariffs to the federal government, and he forced the south's hand because he did not have northern sentiment on his side until Fort Sumter.



Where did Lincoln state such as you claim? I read his address at showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Apples and Oranges, and for all of that, unimportant.

The South probably had the right to secede, yet still made the wrong choice because Lincoln maneuvered them into starting the war, and the North spanked and cranked and tanked and wanked the Southern booty awfully, terribly, brutally hard.

And the South deserved what it got.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it clear in his inaugural address that he was going to invade the south if they refused to pay their taxes and tariffs to the federal government, and he forced the south's hand because he did not have northern sentiment on his side until Fort Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Lincoln state such as you claim? I read his address at showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm.
Click to expand...


"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."

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989


----------



## Equat

JakeStarkey said:


> Apples and Oranges, and for all of that, unimportant.
> 
> The South probably had the right to secede, yet still made the wrong choice because Lincoln maneuvered them into starting the war, and the North spanked and cranked and tanked and wanked the Southern booty awfully, terribly, brutally hard.
> 
> And the South deserved what it got.



The US handed over all except 4 military installations to the South prior to Sumter. This dispells the myth that the US was unwilling to allow the Confederacy to secede. 

My reasoning for mentioning Christianity is because Lee claimed that the Confederacy was Christian.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Actually only two federal military installations located in the South remained in the North's hands by the time Lincoln came to office.  He had three goals: (1) to preserve the Union; (2) to protect federal property in the South; and (3) to ensure that the South would respect and follow (at the point of a sword if necessary) due constitutional process, i.e., the Republicans won the election and Lincoln was president.

Lincoln had absolutely no intention of letting Buchanan's lack of action be the guide for his presidency.


----------



## Charles Stucker

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it clear in his inaugural address that he was going to invade the south if they refused to pay their taxes and tariffs to the federal government, and he forced the south's hand because he did not have northern sentiment on his side until Fort Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Lincoln state such as you claim? I read his address at showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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."
> 
> Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989
Click to expand...

Lincoln made it even more clear that he *WOULD NOT* allow states to secede
from the same address


> 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. 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.	12
> Again: 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?


That"all" in to lawfully rescind it is the same as saying "Unless the tyranny of the masses agrees to release some states from perpetual servitude, the states cannot legally secede"
and of course since his oath includes the *Requirement* to enforce the law, he gets to use whatever force is needed to arrest the lawbreakers.
Except of course the minor fact that using the army for enforcing the law is illegal and unconstitutional.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Charles Stucker said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Lincoln state such as you claim? I read his address at showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "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."
> 
> Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it even more clear that he *WOULD NOT* allow states to secede
> from the same address
> 
> 
> 
> 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. 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.	12
> Again: 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That"all" in to lawfully rescind it is the same as saying "Unless the tyranny of the masses agrees to release some states from perpetual servitude, the states cannot legally secede"
> and of course since his oath includes the *Requirement* to enforce the law, he gets to use whatever force is needed to arrest the lawbreakers.
> Except of course the minor fact that using the army for enforcing the law is illegal and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Not to mention Lincoln's revisionist history.  It was not a majority that ratified the Constitution and then it applied to everyone, but every state individually ratified it.  Meaning that any state could individually choose to leave the compact just as freely as they entered.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The states were merely the agents of the Will of the People, which formed an indivisible union.  That is what Jackson, Houston, Lincoln, Webster, Clay, and millions of other Americans believed.  And they enforced it to the South's gasping and agonizing dismay.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> The states were merely the agents of the Will of the People, which formed an indivisible union.  That is what Jackson, Houston, Lincoln, Webster, Clay, and millions of other Americans believed.  And they enforced it to the South's gasping and agonizing dismay.



And the people of the south spoke when they voted to disassociate themselves with the Union to create their own.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only Texas permitted its citizens to vote on the secession ordinance.  It would have taken an amendatory supermajority to dissolve the Union, and the South by itself could not do it.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Only Texas permitted its citizens to vote on the secession ordinance.



I'm sorry didn't you just say the states were the agents of the will of the people?  If they didn't want to secede then secession wouldn't have happened.  Look at West Virginia for example.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Texas permitted its citizens to vote on the secession ordinance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry didn't you just say the states were the agents of the will of the people?  If they didn't want to secede then secession wouldn't have happened.  Look at West Virginia for example.
Click to expand...


You lost learn to live with it.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Texas permitted its citizens to vote on the secession ordinance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry didn't you just say the states were the agents of the will of the people?  If they didn't want to secede then secession wouldn't have happened.  Look at West Virginia for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost learn to live with it.
Click to expand...


I didn't know there was a competition.  Or were you referencing the Civil War?  Because I live in Ohio.  We stayed in the Union.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The South lost and the Union prevailed, further they cemented their win with Court rulings. Congress would have to establish a procedure for the States to ever be able to legally leave the Union. They have done no such thing so no State can leave the Union.

The Southern States had no right to leave the Union in 1860 either. Only by WINNING the Civil War would they have been able to justify their leaving, they lost, they had no right to leave in the manner they attempted to leave.

Pretty simple concept really.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery. 

The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

RetiredGySgt said:


> The South lost and the Union prevailed, further they cemented their win with Court rulings. Congress would have to establish a procedure for the States to ever be able to legally leave the Union. They have done no such thing so no State can leave the Union.
> 
> *The Southern States had no right to leave the Union in 1860 either. Only by WINNING the Civil War would they have been able to justify their leaving, they lost, they had no right to leave in the manner they attempted to leave.*
> Pretty simple concept really.



Yes and no. The states had the right to leave in what ever manner they wished. They had the legal high ground, the problem was that the Union had the moral high ground.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CrimsonWhite said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South lost and the Union prevailed, further they cemented their win with Court rulings. Congress would have to establish a procedure for the States to ever be able to legally leave the Union. They have done no such thing so no State can leave the Union.
> 
> *The Southern States had no right to leave the Union in 1860 either. Only by WINNING the Civil War would they have been able to justify their leaving, they lost, they had no right to leave in the manner they attempted to leave.*
> Pretty simple concept really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. The states had the right to leave in what ever manner they wished. They had the legal high ground, the problem was that the Union had the moral high ground.
Click to expand...


They had NO LEGAL grounds at all. That was the whole point. Not only was there no procedure for leaving the States had no grounds to leave. The Union had bent over backwards accommodating the South since the Union was formed. And in the 1850's had even created new legislation to appease them and they had won Supreme Court Cases in regards slaves and the North.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

RetiredGySgt said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South lost and the Union prevailed, further they cemented their win with Court rulings. Congress would have to establish a procedure for the States to ever be able to legally leave the Union. They have done no such thing so no State can leave the Union.
> 
> *The Southern States had no right to leave the Union in 1860 either. Only by WINNING the Civil War would they have been able to justify their leaving, they lost, they had no right to leave in the manner they attempted to leave.*
> Pretty simple concept really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. The states had the right to leave in what ever manner they wished. They had the legal high ground, the problem was that the Union had the moral high ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had NO LEGAL grounds at all. That was the whole point. Not only was there no procedure for leaving the States had no grounds to leave. The Union had bent over backwards accommodating the South since the Union was formed. And in the 1850's had even created new legislation to appease them and they had won Supreme Court Cases in regards slaves and the North.
Click to expand...


They had the same legal grounds to secede as the Republic of Texas has to secede from Mexico or that the colonies had to secede from the British Empire. What part of the Constitution did the South violate by leaving. Where was law prohibiting them to do so? There wasn't. So in the absence of law, there was no illegal act. _Texas v. White_, though ruling that the States had no right to secede(after the fact with a radical Supreme Court BTW), it allowed some possibility of divisibility through revolution, or through consent of the States. This is the only case that deals with seceesion and its legality and it extremely vague and was meant to be. The only thing that made what the South did illegal is its military loss. Had they won or just negotiated a peacful end, then we would be looking at ths a whole lot different. 

But let me lay this on you. If the States had no right to secede to begin with, then why did Congress have to readmit them on litmus? If they had no right to secede, shouldn't they have already been in the Unon to begin with(as _Texas v. White_ rules) and not eligible for readmittance as they were already members? Fact s they legally seceded, they lost the war and the Union had to readmit them on litmus. 

Sit down old man, I do this for a living.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CrimsonWhite said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. The states had the right to leave in what ever manner they wished. They had the legal high ground, the problem was that the Union had the moral high ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had NO LEGAL grounds at all. That was the whole point. Not only was there no procedure for leaving the States had no grounds to leave. The Union had bent over backwards accommodating the South since the Union was formed. And in the 1850's had even created new legislation to appease them and they had won Supreme Court Cases in regards slaves and the North.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had the same legal grounds to secede as the Republic of Texas has to secede from Mexico or that the colonies had to secede from the British Empire. What part of the Constitution did the South violate by leaving. Where was law prohibiting them to do so? There wasn't. So in the absence of law, there was no illegal act. _Texas v. White_, though ruling that the States had no right to secede(after the fact with a radical Supreme Court BTW), it allowed some possibility of divisibility through revolution, or through consent of the States. This is the only case that deals with seceesion and its legality and it extremely vague and was meant to be. The only thing that made what the South did illegal is its military loss. Had they won or just negotiated a peacful end, then we would be looking at ths a whole lot different.
> 
> But let me lay this on you. If the States had no right to secede to begin with, then why did Congress have to readmit them on litmus? If they had no right to secede, shouldn't they have already been in the Unon to begin with(as _Texas v. White_ rules) and not eligible for readmittance as they were already members? Fact s they legally seceded, they lost the war and the Union had to readmit them on litmus.
> 
> Sit down old man, I do this for a living.
Click to expand...


The original plan was that they were still States. That was Lincoln's plan followed by Johnson. The Radical Republicans running Congress would have nothing to do with it and nearly impeached Johnson and created Reconstruction through act of Congress.

The Union was binding on all. YES revolution or Civil War won would split the Country, but no LEGAL move would until addressed by Congress. It took a super Majority to create the Union and it takes  an act of Congress to split it.


----------



## JW Frogen

I think it was for the best the South lost the Civil War, it ended slavery and the South would have been at each others' throats with the states rights idiocy for decades had they won. Mexico might even have picked some of the territory back.

Still, I prefer Bryan hot dogs to Oscar Myer.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

RetiredGySgt said:


> The South lost and the Union prevailed, further they cemented their win with Court rulings. Congress would have to establish a procedure for the States to ever be able to legally leave the Union. They have done no such thing so no State can leave the Union.
> 
> The Southern States had no right to leave the Union in 1860 either. Only by WINNING the Civil War would they have been able to justify their leaving, they lost, they had no right to leave in the manner they attempted to leave.
> 
> Pretty simple concept really.



"Might makes right" is a simple concept, you're right about that.  However, the Constitution is what matters, and the Constitution does not forbid the states from seceding.  But we all know Lincoln didn't really care about the Constitution.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

RetiredGySgt said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had NO LEGAL grounds at all. That was the whole point. Not only was there no procedure for leaving the States had no grounds to leave. The Union had bent over backwards accommodating the South since the Union was formed. And in the 1850's had even created new legislation to appease them and they had won Supreme Court Cases in regards slaves and the North.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had the same legal grounds to secede as the Republic of Texas has to secede from Mexico or that the colonies had to secede from the British Empire. What part of the Constitution did the South violate by leaving. Where was law prohibiting them to do so? There wasn't. So in the absence of law, there was no illegal act. _Texas v. White_, though ruling that the States had no right to secede(after the fact with a radical Supreme Court BTW), it allowed some possibility of divisibility through revolution, or through consent of the States. This is the only case that deals with seceesion and its legality and it extremely vague and was meant to be. The only thing that made what the South did illegal is its military loss. Had they won or just negotiated a peacful end, then we would be looking at ths a whole lot different.
> 
> But let me lay this on you. If the States had no right to secede to begin with, then why did Congress have to readmit them on litmus? If they had no right to secede, shouldn't they have already been in the Unon to begin with(as _Texas v. White_ rules) and not eligible for readmittance as they were already members? Fact s they legally seceded, they lost the war and the Union had to readmit them on litmus.
> 
> Sit down old man, I do this for a living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original plan was that they were still States. That was Lincoln's plan followed by Johnson. The Radical Republicans running Congress would have nothing to do with it and nearly impeached Johnson and created Reconstruction through act of Congress.
> 
> The Union was binding on all. YES revolution or Civil War won would split the Country, but no LEGAL move would until addressed by Congress. It took a super Majority to create the Union and it takes  an act of Congress to split it.
Click to expand...


Yet an act of Congress gave creedence to the split by forcng the South to readmit. You just made my point for me and you don't even know it. By requiring a litmus for readmittance Congress recognized the Confederacy as a seperate nation and the Southern States as conquered colonies. 

Furthermore, you have no legal evidence of your claim that it takes an act of Congress to split the Union. Where is that in the Constitution? Don't bother looking it isn't there.

I will give you however that there is no right or wrong answer to this question. I have successfully argued both sides of this case in moot court. It is not as simple as you make it sound and there are very good point son each side. Fact is, the issue to this day has not been address by law. Salmon Chase wrote the majority opinion in _Texas v. White_ and was hated by both sides for it. It settled nothing. So for me it goes back to the basic principle of law. If the law does not exist, then in a court of law it is not illegal. However, it here that our morals and common sense are supposed to come forth. Was it right for the South to secede? 620,000 men died looking for the answer and we are nowhere close to it today.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

CrimsonWhite said:


> I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.
> 
> The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.



It's true that their agrarian economy made it so that tariffs hurt them while it helped the industrial north, and that their agrarian economy made slavery a viable system as well.  However, slave owners were a minority in the south, so it's not entirely correct to say that the economic reasons for secession all fall back to slavery.

Also, the Civil War was not fought to grant human beings freedom.  Lincoln's only goal was to bring the southern states back into the Union.  Freeing the slaves was simply an afterthought that he used to try to further hurt the south, and to make it so that other nations, such as Great Britain, would not aid a slave nation such as the Confederacy.

As for arguing it's righteousness, I can certainly argue that.  Every other civilized nation ended slavery peacefully during that period, why is it that we supposedly needed to destroy the south for that to happen?


----------



## CrimsonWhite

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.
> 
> The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's true that their agrarian economy made it so that tariffs hurt them while it helped the industrial north, and that their agrarian economy made slavery a viable system as well.  However, slave owners were a minority in the south, so it's not entirely correct to say that the economic reasons for secession all fall back to slavery.
> 
> Also, the Civil War was not fought to grant human beings freedom.  Lincoln's only goal was to bring the southern states back into the Union.  Freeing the slaves was simply an afterthought that he used to try to further hurt the south, and to make it so that other nations, such as Great Britain, would not aid a slave nation such as the Confederacy.*
> 
> As for arguing it's righteousness, I can certainly argue that.  Every other civilized nation ended slavery peacefully during that period, why is it that we supposedly needed to destroy the south for that to happen?
Click to expand...


Try again. Slavery was the basis for the Southern economy. Cotton was merely a bi-product of it. Your argument is based on the assumption that Lincoln started the war, when the opposite is the case. Remember that Casus Belli lies in the firing on Fort Sumter by the South. The South brought the war. They brought it to create a nation in which slavery would be protected.(See seccessionst commisioners speeches and Alexander Stephens' inaugural address.) Also, slavery was growing at an exponential rate, so the argue that slavery would die out peacefully is naive at best.

Slaveowners were a minority, but they controlled the South. Also, a general resentment towards colored people existed in the south that directly led to the States each voting to secede one by one. (again, see seccessonist commisioners speeches)

Yes, the Emancipation Proclamation was an afterthought and Lincoln even resisted it, but that stll does not change the fact that south went to war to protect and institution that was not even being attacked, but actually protected by the Constitution. The South started it on the premise of protecting the states right to enslave colored folks and they lost.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

CrimsonWhite said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.
> 
> The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's true that their agrarian economy made it so that tariffs hurt them while it helped the industrial north, and that their agrarian economy made slavery a viable system as well.  However, slave owners were a minority in the south, so it's not entirely correct to say that the economic reasons for secession all fall back to slavery.
> 
> Also, the Civil War was not fought to grant human beings freedom.  Lincoln's only goal was to bring the southern states back into the Union.  Freeing the slaves was simply an afterthought that he used to try to further hurt the south, and to make it so that other nations, such as Great Britain, would not aid a slave nation such as the Confederacy.*
> 
> As for arguing it's righteousness, I can certainly argue that.  Every other civilized nation ended slavery peacefully during that period, why is it that we supposedly needed to destroy the south for that to happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again. Slavery was the basis for the Southern economy. Cotton was merely a bi-product of it. Your argument is based on the assumption that Lincoln started the war, when the opposite is the case. Remember that Casus Belli lies in the firing on Fort Sumter by the South. The South brought the war. They brought it to create a nation in which slavery would be protected.(See seccessionst commisioners speeches and Alexander Stephens' inaugural address.) Also, slavery was growing at an exponential rate, so the argue that slavery would die out peacefully is naive at best.
Click to expand...


As I've said before, Lincoln gave the south no other choice but to fire on Fort Sumter because he wanted to invade the south.  He said as much in his inaugural address, and he simply needed northern sympathy on his side which he didn't have until Fort Sumter.

I don't deny that they seceded partly to protect slavery.  Though I don't feel that slavery was ever threatened by Lincoln, because of his support for the Corwin Amendment.

Their agrarian economy was also becoming more industrialized, which meant that slavery was becoming less economical.  Because of this, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both believed that slavery would simply fade on its own in the south the way it did in the north.


----------



## Equat

I see no substantiation in Lincoln's Address for your assertions.


----------



## Equat

I see no mention that Lincoln intended to invade anyone unless they started the fight nor do I see any mention that Lincoln discussed taxes in his address.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's true that their agrarian economy made it so that tariffs hurt them while it helped the industrial north, and that their agrarian economy made slavery a viable system as well.  However, slave owners were a minority in the south, so it's not entirely correct to say that the economic reasons for secession all fall back to slavery.
> 
> Also, the Civil War was not fought to grant human beings freedom.  Lincoln's only goal was to bring the southern states back into the Union.  Freeing the slaves was simply an afterthought that he used to try to further hurt the south, and to make it so that other nations, such as Great Britain, would not aid a slave nation such as the Confederacy.*
> 
> As for arguing it's righteousness, I can certainly argue that.  Every other civilized nation ended slavery peacefully during that period, why is it that we supposedly needed to destroy the south for that to happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again. Slavery was the basis for the Southern economy. Cotton was merely a bi-product of it. Your argument is based on the assumption that Lincoln started the war, when the opposite is the case. Remember that Casus Belli lies in the firing on Fort Sumter by the South. The South brought the war. They brought it to create a nation in which slavery would be protected.(See seccessionst commisioners speeches and Alexander Stephens' inaugural address.) Also, slavery was growing at an exponential rate, so the argue that slavery would die out peacefully is naive at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I've said before, Lincoln gave the south no other choice but to fire on Fort Sumter because he wanted to invade the south.  He said as much in his inaugural address, and he simply needed northern sympathy on his side which he didn't have until Fort Sumter.
> 
> I don't deny that they seceded partly to protect slavery.  Though I don't feel that slavery was ever threatened by Lincoln, because of his support for the Corwin Amendment.
> 
> Their agrarian economy was also becoming more industrialized, which meant that slavery was becoming less economical.  Because of this, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both believed that slavery would simply fade on its own in the south the way it did in the north.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. Show me in his address where he said that. 

The beliefs of Jefferson and Lee are in contrast to actual numbers. In 1860 the average slave was worth $878 and the institution of slavery was worth $3.5 billion. That is real money and in no way supports your thesis that slavery was dying. The domestic slave trade was booming.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> I see no mention that Lincoln intended to invade anyone unless they started the fight nor do I see any mention that Lincoln discussed taxes in his address.



Well I recommend you read the part of his address I quoted a bit closer.  He's saying there shall be no invasion if they pay their tribute to the federal government, implicitly saying there will be an invasion if they don't.


----------



## Equat

JakeStarkey said:


> Actually only two federal military installations located in the South remained in the North's hands by the time Lincoln came to office.  He had three goals: (1) to preserve the Union; (2) to protect federal property in the South; and (3) to ensure that the South would respect and follow (at the point of a sword if necessary) due constitutional process, i.e., the Republicans won the election and Lincoln was president.
> 
> Lincoln had absolutely no intention of letting Buchanan's lack of action be the guide for his presidency.



Do you believe that Lincoln intended to reverse Buchanan's actions by attacking the seceded states? Regardless of his intentions, Lincoln didn't have a Bay of Pigs invasion to justify (consistend with neo-Confederate reasoning) Sumter as Castro would have had to attack Quantanamo.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

CrimsonWhite said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try again. Slavery was the basis for the Southern economy. Cotton was merely a bi-product of it. Your argument is based on the assumption that Lincoln started the war, when the opposite is the case. Remember that Casus Belli lies in the firing on Fort Sumter by the South. The South brought the war. They brought it to create a nation in which slavery would be protected.(See seccessionst commisioners speeches and Alexander Stephens' inaugural address.) Also, slavery was growing at an exponential rate, so the argue that slavery would die out peacefully is naive at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said before, Lincoln gave the south no other choice but to fire on Fort Sumter because he wanted to invade the south.  He said as much in his inaugural address, and he simply needed northern sympathy on his side which he didn't have until Fort Sumter.
> 
> I don't deny that they seceded partly to protect slavery.  Though I don't feel that slavery was ever threatened by Lincoln, because of his support for the Corwin Amendment.
> 
> Their agrarian economy was also becoming more industrialized, which meant that slavery was becoming less economical.  Because of this, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both believed that slavery would simply fade on its own in the south the way it did in the north.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Show me in his address where he said that.
> 
> The beliefs of Jefferson and Lee are in contrast to actual numbers. In 1860 the average slave was worth $878 and the institution of slavery was worth $3.5 billion. That is real money and in no way supports your thesis that slavery was dying. The domestic slave trade was booming.
Click to expand...


"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."

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

The fact that the south's economy was indeed industrializing means that slavery would no longer be economical.  You can point to the price of slaves but the fact is that slavery is really only viable in an agrarian economy, and, as we saw in the north, as an economy industrializes slavery is no longer economical as opposed to paid educated workers.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said before, Lincoln gave the south no other choice but to fire on Fort Sumter because he wanted to invade the south.  He said as much in his inaugural address, and he simply needed northern sympathy on his side which he didn't have until Fort Sumter.
> 
> I don't deny that they seceded partly to protect slavery.  Though I don't feel that slavery was ever threatened by Lincoln, because of his support for the Corwin Amendment.
> 
> Their agrarian economy was also becoming more industrialized, which meant that slavery was becoming less economical.  Because of this, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both believed that slavery would simply fade on its own in the south the way it did in the north.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Show me in his address where he said that.
> 
> The beliefs of Jefferson and Lee are in contrast to actual numbers. In 1860 the average slave was worth $878 and the institution of slavery was worth $3.5 billion. That is real money and in no way supports your thesis that slavery was dying. The domestic slave trade was booming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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."
> 
> Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989
> 
> The fact that the south's economy was indeed industrializing means that slavery would no longer be economical.  You can point to the price of slaves but the fact is that slavery is really only viable in an agrarian economy, and, as we saw in the north, as an economy industrializes slavery is no longer economical as opposed to paid educated workers.
Click to expand...


That quote does nothng to support what you say it does. And there may be like three people in the acdemic world that agree with you on the use of slaves in agrarian society vs. slaves in an industrial society. You think slaves couldn't run a sawmill or foundry? Slavery was its own economy and its own society. You really should stop regurgitating everything some Community College history professor says and use you fucking head. God knows you ar esmart enough to do so.

 But I leave you to it. Good night.


----------



## Equat

Not to mention Lincoln's revisionist history.  It was not a majority that ratified the Constitution and then it applied to everyone, but every state individually ratified it.  Meaning that any state could individually choose to leave the compact just as freely as they entered.[/QUOTE]

The legal question of secession is not very relevant since certain states were already granted their independence as Cuba was in later years, without re-occupation (disregarding Kennedy's Pay of Pigs Invasion). The Civil War was consequential to Sumpter as a re-occupation of Cuba would have been if they attacked Guantanamo.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

CrimsonWhite said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Show me in his address where he said that.
> 
> The beliefs of Jefferson and Lee are in contrast to actual numbers. In 1860 the average slave was worth $878 and the institution of slavery was worth $3.5 billion. That is real money and in no way supports your thesis that slavery was dying. The domestic slave trade was booming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "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."
> 
> Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989
> 
> The fact that the south's economy was indeed industrializing means that slavery would no longer be economical.  You can point to the price of slaves but the fact is that slavery is really only viable in an agrarian economy, and, as we saw in the north, as an economy industrializes slavery is no longer economical as opposed to paid educated workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That quote does nothng to support what you say it does. And there may be like three people in the acdemic world that agree with you on the use of slaves in agrarian society vs. slaves in an industrial society. You think slaves couldn't run a sawmill or foundry? Slavery was its own economy and its own society. You really should stop regurgitating everything some Community College history professor says and use you fucking head. God knows you ar esmart enough to do so.
> 
> But I leave you to it. Good night.
Click to expand...


Apparently you're done with this discussion, but let's look at the facts.  Slavery ended peacefully in the north as they became more industrialized.  It wasn't because northerners were just better people than southerners, it's because it was no longer beneficial to them as a system.  Why shouldn't the same have happened in the south as they became more industrialized?

Good night, or, more accurately, good morning to you as well.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Not to mention Lincoln's revisionist history.  It was not a majority that ratified the Constitution and then it applied to everyone, but every state individually ratified it.  Meaning that any state could individually choose to leave the compact just as freely as they entered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The legal question of secession is not very relevant since certain states were already granted their independence as Cuba was in later years, without re-occupation (disregarding Kennedy's Pay of Pigs Invasion). The Civil War was consequential to Sumpter as a re-occupation of Cuba would have been if they attacked Guantanamo.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you're saying here.


----------



## Equat

CrimsonWhite said:


> I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.
> 
> The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.



Your right about the causation being slavery. The states' declaration of secession clearly state their reason and their right to deny the free states their rights to assembly, speach, and sovereignty (e.g. not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law). 

What was unconstitutional? The US responding with force to occupation of Sumter or a slave state attacking a US installation?

The loosers have been arguing the war's righteousness and the righteousness to enslave humans since before the war. Slavery was instituted, and maintained in the name of Christ. Furthermore, Post-war blacks were kept in a defacto quasi form of slavery until the 1960's Civil Rights movement. This evil along with racial segregation was all performed in the name of righteousness for Christ sake. Many southern theologians in their double-talk still argue for the righteousness of their society's racism.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's true that their agrarian economy made it so that tariffs hurt them while it helped the industrial north, and that their agrarian economy made slavery a viable system as well.  However, slave owners were a minority in the south, so it's not entirely correct to say that the economic reasons for secession all fall back to slavery.
> 
> Also, the Civil War was not fought to grant human beings freedom.  Lincoln's only goal was to bring the southern states back into the Union.  Freeing the slaves was simply an afterthought that he used to try to further hurt the south, and to make it so that other nations, such as Great Britain, would not aid a slave nation such as the Confederacy.*
> 
> As for arguing it's righteousness, I can certainly argue that.  Every other civilized nation ended slavery peacefully during that period, why is it that we supposedly needed to destroy the south for that to happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again. Slavery was the basis for the Southern economy. Cotton was merely a bi-product of it. Your argument is based on the assumption that Lincoln started the war, when the opposite is the case. Remember that Casus Belli lies in the firing on Fort Sumter by the South. The South brought the war. They brought it to create a nation in which slavery would be protected.(See seccessionst commisioners speeches and Alexander Stephens' inaugural address.) Also, slavery was growing at an exponential rate, so the argue that slavery would die out peacefully is naive at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I've said before, Lincoln gave the south no other choice but to fire on Fort Sumter because he wanted to invade the south.  He said as much in his inaugural address, and he simply needed northern sympathy on his side which he didn't have until Fort Sumter.
> 
> I don't deny that they seceded partly to protect slavery.  Though I don't feel that slavery was ever threatened by Lincoln, because of his support for the Corwin Amendment.
> 
> Their agrarian economy was also becoming more industrialized, which meant that slavery was becoming less economical.  Because of this, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both believed that slavery would simply fade on its own in the south the way it did in the north.
Click to expand...


Lincoln gave the South as much choice to fire on Sumter as Castro has had in firing on Guantanamo. The difference is that Castro is wiser than the slave states many of whom judged the South Carolinians as being "fools" and "hotheads" for doing so. The South judged the South. It was only until Lincoln responded as predictable that the South lifted its judgment upon South Carolina.

"I don't deny that they seceded partly to protect slavery," you say. Do you admit that the South seceded to protect slavery? Speak straight talk. If Lincoln didn't threaten slavery, then why did some of the slave-states secede because of slavery according to their "Declaration of Causes of Seceding States" at sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html?
Lincoln was a politician and like all politicians he spoke double-talk in order not to alienate his opponents (among who were racists). Lincoln, like all politicians use incrementalism to advance their policies. Radicalism doesnt work well with politicians.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "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."
> 
> Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989
> 
> The fact that the south's economy was indeed industrializing means that slavery would no longer be economical.  You can point to the price of slaves but the fact is that slavery is really only viable in an agrarian economy, and, as we saw in the north, as an economy industrializes slavery is no longer economical as opposed to paid educated workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That quote does nothng to support what you say it does. And there may be like three people in the acdemic world that agree with you on the use of slaves in agrarian society vs. slaves in an industrial society. You think slaves couldn't run a sawmill or foundry? Slavery was its own economy and its own society. You really should stop regurgitating everything some Community College history professor says and use you fucking head. God knows you ar esmart enough to do so.
> 
> But I leave you to it. Good night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you're done with this discussion, but let's look at the facts.  Slavery ended peacefully in the north as they became more industrialized.  It wasn't because northerners were just better people than southerners, it's because it was no longer beneficial to them as a system.  Why shouldn't the same have happened in the south as they became more industrialized?
> 
> Good night, or, more accurately, good morning to you as well.
Click to expand...

Most Northern states abolished slavery in the 18th century, the majority even before the Constitution was written.  Vermont abolished it a year after the Declaration of Independence.

We weren't _more industrialized_ in the 1780's. 
We abolished slavery there because it was wrong. The south did not see it as being wrong, slavery was the heart and near literally, the blood in the engine of the south. 

Slavery would not have died on it's own in the South Circa 1860's.  Maybe out of shame several generations later it would cease to be an effective business, and wither slowly, but not before.  

It was simply too big a part of their economy.


----------



## paperview

Equat said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.
> 
> The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your right about the causation being slavery. The states' declaration of secession clearly state their reason and their right to deny the free states their rights to assembly, speach, and sovereignty (e.g. not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law).
> 
> What was unconstitutional? The US responding with force to occupation of Sumter or a slave state attacking a US installation?
> 
> The loosers have been arguing the war's righteousness and the righteousness to enslave humans since before the war. Slavery was instituted, and maintained in the name of Christ. Furthermore, Post-war blacks were kept in a defacto quasi form of slavery until the 1960's Civil Rights movement. This evil along with racial segregation was all performed in the name of righteousness for Christ sake. Many southern theologians in their double-talk still argue for the righteousness of their society's racism.
Click to expand...

I think some of the suffering bastards of the old Southern Aristocracy  *today* would have slaves - if they could.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

An excellent article that goes into more detail about the points I've been making.



> Gundersons (and Fogel and Engermans) reliance on this one statistic  the price of slaves  as "evidence" that slavery could not have been ended peacefully is poor economics as well. For one thing, the Fugitive Slave Act socialized the enforcement costs of slavery, thereby artificially inflating slave prices. Abolition of the Act, as would have been the reality had the Southern states been allowed to leave in peace would have caused slave prices to plummet and quickened the institutions demise. That, coupled with a serious effort to do what every nation on the face of the earth did to end slavery during the nineteenth century  compensated emancipation  could have ended slavery peacefully. Great Britain did it in just six years time, and Americans could have followed their lead.
> 
> ...
> 
> Gunderson ignores the simple economic fact that the high price of slaves that did exist in 1860 created strong incentives for Southern farmers to find substitutes in the form of free labor and mechanized agriculture. It also increased the expected profitability of mechanized agriculture, so that the producers of that equipment were motivated to develop and market it in the South. This is what happens in any industry where there are rapidly-rising prices of factors of production of any kind. As Mark Thornton wrote in "Slavery, Profitability, and the Market Process" (Review of Austrian Economics, vol. 7, No. 2, 1994), by 1860 "slavery was fleeing from both the competition of free labor and urbanization towards the isolated virgin lands of the Southwest."



The Economics of Slavery


----------



## Equat

paperview said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.
> 
> The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your right about the causation being slavery. The states' declaration of secession clearly state their reason and their right to deny the free states their rights to assembly, speach, and sovereignty (e.g. not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law). Note: sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html.
> 
> What was unconstitutional? The US responding with force to South Carolina's occupation of Sumter or a slave state attacking a US installation?
> 
> The loosers have been arguing the war's righteousness and the righteousness to enslave humans since before the war. Slavery was instituted, and maintained in the name of Christ. Furthermore, Post-war blacks were kept in a defacto quasi form of slavery until the 1960's Civil Rights movement. This evil along with racial segregation was all performed in the name of righteousness for Christ sake. Many southern theologians in their double-talk still argue for the righteousness of their society's racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think some of the suffering bastards of the old Southern Aristocracy  *today* would have slaves - if they could.
Click to expand...



Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists wolves try to hide. The reason that the US Civil War is in such hot dispute is because of those suffering from white guilt who who claim Christianity, yet refuse to practice it.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> An excellent article that goes into more detail about the points I've been making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gundersons (and Fogel and Engermans) reliance on this one statistic  the price of slaves  as "evidence" that slavery could not have been ended peacefully is poor economics as well. For one thing, the Fugitive Slave Act socialized the enforcement costs of slavery, thereby artificially inflating slave prices. Abolition of the Act, as would have been the reality had the Southern states been allowed to leave in peace would have caused slave prices to plummet and quickened the institutions demise. That, coupled with a serious effort to do what every nation on the face of the earth did to end slavery during the nineteenth century  compensated emancipation  could have ended slavery peacefully. Great Britain did it in just six years time, and Americans could have followed their lead.
> 
> ...
> 
> Gunderson ignores the simple economic fact that the high price of slaves that did exist in 1860 created strong incentives for Southern farmers to find substitutes in the form of free labor and mechanized agriculture. It also increased the expected profitability of mechanized agriculture, so that the producers of that equipment were motivated to develop and market it in the South. This is what happens in any industry where there are rapidly-rising prices of factors of production of any kind. As Mark Thornton wrote in "Slavery, Profitability, and the Market Process" (Review of Austrian Economics, vol. 7, No. 2, 1994), by 1860 "slavery was fleeing from both the competition of free labor and urbanization towards the isolated virgin lands of the Southwest."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The South proved what it would have done with blacks after slavery was abolished by denying the civil rights, segregation, and denying them civil justice. In either case the South, the Confederacy, or whatever it claims to be is defined by its racism.
Click to expand...


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> An excellent article that goes into more detail about the points I've been making.
> 
> ...The Economics of Slavery



Is Lew Rockwell your bible?

I swear, you quote from that site constantly.

The American South mid 19th century was a particular culture. 
They had no intention of abolishing slavery. That was clear.

I ask - for people who say it would have 'died out' - somebody please tell me how the deep south, with slave populations being IN THE MAJORITY in some states...how it would have just 'died out, faded away...'

  It's absurd to think numbers and human agricultural wealth like that would simply be set free and just dissolve into eventual paid labor...or even sharecroppers.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the Civil War was not fought to grant human beings freedom.  Lincoln's only goal was to bring the southern states back into the Union.  Freeing the slaves was simply an afterthought that he used to try to further hurt the south, and to make it so that other nations, such as Great Britain, would not aid a slave nation such as the Confederacy.
> 
> As for arguing it's righteousness, I can certainly argue that.  Every other civilized nation ended slavery peacefully during that period, why is it that we supposedly needed to destroy the south for that to happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the Emancipation Proclamation, many fought to free human beings from slavery. Abolitionists tried to pursuade Lincoln to do this earlier. There is never only one reason for war. There are central and tertiary reasons. The South didn't need to be "destroy[ed]" to free slaves if it didn't destroy itself by secession and by attacking Sumter. Victimology enables irresponsible beings the social pseudo-appearance (at lease before themselves) of self-righteousness.
Click to expand...


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South lost and the Union prevailed, further they cemented their win with Court rulings. Congress would have to establish a procedure for the States to ever be able to legally leave the Union. They have done no such thing so no State can leave the Union.
> 
> The Southern States had no right to leave the Union in 1860 either. Only by WINNING the Civil War would they have been able to justify their leaving, they lost, they had no right to leave in the manner they attempted to leave.
> 
> Pretty simple concept really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Might makes right" is a simple concept, you're right about that.  However, the Constitution is what matters, and the Constitution does not forbid the states from seceding.  But we all know Lincoln didn't really care about the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Here's a fun little fact about the how the Southern congressmen & sympathizers showed their love for constitution. 

 They placed a gag rule in congress.  That's right.  

 Even though citizens by way of the Constitution guaranteed citizens the right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances"
- the southern lawmakers saw to it that anytime anyone petitioned the government to address slavery, it could not be discussed.

 They gagged people. This happened in the 1830's & 40's.

 Just imagine that. Take the issue of abortion today. What if pro-choice legislators had said NO. The issue may not even be discussed! No one is allowed to even bring it to the table. No petitions are allowed. 
 The issue WILL NOT be discussed in Congress. 

  Imagine that.  

 That's what the pro-slavery people did. For people that spoke of their *love* of the Constitution, they sure had a funny way of showing it.


----------



## Samson

Equat said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your right about the causation being slavery. The states' declaration of secession clearly state their reason and their right to deny the free states their rights to assembly, speach, and sovereignty (e.g. not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law). Note: sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html.
> 
> What was unconstitutional? The US responding with force to South Carolina's occupation of Sumter or a slave state attacking a US installation?
> 
> The loosers have been arguing the war's righteousness and the righteousness to enslave humans since before the war. Slavery was instituted, and maintained in the name of Christ. Furthermore, Post-war blacks were kept in a defacto quasi form of slavery until the 1960's Civil Rights movement. This evil along with racial segregation was all performed in the name of righteousness for Christ sake. Many southern theologians in their double-talk still argue for the righteousness of their society's racism.
> 
> 
> 
> I think some of the suffering bastards of the old Southern Aristocracy  *today* would have slaves - if they could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists wolves try to hide. The reason that the US Civil War is in such hot dispute is because of those suffering from white guilt who who claim Christianity, yet refuse to practice it.
Click to expand...


From what I've been able to gleen from the OP and only several pages of reading, KK's affirmative debate position is :

*That the Federal Government under the Lincoln Presidency used the slavery issue as leverage to impose the will of central government over the rights of states.*

The questions of slavery's morality weren't completely immaterial. The use of the slavery issue is obvious, (but really not a point of arguement).

During the decades leading to the civil war, congress had danced around abolishing slavery by Federal Statute, the only way to Constitutionally trump the Rights of States. As it became clear that this dance was ending (Lincoln, a Republican, was elected), the Southern states tried an "end-around." They separated themselves from the United States before the they lost majority in the Senate, and any Federal Statute Prohibiting Slavery could be passed.

I'm not aware there's been any evidence offered that succession was either directly or indirectly addressed in the Constitution. But it would seem to me, that in becomming a member of the United States, a state accepted the Rule of Federal Law over State Law, and that succession was "cheating" this system.

In other words, had the southern states been allowed to succeed, then any state could avoid being held to Federal Statute by succeeding, and the entire Nation would be at risk, a prospect that Linclon was sworn to prevent.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Samson said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some of the suffering bastards of the old Southern Aristocracy  *today* would have slaves - if they could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists wolves try to hide. The reason that the US Civil War is in such hot dispute is because of those suffering from white guilt who who claim Christianity, yet refuse to practice it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I've been able to gleen from the OP and only several pages of reading, KK's affirmative debate position is :
> 
> *That the Federal Government under the Lincoln Presidency used the slavery issue as leverage to impose the will of central government over the rights of states.*
> 
> The questions of slavery's morality weren't completely immaterial. The use of the slavery issue is obvious, (but really not a point of arguement).
> 
> During the decades leading to the civil war, congress had danced around abolishing slavery by Federal Statute, the only way to Constitutionally trump the Rights of States. As it became clear that this dance was ending (Lincoln, a Republican, was elected), the Southern states tried an "end-around." They separated themselves from the United States before the they lost majority in the Senate, and any Federal Statute Prohibiting Slavery could be passed.
> 
> I'm not aware there's been any evidence offered that succession was either directly or indirectly addressed in the Constitution. But it would seem to me, that in becomming a member of the United States, a state accepted the Rule of Federal Law over State Law, and that succession was "cheating" this system.
> 
> In other words, had the southern states been allowed to succeed, then any state could avoid being held to Federal Statute by succeeding, and the entire Nation would be at risk, a prospect that Linclon was sworn to prevent.
Click to expand...


There are several people in this thread that REFUSE to see that argument. If a State is free to leave, for any reason or no reason, any time it wants, then the Constitution is meaningless. The compact between the States is a meaningless gesture with no enforcement or glue to hold it together.

No Country I know of has ever held the position that parts of it can freely leave any old time they feel the desire to quit. Perhaps someone can provide for us an example?

As for the argument that since it is not addressed in the document it is not an enforceable power of the Government, that too is foolish in the extreme. Laws , statues , powers and authoirty given to Federal Government would be meaningless if any State at any time, for any reason could just quit the Union. Land ceded to the Federal Government would be worthless as the State could simply leave the Country and take back its land with it. Debts owed , meaningless. Responsibilities deelgated via the Constitution and Congress, meaningless.

The Constitution would not be worth the paper it was written on if any State at any time could simply quit the Union at any time, for any reason. That would be worse then the Articles of Confederation which were replaced by the Constitution.


----------



## Samson

RetiredGySgt said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists wolves try to hide. The reason that the US Civil War is in such hot dispute is because of those suffering from white guilt who who claim Christianity, yet refuse to practice it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've been able to gleen from the OP and only several pages of reading, KK's affirmative debate position is :
> 
> *That the Federal Government under the Lincoln Presidency used the slavery issue as leverage to impose the will of central government over the rights of states.*
> 
> The questions of slavery's morality weren't completely immaterial. The use of the slavery issue is obvious, (but really not a point of arguement).
> 
> During the decades leading to the civil war, congress had danced around abolishing slavery by Federal Statute, the only way to Constitutionally trump the Rights of States. As it became clear that this dance was ending (Lincoln, a Republican, was elected), the Southern states tried an "end-around." They separated themselves from the United States before the they lost majority in the Senate, and any Federal Statute Prohibiting Slavery could be passed.
> 
> I'm not aware there's been any evidence offered that succession was either directly or indirectly addressed in the Constitution. But it would seem to me, that in becomming a member of the United States, a state accepted the Rule of Federal Law over State Law, and that succession was "cheating" this system.
> 
> In other words, had the southern states been allowed to succeed, then any state could avoid being held to Federal Statute by succeeding, and the entire Nation would be at risk, a prospect that Linclon was sworn to prevent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are several people in this thread that REFUSE to see that argument. If a State is free to leave, for any reason or no reason, any time it wants, then the Constitution is meaningless. The compact between the States is a meaningless gesture with no enforcement or glue to hold it together.
Click to expand...


Its difficult tho believe that anyone could be this remarkably dense: Its like someone joining a baseball team then refusing to play because they're required to use a baseball.

They would no doubt claim that they hadn't understood when they joined the team that a baseball was used to play the game!


----------



## Charles Stucker

CrimsonWhite said:


> The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom.


No, the war was fought to remove human beings freedom.
The freedom of human beings to freely associate, or not, with a tyrannical regime.
*IF* the North had simply desired to abolish slavery then they would have abolished it at the end of the war, invited all the blacks to the North and then allowed the Southern states their independence.

The much celebrated  Emancipation Proclamation was a purely political move to garner support from Europe. Freeing the blacks was strictly secondary to enslaving the citizens.


----------



## paperview

> No, the war was fought to remove human beings freedom.
> The freedom of human beings to freely associate, or not, with a tyrannical regime.



Except those black folks, huh?

Yes, the south was tyrannical.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Charles Stucker said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the war was fought to remove human beings freedom.
Click to expand...


The above statement is completely indefensible.  The war was fought to  (1) keep the Union intact; (2) to protect federal properties throughout the nation; and (3) to enforce the constitutional electoral process.  

In other words, the South was forced to comply with the American political and social contract.

A parallel of course is that the Republican far right is screaming right now because it has been forced to accept constitutional rule by the electoral majority.


----------



## Charles Stucker

paperview said:


> Except those black folks, huh?



Read my words
"The North did *NOT* go to war to end slavery."
Ending slavery was an afterthought. 
Had the Southern slaveholders done the smart thing - remained in the union -  the North would have never paid off the property and never done more than posture. 
The Southerners could have had the best of all worlds - 
Paid off for their slaves
Kept all their property and wealth
Used the free blacks as cheap labor, which could have cost even less (for a given amount of productivity) than keeping slaves. Note that the "oh so righteous" North *NEVER* lifted a finger to help black sharecroppers and passed laws to keep the "negroes" out of their White Northern *RACIST* communities.

The North would never have gone for any scheme which did not strip the South.
Because the Northerners were *NEVER* concerned with freedom.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Charles Stucker said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except those black folks, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read my words
> "The North did *NOT* go to war to end slavery."
> Ending slavery was an afterthought.
> Had the Southern slaveholders done the smart thing - remained in the union -  the North would have never paid off the property and never done more than posture.
> The Southerners could have had the best of all worlds -
> Paid off for their slaves
> Kept all their property and wealth
> Used the free blacks as cheap labor, which could have cost even less (for a given amount of productivity) than keeping slaves. Note that the "oh so righteous" North *NEVER* lifted a finger to help black sharecroppers and passed laws to keep the "negroes" out of their White Northern *RACIST* communities.
> 
> The North would never have gone for any scheme which did not strip the South.
> Because the Northerners were *NEVER* concerned with freedom.
Click to expand...


Let us see, the SOUTH DID leave the Union, the SOUTH did ATTACK the North, the SOUTH did seize Federal property and murder Federal troops. All the North ever did was RESPOND to Southern aggression.


----------



## paperview

In fact, it really should have been called "The Southern War of Aggression in Defense of Owning People as Slaves."

South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States

 At least they didn't try to candy coat it. It was all about the slavery. "We're taking our ball and leaving the game, cuz Kansas can't have no slaves..."


----------



## RetiredGySgt

paperview said:


> In fact, it really should have been called "The Southern War of Aggression in Defense of Owning People as Slaves."
> 
> South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
> Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
> Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> 
> At least they didn't try to candy coat it. It was all about the slavery. "We're taking our ball and leaving the game, cuz Kansas can't have no slaves..."



How did you find those? I could never figure out what to put in the search engine to get those documents.


----------



## paperview

RetiredGySgt said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, it really should have been called "The Southern War of Aggression in Defense of Owning People as Slaves."
> 
> South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
> Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
> Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> 
> At least they didn't try to candy coat it. It was all about the slavery. "We're taking our ball and leaving the game, cuz Kansas can't have no slaves..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you find those? I could never figure out what to put in the search engine to get those documents.
Click to expand...

I've had them in my files for a long time.  

Americancivilwar.com has a lot of good information.


----------



## Charles Stucker

RetiredGySgt said:


> the SOUTH did ATTACK the North, the SOUTH did seize Federal property and murder Federal troops. All the North ever did was RESPOND to Southern aggression.


Ignorance of this level is so appalling as to approach the level of stupidity.
Fort Sumter was NOT the North. It was a fort in South Carolina. 
No Federal Soldier died during the firing of shots at Fort Sumter.
No one really knows which battery fired the first shot. Given Lincolns reliance on Pinkerton it may even have been a Northern spy as the garrison was ready to surrender the fort. 

The South never invaded Northern territory until much later when Lincoln made it clear he would gladly ravage Southern countryside to win the war. 

Again the war was forced by the Lincoln. 
Had he not asked for Virginia levies, Virginia would not have left.
Lincoln started the war to expand federal power, denying it to the people. The technical term for that is tyranny.

You should learn some actual history, not the propaganda pap they are teaching in public schools.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Let's set Stucker right before he gets left behind.

One, the South did seize federal property.  Yes, Fort Sumter was federal property, thus it was part of the "north", the seat of loyal and legal government.

Two, Yes, we do know who fired the first shot.  General Pierre Beauregard, commander of CSA forces besieging Fort Sumter, ordered the batteries to begin firing in the pre-dawn darkness of April 12, 1861.  

No credible evidence exists of Pinkerton agent activity of such a complicated level.  Stucker reaches the wild imaginations of CaliGirl (Ayers was a ghost writer for Obama) and the some of the counter-satirists here (Glenn Beck is a torturist, rapist and murder).

Wherever the South invaded, it invaded "northern" territory, the Union, whether in Florida or Vermont.  All of the states were union territory.

The South started the war of agression against the Union so that it could continue to deny human and civil rights to blacks.

You should learn real history, Stucker, instead of the Sons of the South crap you have been handing out.


----------



## paperview

Charles Stucker said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> the SOUTH did ATTACK the North, the SOUTH did seize Federal property and murder Federal troops. All the North ever did was RESPOND to Southern aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance of this level is so appalling as to approach the level of stupidity.
> Fort Sumter was NOT the North. It was a fort in South Carolina.
> No Federal Soldier died during the firing of shots at Fort Sumter.
> No one really knows which battery fired the first shot. Given Lincolns reliance on Pinkerton it may even have been a Northern spy as the garrison was ready to surrender the fort.
> 
> The South never invaded Northern territory until much later when Lincoln made it clear he would gladly ravage Southern countryside to win the war.
> 
> Again the war was forced by the Lincoln.
> Had he not asked for Virginia levies, Virginia would not have left.
> Lincoln started the war to expand federal power, denying it to the people. The technical term for that is tyranny.
> 
> You should learn some actual history, not the propaganda pap they are teaching in public schools.
Click to expand...

^^^ Ignorance of this level is so appalling as to approach the level of stupidity. 





> No one really knows which battery fired the first shot.


lol.

Maybe you should read 

Brigadier General Beauregard's Battle Report:

South Carolina American Civil War Battle Fort Sumter


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Samson said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some of the suffering bastards of the old Southern Aristocracy  *today* would have slaves - if they could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists wolves try to hide. The reason that the US Civil War is in such hot dispute is because of those suffering from white guilt who who claim Christianity, yet refuse to practice it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I've been able to gleen from the OP and only several pages of reading, KK's affirmative debate position is :
> 
> *That the Federal Government under the Lincoln Presidency used the slavery issue as leverage to impose the will of central government over the rights of states.*
> 
> The questions of slavery's morality weren't completely immaterial. The use of the slavery issue is obvious, (but really not a point of arguement).
> 
> During the decades leading to the civil war, congress had danced around abolishing slavery by Federal Statute, the only way to Constitutionally trump the Rights of States. As it became clear that this dance was ending (Lincoln, a Republican, was elected), the Southern states tried an "end-around." They separated themselves from the United States before the they lost majority in the Senate, and any Federal Statute Prohibiting Slavery could be passed.
> 
> I'm not aware there's been any evidence offered that succession was either directly or indirectly addressed in the Constitution. But it would seem to me, that in becomming a member of the United States, a state accepted the Rule of Federal Law over State Law, and that succession was "cheating" this system.
> 
> In other words, had the southern states been allowed to succeed, then any state could avoid being held to Federal Statute by succeeding, and the entire Nation would be at risk, a prospect that Linclon was sworn to prevent.
Click to expand...


Federal statute cannot trump the rights of states.  No where does the Constitution say that Congress can pass any law that it wants.  Now nobody here would be sad if this is how they chose to end slavery, since slavery was a violation of the natural rights of African-Americans in the first place.

You see the point, however.  The United States were not a nation.  They were a confederation of independent states.  The federal government was there for their benefit, and if it ceased being to their benefit it was their right to terminate their membership.  To say that they did not have the right to leave would be like saying that the United States would not have the right to leave the United Nations today and tell them to find new headquarters.


----------



## JakeStarkey

There you go, paperview, confusing the ignorant with facts.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin, quit baying at the moon.  The states were merely agents of the will of the People, all of the Americans in the union.  The People said "no", and Lincoln murdered the old South in response to the will of the People.  I understand in the South now the high schoolers are taught to say "thank heavens" the South lost.  That's good.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Samson said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've been able to gleen from the OP and only several pages of reading, KK's affirmative debate position is :
> 
> *That the Federal Government under the Lincoln Presidency used the slavery issue as leverage to impose the will of central government over the rights of states.*
> 
> The questions of slavery's morality weren't completely immaterial. The use of the slavery issue is obvious, (but really not a point of arguement).
> 
> During the decades leading to the civil war, congress had danced around abolishing slavery by Federal Statute, the only way to Constitutionally trump the Rights of States. As it became clear that this dance was ending (Lincoln, a Republican, was elected), the Southern states tried an "end-around." They separated themselves from the United States before the they lost majority in the Senate, and any Federal Statute Prohibiting Slavery could be passed.
> 
> I'm not aware there's been any evidence offered that succession was either directly or indirectly addressed in the Constitution. But it would seem to me, that in becomming a member of the United States, a state accepted the Rule of Federal Law over State Law, and that succession was "cheating" this system.
> 
> In other words, had the southern states been allowed to succeed, then any state could avoid being held to Federal Statute by succeeding, and the entire Nation would be at risk, a prospect that Linclon was sworn to prevent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are several people in this thread that REFUSE to see that argument. If a State is free to leave, for any reason or no reason, any time it wants, then the Constitution is meaningless. The compact between the States is a meaningless gesture with no enforcement or glue to hold it together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its difficult tho believe that anyone could be this remarkably dense: Its like someone joining a baseball team then refusing to play because they're required to use a baseball.
> 
> They would no doubt claim that they hadn't understood when they joined the team that a baseball was used to play the game!
Click to expand...


Would you then, as coach of the baseball team, reserve the right to use violence to force a player that did not wish to play baseball to play regardless?  Because that's what Lincoln did.


----------



## JakeStarkey

False analogy, Kevin.  The component parts have to more than cosmetically comparable, they have to be intrinisically similar.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> I understand in the South now the high schoolers are taught to say "thank heavens" the South lost.


That's a load of B.S.

I was raised in the South.

We were taught that Yankees are nothing but liars and carpetbaggers.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I wrote "now", Sunni Man.  You are wrong.  Ask around.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> I wrote "now", Sunni Man.  You are wrong.  Ask around.



You are most likely right.

Kids are taught all kinds of nonsense now-a days


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> False analogy, Kevin.  The component parts have to more than cosmetically comparable, they have to be intrinisically similar.



The analogy was his, not mine.  I simply took it to its logical conclusion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, you foolishly played along.

The South was not separate, the southern states were not sovereign republics, Kevin.  They were part of a larger whole, they fired on the national flag, they spit on the sacrifices of the patriots, they defied constitutional process, and you are making them out to be good guys when in fact they were bad guys.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> No, you foolishly played along.
> 
> The South was not separate, the southern states were not sovereign republics, Kevin.  They were part of a larger whole, they fired on the national flag, they spit on the sacrifices of the patriots, they defied constitutional process, and you are making them out to be good guys when in fact they were bad guys.



Yes, actually they were.  Every state was, and technically still is, an independent sovereign state.  The federal government, note that it is not called the national government, was created by the states to act as their agent, just as the United Nations was created by independent sovereign states from around the world to act as their agent.


----------



## Charles Stucker

JakeStarkey said:


> Wherever the South invaded, it invaded "northern" territory, the Union, whether in Florida or Vermont.  All of the states were union territory.


Well if you like to believe that sort of nonsense nothing will change your mind.
The indisputable fact remains that by denying local self determination you deny any semblance of liberty. That is the same as *Tyranny* - something a socialist like you would clearly support.


----------



## Sunni Man

Gunny said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you, KK.  Lincoln was committed to the Union, period.  I think the South had the right to secede, I think some of the Founders thinking was wrong, and I think Lincoln fixed all of that it by telling the secessionists, "No, over your dead bodies!" and preceded to kill them.  Good!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's worked out wonderfully.  The Fed govt has steadily encroached into every facet of our lives and usurped any powers the Constitution gives the states it so desires.  Little good has come of that.
Click to expand...


The America the Founding Fathers envisioned came to an abrupt end when the Northern Federal Government won the Civil War.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sunni Man, if that is true, then the South should have lost because of certain defects included in our founding document.  Some, such as representation and freedom from religious intolerance, have been worked out peacefully.  But the issue of slavery had to be eliminated by warfare because of the South's inhumanity to mankind, its hatred of personal liberty.

And, Kevin, the Sons of the South nonsense is getting old.  The Confederates, like our Republicans in the last election, lost.  Choices have consequences.  Deal with it.


----------



## Charles Stucker

JakeStarkey said:


> .  But the issue of slavery had to be eliminated by warfare because of the South's inhumanity to mankind, its hatred of personal liberty.


Did you soak this up before you could talk? 
Hello
Is that any brain in there?
The Issue of slavery could have been eliminated without warfare - Lincoln chose to wage war.
Do you know that in the North it was frequently referred to as Mr. Lincoln's War?
Personal liberty is *LOST* when people cannot freely choose to go their won way.
Otherwise the Declaration of Independence has no weight.

Were you born retarded or did you drink/drug your brain into its current stupor?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Do you know, Sunni Man, the South could have eliminated slavery gradually with state compensation whenever it want to.  It didn't want to is the point, my boy!  The Declaration of Independence was only an incomplete paper flying in the wind with slavery legal in our wonderful country.

Freedom means everybody, including you, boyo, and the slave men and women.  The South was a bastion of hell, not of liberty.  I am so glad it lost, and feel something close to hatred for the men and women who denied liberty to others in the name of their own liberty.  Hypocrites!


----------



## Charles Stucker

JakeStarkey said:


> Freedom means everybody, including you, boyo, and the slave men and women.  The South was a bastion of hell, not of liberty.  I am so glad it lost, and feel something close to hatred for the men and women who denied liberty to others in the name of their own liberty.  Hypocrites!


Right - Newsflash for the *Totally Clueless*
No one alive today was alive during the American Civil War. 
Not one person.
The socialist programs are set to turn the USA into a bastion of 'hell, not of liberty' for all the minority of sentient voters who do not wish to pay for someone else.


----------



## Equat

Charles Stucker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Personal liberty is *LOST* when people cannot freely choose to go their won way.
> Otherwise the Declaration of Independence has no weight.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for making the point that slaves needed to be freed otherwise the Declaration of Independence has no weight.
Click to expand...


----------



## Equat

JakeStarkey said:


> The Confederates, like our Republicans in the last election, lost.  Choices have consequences.  Deal with it.


The neo-Confederates can't deal with reality. They live in a fantasy world where loosers are winners and where their heroes are loosers. No other society that I know about does this sort of thing. Other countries that lost to the US and were occupied by them has forgiven them after the war was finally over.


----------



## Charles Stucker

Equat said:


> Thank you for making the point that slaves needed to be freed otherwise the Declaration of Independence has no weight.



So free the current batch of slaves by letting states NOW freely secede. 
Or was freeing the slaves then different from freeing the slaves now.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Charles Stucker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom means everybody, including you, boyo, and the slave men and women.  The South was a bastion of hell, not of liberty.  I am so glad it lost, and feel something close to hatred for the men and women who denied liberty to others in the name of their own liberty.  Hypocrites!
> 
> 
> 
> Right - Newsflash for the *Totally Clueless*
> No one alive today was alive during the American Civil War.
> Not one person.
> The socialist programs are set to turn the USA into a bastion of 'hell, not of liberty' for all the minority of sentient voters who do not wish to pay for someone else.
Click to expand...


Non sequitur there, Stucker.  You don't care about your fellow human, that is obvious.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Charles Stucker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  But the issue of slavery had to be eliminated by warfare because of the South's inhumanity to mankind, its hatred of personal liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you soak this up before you could talk?
> Hello
> Is that any brain in there?
> The Issue of slavery could have been eliminated without warfare - Lincoln chose to wage war.
> Do you know that in the North it was frequently referred to as Mr. Lincoln's War?
> Personal liberty is *LOST* when people cannot freely choose to go their won way.
> Otherwise the Declaration of Independence has no weight.
> 
> Were you born retarded or did you drink/drug your brain into its current stupor?
Click to expand...


Lincoln RESPONDED to Southern Aggression. Anyone that continues to claim otherwise is either lying or to stupid to understand reality.

The South withdrew from the Union and Lincoln did NOTHING. The South raised armies and Lincoln did NOTHING.

The South seized Federal forts and Federal armories to outfit their armies and Lincoln did NOTHING.

The South trained, armed and moved armies about and Lincoln did NOTHING.

He ONLY responded AFTER Federal troops were fired on by the South.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Charles Stucker said:


> So free the current batch of slaves by letting states NOW freely secede.  Or was freeing the slaves then different from freeing the slaves now.



Charles, you are not a slave in the U.S.  You live in the freest country with the greatest economic opportunity ever before seen on earth.  You can leave the U.S. any time you want.  You are free to go and free to stay as you want.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  But the issue of slavery had to be eliminated by warfare because of the South's inhumanity to mankind, its hatred of personal liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you soak this up before you could talk?
> Hello
> Is that any brain in there?
> The Issue of slavery could have been eliminated without warfare - Lincoln chose to wage war.
> Do you know that in the North it was frequently referred to as Mr. Lincoln's War?
> Personal liberty is *LOST* when people cannot freely choose to go their won way.
> Otherwise the Declaration of Independence has no weight.
> 
> Were you born retarded or did you drink/drug your brain into its current stupor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln RESPONDED to Southern Aggression. Anyone that continues to claim otherwise is either lying or to stupid to understand reality.
> 
> The South withdrew from the Union and Lincoln did NOTHING. The South raised armies and Lincoln did NOTHING.
> 
> The South seized Federal forts and Federal armories to outfit their armies and Lincoln did NOTHING.
> 
> The South trained, armed and moved armies about and Lincoln did NOTHING.
> 
> He ONLY responded AFTER Federal troops were fired on by the South.
Click to expand...


The south responded to an invasion by Lincoln's troops.  They had no right to maintain a Union base in the Confederacy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you soak this up before you could talk?
> Hello
> Is that any brain in there?
> The Issue of slavery could have been eliminated without warfare - Lincoln chose to wage war.
> Do you know that in the North it was frequently referred to as Mr. Lincoln's War?
> Personal liberty is *LOST* when people cannot freely choose to go their won way.
> Otherwise the Declaration of Independence has no weight.
> 
> Were you born retarded or did you drink/drug your brain into its current stupor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln RESPONDED to Southern Aggression. Anyone that continues to claim otherwise is either lying or to stupid to understand reality.
> 
> The South withdrew from the Union and Lincoln did NOTHING. The South raised armies and Lincoln did NOTHING.
> 
> The South seized Federal forts and Federal armories to outfit their armies and Lincoln did NOTHING.
> 
> The South trained, armed and moved armies about and Lincoln did NOTHING.
> 
> He ONLY responded AFTER Federal troops were fired on by the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south responded to an invasion by Lincoln's troops.  They had no right to maintain a Union base in the Confederacy.
Click to expand...


YOU FUCKING RETARD. We have been over this before. The Southern States CEDED the land to the Federal Government LONG before they decided to leave the Union. IT WAS NOT THEIRS TO DEMAND A RETURN OF. It belonged to the Federal Government.

The North did not invade the South until LONG after the South fired on Federal Troops and started a shooting war. Lincoln did not even raise an Army until the South fired on Federal Troops.

Using your logic that some how magically the land still belonged to the States, then Kentucky and Tennessee had to give back most of their States to Virginia and North Carolina. A large chunk of the middle of the Country once belonged to Texas, I suppose using your logic that too was now Texas property again cause they withdrew from the Union.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lincoln managed public opinion in order to provide an opportunity for the northern Democrats to put aside political difference and defend the Union.  Lincoln's goals were simple: (1) The Union was indivisible so the South could not secede.  (2) Maintain and regain control of federal properties through the country.  (3) To enforce the constitutional electoral process of the Constitution ~~ Lincoln was president, and the South would submit to that fact or be destroyed.  The fools chose the bad road.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln RESPONDED to Southern Aggression. Anyone that continues to claim otherwise is either lying or to stupid to understand reality.
> 
> The South withdrew from the Union and Lincoln did NOTHING. The South raised armies and Lincoln did NOTHING.
> 
> The South seized Federal forts and Federal armories to outfit their armies and Lincoln did NOTHING.
> 
> The South trained, armed and moved armies about and Lincoln did NOTHING.
> 
> He ONLY responded AFTER Federal troops were fired on by the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The south responded to an invasion by Lincoln's troops.  They had no right to maintain a Union base in the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU FUCKING RETARD. We have been over this before. The Southern States CEDED the land to the Federal Government LONG before they decided to leave the Union. IT WAS NOT THEIRS TO DEMAND A RETURN OF. It belonged to the Federal Government.
> 
> The North did not invade the South until LONG after the South fired on Federal Troops and started a shooting war. Lincoln did not even raise an Army until the South fired on Federal Troops.
> 
> Using your logic that some how magically the land still belonged to the States, then Kentucky and Tennessee had to give back most of their States to Virginia and North Carolina. A large chunk of the middle of the Country once belonged to Texas, I suppose using your logic that too was now Texas property again cause they withdrew from the Union.
Click to expand...


It's not nice to call names.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south responded to an invasion by Lincoln's troops.  They had no right to maintain a Union base in the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU FUCKING RETARD. We have been over this before. The Southern States CEDED the land to the Federal Government LONG before they decided to leave the Union. IT WAS NOT THEIRS TO DEMAND A RETURN OF. It belonged to the Federal Government.
> 
> The North did not invade the South until LONG after the South fired on Federal Troops and started a shooting war. Lincoln did not even raise an Army until the South fired on Federal Troops.
> 
> Using your logic that some how magically the land still belonged to the States, then Kentucky and Tennessee had to give back most of their States to Virginia and North Carolina. A large chunk of the middle of the Country once belonged to Texas, I suppose using your logic that too was now Texas property again cause they withdrew from the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not nice to call names.
Click to expand...


Stop posting retarded crap. The South ceded those forts YEARS before 1860 to the Federal Government, you know it as well as I know it, yet you INSIST on claiming they were State Property.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU FUCKING RETARD. We have been over this before. The Southern States CEDED the land to the Federal Government LONG before they decided to leave the Union. IT WAS NOT THEIRS TO DEMAND A RETURN OF. It belonged to the Federal Government.
> 
> The North did not invade the South until LONG after the South fired on Federal Troops and started a shooting war. Lincoln did not even raise an Army until the South fired on Federal Troops.
> 
> Using your logic that some how magically the land still belonged to the States, then Kentucky and Tennessee had to give back most of their States to Virginia and North Carolina. A large chunk of the middle of the Country once belonged to Texas, I suppose using your logic that too was now Texas property again cause they withdrew from the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not nice to call names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop posting retarded crap. The South ceded those forts YEARS before 1860 to the Federal Government, you know it as well as I know it, yet you INSIST on claiming they were State Property.
Click to expand...


No, I insist on claiming that the south attempted to purchase all federal property within their borders, and Lincoln refused to meet with them.  I insist on claiming that the south was clearly willing to allow Fort Sumter to run out of supplies and be peacefully abandoned by the Union troops before Lincoln forced their hand.  I insist on claiming that in response to this evidence it is clear that Lincoln had every intention of escalating the conflict to violence by sending ships to resupply Fort Sumter.  What I have never insisted on is that Fort Sumter was owned by South Carolina.  It was Union property in the borders of the Confederacy, and they weren't willing to allow that arrangement to continue.  They tried peaceful means, but Lincoln forced them to act aggressively.  To suggest that Lincoln did not orchestrate this series of events to unfold in exactly the manner it did is sheer ignorance.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hang on, you are moving from whether southern secession was legal to whether Lincoln maneuvered the CSA into beginning The War of Southern Agression.  Of course it was, and of course he did.  Brillantly.  Are you complaining just to complain?


----------



## Charles Stucker

JakeStarkey said:


> Lincoln managed public opinion in order to provide an opportunity for the northern Democrats to put aside political difference and defend the Union.



We get it. 'Freedom for All'
As long as they are part of *Your* socialist dream.
Everyone else gets to be your slaves.
You and Barry two Massa's from the same pod.


----------



## JakeStarkey

How interesting, Charles Stucker!

You use the term 'slave' to indicate what you feel to be the deprivation of your personal liberty to do as you please at the local level and what you feel to be tyranny at the federal level over your life.  That is similar to how the word was used by confederates so long ago at that important era in our history.

What you, and the Confederates, fail to understand is that electoral due process in both 1860 and 2008 were followed.  You are legally, morally, and ethically bound to uphold that process.  Choices have consequences.  Our party's choices led to our party's defeat last year.  

You may be a 'slave', if you wish.  I will be an American and uphold the system, knowing that the pendelum will yet swing one more time.  Hopefully this time, you and your ilk in the party will not be on board.


----------



## paperview

Charles Stucker said:


> We get it. 'Freedom for All'
> As long as they are part of *Your* socialist dream.
> Everyone else gets to be your slaves.
> You and Barry two Massa's from the same pod.


When your literal body gets put naked on the auction block to be bought and sold  as a horse or cattle, then you can come back and tell us taxation or universal health care 
is   akin to slavery.


----------



## Charles Stucker

paperview said:


> When your literal body gets put naked on the auction block to be bought and sold  as a horse or cattle, then you can come back and tell us taxation or universal health care
> is   akin to slavery.


When the socialist program called universal health care bankrupts the government and the nation dissolves completely, you will wish the states rights had been acknowledged in time to prevent your retardation from ruining the freedom once enjoyed. 
But go ahead laugh it up.
After the US dissolves Texas will be one of the very few places with no state debt, and hence a decent future.

I'll recommend closing the borders to all the socialists at that time.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OK, Charles, whatever.  Have a Merry Christmas and a good holiday season.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you foolishly played along.
> 
> The South was not separate, the southern states were not sovereign republics, Kevin.  They were part of a larger whole, they fired on the national flag, they spit on the sacrifices of the patriots, they defied constitutional process, and you are making them out to be good guys when in fact they were bad guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, actually they were.  Every state was, and technically still is, an independent sovereign state.  The federal government, note that it is not called the national government, was created by the states to act as their agent, just as the United Nations was created by independent sovereign states from around the world to act as their agent.
Click to expand...


If every state were sovereign, then why did the Confederates complain that they couldn't exercise control over the free states. Why did the Confederates complain that the free states didn't return slaves to the slave states? In the words (in their Declarations of Causes of Seceding States at Declaration of Causes of Secession ) of the Confederacy, who opposed Constitutional states rights the reason for the Civil War?
	Confederates  oppose (via the Constitution) other states sovereignty and claim:
o	It [the Union] refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. Mississippi
o	It [The Union] has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union.  Mississippi
o	In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.  South Carolina
	Confederates oppose Freedom of speech and thought:
o	It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.  Mississippi 
o	they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.  South Carolina
o	They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
	Confederates oppose freedom of the press and speech:
o	It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice. - Mississippi
	Confederates oppose freedom of assembly:
o	It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists. - Mississippi
	The Confederacy seceded universally and primarily to preserve racist slavery:
o	our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government  the prominent reasons which have induced our course.  Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery Mississippi
o	Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.  Mississippi 
o	We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions [slavery]; and have denied the rights of property [slaves] established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; - South Carolina
o	In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.  Texas
o	We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.  Texas
o	That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.  Texas
o	Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation.we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. - Georgia


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Well I'm not going to address that entire wall of text, but I will address why the southern states felt they had a right to demand their slaves be returned to them.  The Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Act made it illegal for states not to return captured slaves to their masters.  That's why the south felt justified.  But of course many northern states simply ignored that portion of the Constitution, and nullified the Fugitive Slave Act.  Some abolitionists even proposed the north should secede from the Union so that they were no longer bound by those laws.


----------



## Charles Stucker

paperview said:


> When your literal body gets put naked on the auction block to be bought and sold  as a horse or cattle, then you can come back and tell us taxation or universal health care
> is   akin to slavery.


Yankee hypocrites would like to believe that there must be chained naked auctions to constitute slavery as it forgives them their egregious slavery.
Where are the sweatshops full of illegal Asians smuggled into the country to become lifelong slaves?
The North

But as long as those wretches are not put up on auction blocks, then it's OK. It's not really slavery just good business practice.

Perhaps Texas should secede in repugnance over the illegal yet still quite common practice of slavery be the hypocrites who claim any *modern* move for secession is a move for slavery.
Shoe might fit better on the other foot.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well I'm not going to address that entire wall of text, but I will address why the southern states felt they had a right to demand their slaves be returned to them.  The Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Act made it illegal for states not to return captured slaves to their masters.  That's why the south felt justified.  But of course many northern states simply ignored that portion of the Constitution, and nullified the Fugitive Slave Act.  Some abolitionists even proposed the north should secede from the Union so that they were no longer bound by those laws.



One, of course you won't, because it contravenes your assertion that slavery was not the prime cause of the Civil War.

Two, civil disobedience is not nullification, which is a very defined political action.  If any of the Northern states nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, please post your source(s).


----------



## JakeStarkey

Charles Stucker, sweatshops operate in New Orleans, Houston, Atlanta,etc.  Quit being a pit.  Your premise is wrong, and so has your entire argument.  Move on.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well I'm not going to address that entire wall of text, but I will address why the southern states felt they had a right to demand their slaves be returned to them.  The Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Act made it illegal for states not to return captured slaves to their masters.  That's why the south felt justified.  But of course many northern states simply ignored that portion of the Constitution, and nullified the Fugitive Slave Act.  Some abolitionists even proposed the north should secede from the Union so that they were no longer bound by those laws.



Wasn't the US Supreme Court the forum to resolve disputes? Nevertheless, how would secession change the Confederate's grievance regarding the non-enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act? Would secession force the free states to return slaves? NO! If every state was sovereign, then why did the Confederates complain that Free States sovereignly chose to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act? The Confederate's own Declaration of Secession assert that Federal control over free states should be enforced. Thus, your assertion that every state is a sovereign entity is contradicted by the Confederate Declaration.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I insist on claiming that the south was clearly willing to allow Fort Sumter to run out of supplies and be peacefully abandoned by the Union troops before Lincoln forced their hand.  I insist on claiming that in response to this evidence it is clear that Lincoln had every intention of escalating the conflict to violence by sending ships to resupply Fort Sumter.  What I have never insisted on is that Fort Sumter was owned by South Carolina.  It was Union property in the borders of the Confederacy, and they weren't willing to allow that arrangement to continue.  They tried peaceful means, but Lincoln forced them to act aggressively.  To suggest that Lincoln did not orchestrate this series of events to unfold in exactly the manner it did is sheer ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, according to your reasoning, do all foreign countries have the right to attack US foreign military installations because the US resupplies them?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Equat

It's not nice to call names.[/QUOTE]

KK: We agree on something!


----------



## Charles Stucker

JakeStarkey said:


> Charles Stucker, sweatshops operate in New Orleans, Houston, Atlanta,etc.  Quit being a pit.  Your premise is wrong, and has your entire argument.  Move on.


So Texas should secede to facilitate our efforts to stop the spread of sweatshops and slavery from New York. I agree, Yankee hypocrisy is dangerous and should be quarantined.
We should move on to independence and freedom.

My premise - that the Constitution, in the bill of rights, gives the right to unilaterally secede form the nation is *RIGHT* you have been wrong the entire time.
Force is not equal to right, otherwise muggers would not be breaking the law.


----------



## Equat

How did you find those? I could never figure out what to put in the search engine to get those documents.[/QUOTE]

In '05 I found Declaration of Causes of Secession by typing: "confederate declaration of independence" in Google. Other Confederate documents that reveal that the Confederates seceeded because of slavery are the "Ordinances of Secession 13 Confederate States of America" The Cherokees also seceeded over slavery as they stated "Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes Which Have Impelled Them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the Confederate States of America."  http://www.civilwarhome.com/cherokeecauses.htm .
at http://americancivilwar.com/documents/ordinance_secession.html


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention Lincoln's revisionist history.  It was not a majority that ratified the Constitution and then it applied to everyone, but every state individually ratified it.  Meaning that any state could individually choose to leave the compact just as freely as they entered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The legal question of secession is not very relevant since certain states were already granted their independence as Cuba was in later years, without re-occupation (disregarding Kennedy's Pay of Pigs Invasion). The Civil War was consequential to Sumpter as a re-occupation of Cuba would have been if they attacked Guantanamo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you're saying here.
Click to expand...

I hope to have clarified what I was saying. The legality of secession is not so much the cause of the civil war as the cause of war was a result of the attack on Sumpter. The Confederates had already peacefully seceeded. Would you say that Cuba, which was granted independence by the US, was more justified in attacking Guantanamo since the US refused to leave its territory and because the US demonstrated that it wanted to overthrow the government of Cuba as demonstrated by the US's Bay of Pigs Invasion? The US did not attack S. Carolina. The opposite was the case according to Gen. Beauregard. The Civil War and the occupation of the US over the Confederacy was consequential to the attack on Sumpter, not the Confederacy's secession. Similarly, the US would have occupied Cuba if it attacked Guantanamo.


----------



## bodecea

Charles Stucker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Stucker, sweatshops operate in New Orleans, Houston, Atlanta,etc.  Quit being a pit.  Your premise is wrong, and has your entire argument.  Move on.
> 
> 
> 
> *So Texas should secede* to facilitate our efforts to stop the spread of sweatshops and slavery from New York. I agree, Yankee hypocrisy is dangerous and should be quarantined.
> We should move on to independence and freedom.
> 
> My premise - that the Constitution, in the bill of rights, gives the right to unilaterally secede form the nation is *RIGHT* you have been wrong the entire time.
> Force is not equal to right, otherwise muggers would not be breaking the law.
Click to expand...


Why are they still here?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to address that entire wall of text, but I will address why the southern states felt they had a right to demand their slaves be returned to them.  The Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Act made it illegal for states not to return captured slaves to their masters.  That's why the south felt justified.  But of course many northern states simply ignored that portion of the Constitution, and nullified the Fugitive Slave Act.  Some abolitionists even proposed the north should secede from the Union so that they were no longer bound by those laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't the US Supreme Court the forum to resolve disputes? Nevertheless, how would secession change the Confederate's grievance regarding the non-enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act? Would secession force the free states to return slaves? NO! If every state was sovereign, then why did the Confederates complain that Free States sovereignly chose to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act? The Confederate's own Declaration of Secession assert that Federal control over free states should be enforced. Thus, your assertion that every state is a sovereign entity is contradicted by the Confederate Declaration.
Click to expand...


Slavery was safer in the Union than without, which leads one to believe that there were obviously other reasons other than slavery.  It doesn't contradict a thing.  Under the Constitution fugitive slaves were a federal issue, so one of their grievances was that the federal government wasn't doing its job.


----------



## JakeStarkey

KevinKennedy, you are obviously wrong about slavery not being the prime cause of the war.  You have been given evidence (from the states' secessions ordinances to the "cornerstone speech" by the CSA vice-president.

Kevin, you are wrong.  End of discussion.  Move on.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to address that entire wall of text, but I will address why the southern states felt they had a right to demand their slaves be returned to them.  The Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Act made it illegal for states not to return captured slaves to their masters.  That's why the south felt justified.  But of course many northern states simply ignored that portion of the Constitution, and nullified the Fugitive Slave Act.  Some abolitionists even proposed the north should secede from the Union so that they were no longer bound by those laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't the US Supreme Court the forum to resolve disputes? Nevertheless, how would secession change the Confederate's grievance regarding the non-enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act? Would secession force the free states to return slaves? NO! If every state was sovereign, then why did the Confederates complain that Free States sovereignly chose to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act? The Confederate's own Declaration of Secession assert that Federal control over free states should be enforced. Thus, your assertion that every state is a sovereign entity is contradicted by the Confederate Declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was safer in the Union than without, which leads one to believe that there were obviously other reasons other than slavery.  It doesn't contradict a thing.  Under the Constitution fugitive slaves were a federal issue, so one of their grievances was that the federal government wasn't doing its job.
Click to expand...


Since you agree that the Federal government had power over states, then by such a definition, the states were not sovereign. There are always multiple reasons for war. The primary and universal one was slavery. I dont know why you say that slavery was safer in the Union than without. If it were, then how would one conclude that such a reason supports the notion that there were other reasons?


----------



## Charles Stucker

Equat said:


> Since you agree that the Federal government had power over states, then by such a definition, the states were not sovereign.



Now you are grasping at straws. The Rill of Rights is extremely clear. Any right not specifically denied the states or reserved for the Federal government is retained by the states.
The matter is *That* simple.
The only people who argue against it are those who want more power for the central government at the expense of the people. 
The technical term for such is 'aspiring tyrants'


----------



## JakeStarkey

(sigh) Charles Stucker, you are not the Supreme Court or the Congress or We the People.  You are entitled to your opinion, and when you are wrong (like now) the rest of us have the right to kick your butt rhetorically up between your ears so you can hear us thumping on it.


----------



## Charles Stucker

JakeStarkey said:


> (sigh) Charles Stucker, you are not the Supreme Court or the Congress or We the People.  You are entitled to your opinion, and when you are wrong (like now) the rest of us have the right to kick your butt rhetorically up between your ears so you can hear us thumping on it.


Might makes right, the rallying cry of aspiring Tyrants.
just because you aspire to tyranny does not mean I ever will.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You will be or do neither, Charles.

You are simply wrong.  End of discussion.


----------



## Charles Stucker

JakeStarkey said:


> You will be or do neither, Charles.


Then we agree.
I will not be a tyrant and I will not commit tyranny.

Too bad you don't want to do the same.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Charles, are you pretending to be stupid or are you actually stupid as you sound?  I am not being mean.  Consider the definition from Merriam-Webster, please, then answer if you wish.

*1 a : slow of mind : obtuse b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : brutish
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid <still stupid from the sedative>
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless <a stupid decision>
4 a : lacking interest or point <a stupid event> b : vexatious, exasperating <the stupid car won't start>

&#8212; stu·pid·ly adverb 

&#8212; stu·pid·ness noun 

synonyms stupid, dull, dense, crass, dumb mean lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions. stupid implies a slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or temporary <stupid students just keeping the seats warm> <stupid with drink>. dull suggests a slow or sluggish mind such as results from disease, depression, or shock <monotonous work that leaves the mind dull>. dense implies a thickheaded imperviousness to ideas <too dense to take a hint>. crass suggests a grossness of mind precluding discrimination or delicacy <a crass, materialistic people>. dumb applies to an exasperating obtuseness or lack of comprehension <too dumb to figure out what's going on>.*


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> KevinKennedy, you are obviously wrong about slavery not being the prime cause of the war.  You have been given evidence (from the states' secessions ordinances to the "cornerstone speech" by the CSA vice-president.
> 
> Kevin, you are wrong.  End of discussion.  Move on.



If it's the end of the discussion then why don't you move on?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't the US Supreme Court the forum to resolve disputes? Nevertheless, how would secession change the Confederate's grievance regarding the non-enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act? Would secession force the free states to return slaves? NO! If every state was sovereign, then why did the Confederates complain that Free States sovereignly chose to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act? The Confederate's own Declaration of Secession assert that Federal control over free states should be enforced. Thus, your assertion that every state is a sovereign entity is contradicted by the Confederate Declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was safer in the Union than without, which leads one to believe that there were obviously other reasons other than slavery.  It doesn't contradict a thing.  Under the Constitution fugitive slaves were a federal issue, so one of their grievances was that the federal government wasn't doing its job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you agree that the Federal government had power over states, then by such a definition, the states were not sovereign. There are always multiple reasons for war. The primary and universal one was slavery. I dont know why you say that slavery was safer in the Union than without. If it were, then how would one conclude that such a reason supports the notion that there were other reasons?
Click to expand...


The states had ceded certain responsibilities to the federal government, one of them being the return of fugitive slaves.  That doesn't mean the states were not sovereign independent states, however.  I say slavery was safer in the Union because in the Union the southern states had the Constitution and Fugitive Slave Act on their side.  When they seceded the northern states were no longer under any legal basis to return fugitive slaves to the south.  That would make the institution of slavery even less economical than it already was due to the south's developing economy.  Prominent southerners Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both knew this, and even opined that slavery would eventually wear itself out in the Confederacy on its own because of those very reasons.  The fact that they knew slavery was safer in the Union than without means that there were other reasons other than slavery that the states seceded.  I do not contend that no one felt slavery was safer out of the Union, however, because obviously they did.  I simply see the facts as not supporting that position whatsoever.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin, if you want to beat a dead horse, go for it.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was safer in the Union than without, which leads one to believe that there were obviously other reasons other than slavery.  It doesn't contradict a thing.  Under the Constitution fugitive slaves were a federal issue, so one of their grievances was that the federal government wasn't doing its job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you agree that the Federal government had power over states, then by such a definition, the states were not sovereign. There are always multiple reasons for war. The primary and universal one was slavery. I dont know why you say that slavery was safer in the Union than without. If it were, then how would one conclude that such a reason supports the notion that there were other reasons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states had ceded certain responsibilities to the federal government, one of them being the return of fugitive slaves.  That doesn't mean the states were not sovereign independent states, however.  I say slavery was safer in the Union because in the Union the southern states had the Constitution and Fugitive Slave Act on their side.  When they seceded the northern states were no longer under any legal basis to return fugitive slaves to the south.  That would make the institution of slavery even less economical than it already was due to the south's developing economy.  Prominent southerners Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both knew this, and even opined that slavery would eventually wear itself out in the Confederacy on its own because of those very reasons.  The fact that they knew slavery was safer in the Union than without means that there were other reasons other than slavery that the states seceded.  I do not contend that no one felt slavery was safer out of the Union, however, because obviously they did.  I simply see the facts as not supporting that position whatsoever.
Click to expand...


The Confederate's contentions as expliicated in their Declaration of Secession were also that the Federal Union allowed its people to exercise freedom of speach and assembly - freedoms denied to those in the slave states.


----------



## Equat

Charles Stucker said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you agree that the Federal government had power over states, then by such a definition, the states were not sovereign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are grasping at straws. The Rill of Rights is extremely clear. Any right not specifically denied the states or reserved for the Federal government is retained by the states.
> The matter is *That* simple.
> The only people who argue against it are those who want more power for the central government at the expense of the people.
> The technical term for such is 'aspiring tyrants'
Click to expand...


I'm glad that we agree that the Federal government has power over states which the states ceded to the Federal government. Thus, the states were not sovereign.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin, if you want to beat a dead horse, go for it.



This is a historical topic in the history forum.  You're free to ignore this thread if it's bothering you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The topic doesn't bother me at all.  I find it interesting.  What I find boring are your dead-horse tropisms.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you agree that the Federal government had power over states, then by such a definition, the states were not sovereign. There are always multiple reasons for war. The primary and universal one was slavery. I dont know why you say that slavery was safer in the Union than without. If it were, then how would one conclude that such a reason supports the notion that there were other reasons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The states had ceded certain responsibilities to the federal government, one of them being the return of fugitive slaves.  That doesn't mean the states were not sovereign independent states, however.  I say slavery was safer in the Union because in the Union the southern states had the Constitution and Fugitive Slave Act on their side.  When they seceded the northern states were no longer under any legal basis to return fugitive slaves to the south.  That would make the institution of slavery even less economical than it already was due to the south's developing economy.  Prominent southerners Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both knew this, and even opined that slavery would eventually wear itself out in the Confederacy on its own because of those very reasons.  The fact that they knew slavery was safer in the Union than without means that there were other reasons other than slavery that the states seceded.  I do not contend that no one felt slavery was safer out of the Union, however, because obviously they did.  I simply see the facts as not supporting that position whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate's contentions as expliicated in their Declaration of Secession were also that the Federal Union allowed its people to exercise freedom of speach and assembly - freedoms denied to those in the slave states.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about?  The Confederate Constitution explicitly protected freedom of speech and assembly.

"12. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Constitution of the Confederate States of America - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> The topic doesn't bother me at all.  I find it interesting.  What I find boring are your dead-horse tropisms.



Then you're free to ignore me and discuss the topic as you wish.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nope, I will keep outing your tropisms.

And despite with the Confederate Constitution stated, the South still suppressed free speech and assemblies on each issues the culture did not like, just as had for more than thirty years.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states had ceded certain responsibilities to the federal government, one of them being the return of fugitive slaves.  That doesn't mean the states were not sovereign independent states, however.  I say slavery was safer in the Union because in the Union the southern states had the Constitution and Fugitive Slave Act on their side.  When they seceded the northern states were no longer under any legal basis to return fugitive slaves to the south.  That would make the institution of slavery even less economical than it already was due to the south's developing economy.  Prominent southerners Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee both knew this, and even opined that slavery would eventually wear itself out in the Confederacy on its own because of those very reasons.  The fact that they knew slavery was safer in the Union than without means that there were other reasons other than slavery that the states seceded.  I do not contend that no one felt slavery was safer out of the Union, however, because obviously they did.  I simply see the facts as not supporting that position whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate's contentions as expliicated in their Declaration of Secession were also that the Federal Union allowed its people to exercise freedom of speach and assembly - freedoms denied to those in the slave states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  The Confederate Constitution explicitly protected freedom of speech and assembly.
> 
> "12. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Constitution of the Confederate States of America - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Click to expand...


The Confederates seceded because the Federal government did not deny such rights to its people as stated in their Declaration of Secession. The Confederates also denied such freedoms (among many others) to all blacks. By culture, the society prohibited free speach. I'll provide you some additional evidence regarding court cases where people were silenced by judges to testify about white men using their slaves ("breeding wenches" and "fancy" mulato "girls") as sex slaves (whores & concubines).

What I'm talking about is  in the words (in their &#8220;Declarations of Causes of Seceding States&#8221; at http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html ) of the Confederacy, who opposed Constitutional &#8220;states&#8217; rights&#8221; &#8211;the reason for the Civil War?
&#8226;	Confederates oppose Freedom of speech and thought:
o	&#8220;It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.&#8221; &#8211; Mississippi 
o	&#8220;they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. &#8211; South Carolina
o	&#8220;They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.&#8221;
&#8226;	Confederates oppose freedom of the press and speech:
o	&#8220;It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.&#8221; - Mississippi
&#8226;	Confederates oppose freedom of assembly:
o	&#8220;It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.&#8221; - Mississippi


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate's contentions as expliicated in their Declaration of Secession were also that the Federal Union allowed its people to exercise freedom of speach and assembly - freedoms denied to those in the slave states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  The Confederate Constitution explicitly protected freedom of speech and assembly.
> 
> "12. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Constitution of the Confederate States of America - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederates seceded because the Federal government did not deny such rights to its people as stated in their Declaration of Secession. The Confederates also denied such freedoms (among many others) to all blacks. By culture, the society prohibited free speach. I'll provide you some additional evidence regarding court cases where people were silenced by judges to testify about white men using their slaves ("breeding wenches" and "fancy" mulato "girls") as sex slaves (whores & concubines).
Click to expand...


Well if you're referring to slaves then did the north allow freedom of speech or assembly for the slaves that were in the five slave states that remained in the Union?  No.


----------



## paperview

> What are you talking about?  The Confederate Constitution explicitly protected freedom of speech and assembly.
> 
> "12. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Constitution of the Confederate States of America



One of the great Ironies of the Confederates:  They instituted Martial Law to prevent free assembly and lock down free speech...  and used it to prohibit their own states 
-to secede from the Confederacy. 

I guess what was good for their goose, wasn't good for their gander.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> What are you talking about?  The Confederate Constitution explicitly protected freedom of speech and assembly.
> 
> "12. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Constitution of the Confederate States of America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the great Ironies of the Confederates:  They instituted Martial Law to prevent free assembly and lock down free speech...  and used it to prohibit their own states
> -to secede from the Confederacy.
> 
> I guess what was good for their goose, wasn't good for their gander.
Click to expand...


As did Abraham Lincoln in the north, who had an Ohio Congressman deported to the Confederacy for speaking out against him.

As to allowing "their own states" to secede from the Confederacy, it's certainly one of the great ironies and I can't remember if it was you or somebody else that first alerted me to this historical episode.  I know it was on this board at any rate where I first learned of it.  It wasn't actually a state that wished to secede, however.  I believe it was a county if I'm not mistaken.  Of course there is a big difference between a county and a state.  Counties and other local governments are creations of the states and have never been independent, unlike the states themselves which were and are independent.  However, I certainly support the right of secession at any level.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  The Confederate Constitution explicitly protected freedom of speech and assembly.
> 
> "12. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Constitution of the Confederate States of America - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederates seceded because the Federal government did not deny such rights to its people as stated in their Declaration of Secession. The Confederates also denied such freedoms (among many others) to all blacks. By culture, the society prohibited free speach. I'll provide you some additional evidence regarding court cases where people were silenced by judges to testify about white men using their slaves ("breeding wenches" and "fancy" mulato "girls") as sex slaves (whores & concubines).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you're referring to slaves then did the north allow freedom of speech or assembly for the slaves that were in the five slave states that remained in the Union?  No.
Click to expand...


The Confederates in their Declaration of secession were not indicting the slave states. The Confederates were indicting the Union.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  The Confederate Constitution explicitly protected freedom of speech and assembly.
> 
> "12. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Constitution of the Confederate States of America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the great Ironies of the Confederates:  They instituted Martial Law to prevent free assembly and lock down free speech...  and used it to prohibit their own states
> -to secede from the Confederacy.
> 
> I guess what was good for their goose, wasn't good for their gander.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As did Abraham Lincoln in the north, who had an Ohio Congressman deported to the Confederacy for speaking out against him.
> 
> As to allowing "their own states" to secede from the Confederacy, it's certainly one of the great ironies and I can't remember if it was you or somebody else that first alerted me to this historical episode.  I know it was on this board at any rate where I first learned of it.  It wasn't actually a state that wished to secede, however.  I believe it was a county if I'm not mistaken.  Of course there is a big difference between a county and a state.  Counties and other local governments are creations of the states and have never been independent, unlike the states themselves which were and are independent.  However, I certainly support the right of secession at any level.
Click to expand...


Your argument ultima is blown out of the water by your contention further above, KevinKennedy.  No, the South was wrong in seceding, and even if they were right, one man said "no!" and that was the end of an independent South.

In other words, an independent South could not happen because the Southern whites were simply not worthy of making it happen.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederates seceded because the Federal government did not deny such rights to its people as stated in their Declaration of Secession. The Confederates also denied such freedoms (among many others) to all blacks. By culture, the society prohibited free speach. I'll provide you some additional evidence regarding court cases where people were silenced by judges to testify about white men using their slaves ("breeding wenches" and "fancy" mulato "girls") as sex slaves (whores & concubines).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you're referring to slaves then did the north allow freedom of speech or assembly for the slaves that were in the five slave states that remained in the Union?  No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederates in their Declaration of secession were not indicting the slave states. The Confederates were indicting the Union.
Click to expand...


And what does that have to do with what I said?


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you're referring to slaves then did the north allow freedom of speech or assembly for the slaves that were in the five slave states that remained in the Union?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederates in their Declaration of secession were not indicting the slave states. The Confederates were indicting the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with what I said?
Click to expand...

You asked me if I were refering to the slave states that weren't treasonous with the Confederates. My answer is "No" because the Declaration of secession was not refering to those states. The Declaration was refering to the Federal Union as a whole, not to specific states, nor to specific counties in their states which did not secede.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederates in their Declaration of secession were not indicting the slave states. The Confederates were indicting the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with what I said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked me if I were refering to the slave states that weren't treasonous with the Confederates. My answer is "No" because the Declaration of secession was not refering to those states. The Declaration was refering to the Federal Union as a whole, not to specific states, nor to specific counties in their states which did not secede.
Click to expand...


No, I asked if the slaves that were still in the Union had more rights than the slaves that were in the Confederacy, and of course the answer is no.  You seem intent on condemning the south, but are rather mum on the north.

At any rate, no one is sticking up for the south regarding it's treatment of slaves.  Slavery is an evil institution, and nobody laments it being gone.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oh, KevinKennedy, having slaves was not treasonous.  Firing on Old Glory was treasonous.  Leaving the Union was treasonous.  Pretending that the prime cause of the war was not slavery is not honorable.


----------



## Equat

[/QUOTE]You seem intent on condemning the south, but are rather mum on the north.

At any rate, no one is sticking up for the south regarding it's treatment of slaves.  Slavery is an evil institution, and nobody laments it being gone.[/QUOTE]

Why condemn the Union when they weren't treasonous? The Union didn't fire upon the US and start a war with itself. The Confederacy in its Declaration of Secession didn't condemn the slave states that weren't treasonous. The Confederacy condemned the Federal Union.

A lot of people advocating the Confederacy are lamenting the abolition of slavery and the defacto slavery that existed until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Witness all the Dixie banners countering the civil rights demonstrations and those of the KKK. The reason that the Confederacy became the Confederacy was to prevent the abolition of its racist slavery. Advocating for the racists slave protecting Confederacy is advocating for slavery and lamenting its abolition. Lamenting the Confederacy's loosing is lamenting the loss of slavery. Since slavery is an "evil institution" in your words, then the Confederacy must be evil since it disagreed with your judment of their evil.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Any defense of the Confederacy is a defense of slavery.  Both are inhumane abominations.


----------



## Sunni Man

Slavery was NOT the reason for the Civil War.

But that's what they teach children in grade school.

It was over economics and political power.

Lincoln was the first northern president to be elected in many years.

The balance of power had shifted from the southern states to the northern states.

The southern states felt that they would now be second class to the north, and resented their new status.

Slavery was just the emontional justification to stir up the population to enter into war.


----------



## Equat

Sunni Man said:


> Slavery was NOT the reason for the Civil War.
> 
> But that's what they teach children in grade school.
> 
> It was over economics and political power.
> 
> Lincoln was the first northern president to be elected in many years.
> 
> The balance of power had shifted from the southern states to the northern states.
> 
> The southern states felt that they would now be second class to the north, and resented their new status.
> 
> Slavery was just the emontional justification to stir up the population to enter into war.



In the words (in their &#8220;Declarations of Causes of Seceding States&#8221; at Declaration of Causes of Secession ) of the Confederacy, who opposed Constitutional &#8220;states&#8217; rights&#8221; &#8211;the reason for the Civil War?
&#8226;	The Confederacy seceded universally and primarily to preserve racist slavery:
o	&#8220;&#8230;our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government &#8230; the prominent reasons which have induced our course.  Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery&#8230;&#8221;&#8211; Mississippi
o	&#8220;Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.&#8221; &#8211; Mississippi 
o	&#8220;We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions [slavery]; and have denied the rights of property [slaves] established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; - South Carolina
o	&#8220;In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.&#8221; &#8211; Texas
o	&#8220;We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.&#8221; &#8211; Texas
o	&#8220;That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.&#8221; &#8211; Texas
o	&#8220;Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation.&#8230;we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.&#8221; - Georgia


----------



## Sunni Man

I am not interested in reading your long copy & paste

So in one sentence or so, in your own words, please state your rebuttal.


----------



## Equat

Don't read the Confederate's Documents if you don't want to be confused with the facts.


----------



## paperview

Sunni Man said:


> Slavery was NOT the reason for the Civil War.
> 
> But that's what they teach children in grade school.
> 
> It was over economics and political power.
> 
> Lincoln was the first northern president to be elected in many years.
> 
> The balance of power had shifted from the southern states to the northern states.
> 
> The southern states felt that they would now be second class to the north, and resented their new status.
> 
> Slavery was just the emontional justification to stir up the population to enter into war.


South Carolina had declared its right to secede in 1852.  

What was happening then?  I'll give you some time to think about it.


----------



## Sunni Man

Equat said:


> Don't read the Confederate's Documents if you don't want to be confused with the facts.



There are no 'facts" in what you posted.

What you posted wasn't just a Confederate document as you are trying to allude.

The second sentence said: " The Confederacy seceded universally and primarily to preserve racist slavery"

The Confederate declaration never said anything like that. 

The item you posted as so called evidence. 

Is full of conjuctures and notations, put into the document to influence the reader.

And were not part of the orginal wording.


----------



## paperview

Here's another fun game for you Sunni, et al.

Click here:  Declaration of Causes of Secession

These are 4 of the Declarations of Causes of Secession from Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas.

Now that's a lot of reading for some of you south'run kin, so just do this little easy-as-snap thing:

Press Control ^F.  That's the Find key.  Now enter in the word "slave" in there.

See how soon it takes before you begin to lose count.


----------



## Equat

Sunni Man said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't read the Confederate's Documents if you don't want to be confused with the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no 'facts" in what you posted.
> 
> What you posted wasn't just a Confederate document as you are trying to allude.
> 
> The second sentence said: " The Confederacy seceded universally and primarily to preserve racist slavery"
> 
> The Confederate declaration never said anything like that.
> 
> The item you posted as so called evidence.
> 
> Is full of conjuctures and notations, put into the document to influence the reader.
> 
> And were not part of the orginal wording.
Click to expand...


If you don't like my paste, then go to Declaration of Causes of Secession and read the document for yourself.


----------



## paperview

Sunni Man said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't read the Confederate's Documents if you don't want to be confused with the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no 'facts" in what you posted.
> 
> What you posted wasn't just a Confederate document as you are trying to allude.
> 
> The second sentence said: " The Confederacy seceded universally and primarily to preserve racist slavery"
> 
> The Confederate declaration never said anything like that.
> 
> The item you posted as so called evidence.
> 
> Is full of conjuctures and notations, put into the document to influence the reader.
> 
> And were not part of the orginal wording.
Click to expand...

Er, that's _his_ commentary.  Note the ":" after.

The rest are the original words from the secess docs.

Are you going to deny the phrase *"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."*  in the Mississippi Declaration is not there?


----------



## Sunni Man

Equat said:


> If you don't like my paste, then go to Declaration of Causes of Secession and read the document for yourself.



I have read it before.

It's about southerners fear of the northern economic interests subjugating the southern economic interests.


----------



## Equat

Sunni Man said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like my paste, then go to Declaration of Causes of Secession and read the document for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read it before.
> 
> It's about southerners fear of the northern economic interests subjugating the southern economic interests.
Click to expand...


Don't confuse yourself by refreshing your mind with the facts, then. Good night. I'm going to bed.


----------



## paperview

Sunni Man said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like my paste, then go to Declaration of Causes of Secession and read the document for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read it before.
> 
> It's about southerners fear of the northern economic interests subjugating the southern economic interests.
Click to expand...

Through owning slaves.

It's all there.


----------



## paperview

Just in case you missed it Sunni:

Here's another fun game for you Sunni, et al.

Click here:  Declaration of Causes of Secession

These are 4 of the Declarations of Causes of Secession from Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas.

Now that's a lot of reading for some of you south'run kin, so just do this little easy-as-snap thing:

Press Control ^F.  That's the Find key.  Now enter in the word "slave" in there.

See how soon it takes before you begin to lose count.


----------



## Sunni Man

Equat said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like my paste, then go to Declaration of Causes of Secession and read the document for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read it before.
> 
> It's about southerners fear of the northern economic interests subjugating the southern economic interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't confuse yourself by refreshing youself with the facts, then.
Click to expand...


This is getting too tedious and obviously you aren't a student of the Civil War era.

In a nut shell:

Yes, slavery was an issue and caused tension between the north and south.

But No, slavery was NOT the main issue that led to open warfare.

Economics, as in almost every war, was the issue which caused the two sides to commence hostilities.

Good night


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Any defense of the Confederacy is a defense of slavery.  Both are inhumane abominations.



Following that logic any defense of the Union is a defense of slavery.


----------



## JW Frogen

I had a very close friend who used to argue the South would have won the Civil War if they &#8220;only had more trains.&#8221;

When I gently posited the idea the South did not have have more trains because they were a backward, slave, agrarian economy and never fully industrialized, he would accuse me of being a racist.

We are both white men.

Fuck, I miss that guy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sunni Man cannot manfully accept that he is wrong.  Slavery was the "prime cause" of the civil war.  All political and economic and social indicaors of the national pathology that led to the Civil War were symptoms of that original cause.  The irrelevancy of Sunni Man's argument are highlighted by the leading participants in that great and terrible event who said slavery was the reason for the war.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> Sunni Man cannot manfully accept that he is wrong.  Slavery was the "prime cause" of the civil war.  All political and economic and social indicaors of the national pathology that led to the Civil War were symptoms of that original cause.  The irrelevancy of Sunni Man's argument are highlighted by the leading participants in that great and terrible event who said slavery was the reason for the war.



Nope, Sunni Man is correct.

Heck, there were even blacks who joined the Confederacy of their own free will and fought against the North.


----------



## Equat

Sunni Man said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man cannot manfully accept that he is wrong.  Slavery was the "prime cause" of the civil war.  All political and economic and social indicaors of the national pathology that led to the Civil War were symptoms of that original cause.  The irrelevancy of Sunni Man's argument are highlighted by the leading participants in that great and terrible event who said slavery was the reason for the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, Sunni Man is correct.
> 
> Heck, there were even blacks who joined the Confederacy of their own free will and fought against the North.
Click to expand...


Slave blacks that weren't allowed to read, not free blacks. Slaves have always been used by enemies to war against their own people. The Romans uses them (e.g. Jews in 70 A.D.), the Nazis used Jews to throw Jews in ovens. Just because some Americans fought for the Nazis in WWII doesn't mean that the American people were Nazis.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any defense of the Confederacy is a defense of slavery.  Both are inhumane abominations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following that logic any defense of the Union is a defense of slavery.
Click to expand...


How do you figure? The Union didn't war against Brittan nor fight a war to preserve slavery like the racist treasonist Rebs.


----------



## Sunni Man

*Blacks Who Fought For the South * 

Most historical accounts portray Southern blacks as anxiously awaiting President Abraham Lincoln's "liberty-dispensing troops" marching south in the War Between the States. But there's more to the story; let's look at it. 
        Black Confederate military units, both as freemen and slaves, fought federal troops. Louisiana free blacks gave their reason for fighting in a letter written to New Orleans' Daily Delta: "The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana. They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-15." As to bravery, one black scolded the commanding general of the state militia, saying, "Pardon me, general, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood." 
        Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest had slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, Forrest said of the black men who served under him, "These boys stayed with me.. - and better Confederates did not live." Articles in "Black Southerners in Gray," edited by Richard Rollins, gives numerous accounts of blacks serving as fighting men or servants in every battle from Gettysburg to Vicksburg. 
        Professor Ed Smith, director of American Studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam - the war's bloodiest battle. Mr. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. They fought for the same reason they fought in previous wars and wars afterward: "to position themselves. They had to prove they were patriots in the hope the future would be better ... they hoped to be rewarded." 

Blacks who fought for the South (News Article)


----------



## Equat

Sunni Man said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read it before.
> 
> It's about southerners fear of the northern economic interests subjugating the southern economic interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't confuse yourself by refreshing youself with the facts, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is getting too tedious and obviously you aren't a student of the Civil War era.
> 
> In a nut shell:
> 
> Yes, slavery was an issue and caused tension between the north and south.
> 
> But No, slavery was NOT the main issue that led to open warfare.
> 
> Economics, as in almost every war, was the issue which caused the two sides to commence hostilities.
> 
> Good night
Click to expand...


Economics of slavery was the reason. We agreee! Good Morning! If you're a student of the Civil War, then why can't you read the racists' reasons for seceding at Declaration of Causes of Secession ? Why are you denying what the rebs said? Admittedly, I'm not a student (disciple) of brainwashing from the Confederate cult and its culture that worships looser Lee.


----------



## Equat

Sunni Man said:


> *Blacks Who Fought For the South *
> 
> Most historical accounts portray Southern blacks as anxiously awaiting President Abraham Lincoln's "liberty-dispensing troops" marching south in the War Between the States. But there's more to the story; let's look at it.
> Black Confederate military units, both as freemen and slaves, fought federal troops. Louisiana free blacks gave their reason for fighting in a letter written to New Orleans' Daily Delta: "The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana. They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-15." As to bravery, one black scolded the commanding general of the state militia, saying, "Pardon me, general, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood."
> Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest had slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, Forrest said of the black men who served under him, "These boys stayed with me.. - and better Confederates did not live." Articles in "Black Southerners in Gray," edited by Richard Rollins, gives numerous accounts of blacks serving as fighting men or servants in every battle from Gettysburg to Vicksburg.
> Professor Ed Smith, director of American Studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam - the war's bloodiest battle. Mr. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. They fought for the same reason they fought in previous wars and wars afterward: "to position themselves. They had to prove they were patriots in the hope the future would be better ... they hoped to be rewarded."
> 
> Blacks who fought for the South (News Article)



For argument sake, I'll asssume your documentation to be accurate and comment. The free blacks who fought were slave owning blacks to protect racist slavery. Yes, some blacks are racist against blacks as any abused child hates itself and tends to abuse others when grown up in the same manner in which he was abused. "Uncle Tom" blacks have always been used to socially validate racism as demonstrated in the propaganda anti-civil rights commerical of the 1960s. Jane Fonda,Tokoyo Rose, Bennedict Arnold, and all the American Germans who fought the Allies in WWII were used similarly to the way that the blacks to whom you refer. The non-free blacks were illiterate slaves, forced to fight or be whipped and killed as nations thoughout all history have employed slaves to kill their own people.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I absolutely love the idiocy of the argument that the South was justified in attacking Federal Forts because Lincoln wouldn't sell the forts.

The President of the United States has no power, no authority , no right to sell Federal Property. Never has and probably never will. Congress was not in session and could not be addressed until it was. South Carolina KNEW this as well as every Politician in the South.

They were not interested in a peaceful solution at all. That would be why they raised armies, incited revolt, seized Federal property and attacked a federal Fort. Lincoln had done NOTHING at all until the fort was attacked. NOTHING. Once the Federal Government was attacked he did the only thing he could, he called for the raising of the Militia to put down armed rebellion.


----------



## paperview

Quoting an op-ed from Walter William, a hack who was caught being PAID to fudge stories in national papers by the Bush Administration.

Quaint.

But never mind...one question for those who think the slaves were so eager to fight for the south:

Why didn't the confederate army, who cared so much for the cause, not the slavery, per say - just mobilize the 4 million slaves they had?
  Even if they mobilized _half _of that, they would have had one of the biggest armies in the world at the time!

Why didn't they do that?

A question for you to answer.


----------



## paperview

*Lincoln's Inauguration speech - March 4, 1861:*

"In your hand, my fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. 

The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. 
You have no oath in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend" it...We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. 
Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. 
The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."


*Six weeks later, the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, and the Civil War began.*


----------



## Sunni Man

Equat said:


> Why are you denying what the rebs said? Admittedly, I'm not a student (disciple) of brainwashing from the Confederate cult and its culture that worships looser Lee.



I am not a worshiper of the Confederacy or Lee.

As a white man who is married to a black woman. I am not going to teach my children the "Civil War was fought over slavery" myth.

They will be educated to understand the finer points and nuances of the conflict.

As in most things in life; the answers aren't usually black and white. (pun intended)


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sunni Man said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you denying what the rebs said? Admittedly, I'm not a student (disciple) of brainwashing from the Confederate cult and its culture that worships looser Lee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a worshiper of the Confederacy or Lee.
> 
> As a white man who is married to a black woman. I am not going to teach my children the "Civil War was fought over slavery" myth.
> 
> They will be educated to understand the finer points and nuances of the conflict.
> 
> As in most things in life; the answers aren't usually black and white. (pun intended)
Click to expand...


Did you bother to read the very words the Southern States wrote when they left the Union? THEY openly STATE they are leaving because of SLAVERY.


----------



## Equat

RetiredGySgt said:


> I absolutely love the idiocy of the argument that the South was justified in attacking Federal Forts because Lincoln wouldn't sell the forts.
> 
> The President of the United States has no power, no authority , no right to sell Federal Property. Never has and probably never will. Congress was not in session and could not be addressed until it was. South Carolina KNEW this as well as every Politician in the South.
> 
> They were not interested in a peaceful solution at all. That would be why they raised armies, incited revolt, seized Federal property and attacked a federal Fort. Lincoln had done NOTHING at all until the fort was attacked. NOTHING. Once the Federal Government was attacked he did the only thing he could, he called for the raising of the Militia to put down armed rebellion.



Lincoln's response to Ft. Sumter set a precedence for all futrue foreign government expectation if they were to attack a US military installation on forereign soil. Imagine what a weak nation the US would be if Lincoln were too much of a pussy cat not to respond with military force.

I, too am retired military. We didn't fight with bullets. We medics fought an unseen enemy - disease - that killed more Union soldiers than Reb bullets. We focused on hand-washing, feild sanitation, and treating the wounded (foreign & domestic). We didn't glorify war. We didn't glorify the battlefield, but rather quoted Napoleon who said that that it smelled like a sewer because soldiers' fear caused them to loose control of their bowels. We quoted Sherman who said "War is Hell you cannot refine it." Incidentally, Sherman, villanized by the Rebs, was a whole lot softer than US Generals of all other wars that killed via genocide (e.g. against the Indians, and in Vietnam), woman and children bombed at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Berlin, etc. Perhaps if Sherman would have sold off the Reb children, woman, and soldiers as slaves or at least killed them as the US has killed non-combatants in other wars, then the Rebs would love and respect us as the Japs and the Germans (whom the US occupies militarily) do. When in Japan, the nationals never threw up their loser heroes in our faces as the rebs do. Some Japanese showered me with gifts for reasons I couldn't understand. When in Germany, my wife's father (a general who also fought as an enlisted in WWII) was treated like a king.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

JakeStarkey said:


> Sunni Man cannot manfully accept that he is wrong.  Slavery was the "prime cause" of the civil war.  All political and economic and social indicaors of the national pathology that led to the Civil War were symptoms of that original cause.  The irrelevancy of Sunni Man's argument are highlighted by the leading participants in that great and terrible event who said slavery was the reason for the war.


It was less the 'final cause' as the issue which touched upion all the underlying issues.

Ultimately, the North needed Southern resources to sustain the economy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sunni Man said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you denying what the rebs said? Admittedly, I'm not a student (disciple) of brainwashing from the Confederate cult and its culture that worships looser Lee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a worshiper of the Confederacy or Lee.
> 
> As a white man who is married to a black woman. I am not going to teach my children the "Civil War was fought over slavery" myth.
> 
> They will be educated to understand the finer points and nuances of the conflict.
> 
> As in most things in life; the answers aren't usually black and white. (pun intended)
Click to expand...


The facts for the cause of the conflict contradict your quaint, out-dated beliefs, Sunni Man.  Your repetitive squawking does not change that.


----------



## Equat

Sunni Man said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you denying what the rebs said? Admittedly, I'm not a student (disciple) of brainwashing from the Confederate cult and its culture that worships looser Lee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a worshiper of the Confederacy or Lee.
> 
> As a white man who is married to a black woman. I am not going to teach my children the "Civil War was fought over slavery" myth.
> 
> They will be educated to understand the finer points and nuances of the conflict.
> 
> As in most things in life; the answers aren't usually black and white. (pun intended)
Click to expand...


We have something in common respecting race (according to the one-drop rule and familial experience with segregation in the Ol' South) and marriage. So, you must understand black-on-black racism and Uncle Tomism like I do. You must also understand the element that your wife has which causes her to hate being black and your own tendancy toward racism to agree with her. The remedy for such racism is not denial of the facts, but accepting the truth and finding acceptance outside of evil societies. The difference between us is that I can face the ugly truth and teach it to my children, yet know that they won't believe that they are inferior beings as taught by the "Christian" Texans and other Confederates in their Declaration of Causes of Secession.


----------



## Sunni Man

All Confederate soldiers should be treated with the same respect and honor as the Union soldiers.

Both fought for a better nation and the ideals associated with patriotism and love of country.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

RetiredGySgt said:


> I absolutely love the idiocy of the argument that the South was justified in attacking Federal Forts because Lincoln wouldn't sell the forts.
> 
> The President of the United States has no power, no authority , no right to sell Federal Property. Never has and probably never will. Congress was not in session and could not be addressed until it was. South Carolina KNEW this as well as every Politician in the South.
> 
> They were not interested in a peaceful solution at all. That would be why they raised armies, incited revolt, seized Federal property and attacked a federal Fort. Lincoln had done NOTHING at all until the fort was attacked. NOTHING. Once the Federal Government was attacked he did the only thing he could, he called for the raising of the Militia to put down armed rebellion.


I absolutely love the idiocy of the argument that the rebels were justified in attacking the King's soldiers because the Crown wouldn't hand over the land and ports....


----------



## JakeStarkey

The German soldiers of the Reich fought for their country, but I don't honor Naziism.  The Confederates fought for their country, but I don't honor their despicable cause, to continue a White Race Master Democracy.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> The German soldiers of the Reich fought for their country, but I don't honor Naziism.  The Confederates fought for their country, but I don't honor their despicable cause, to continue a White Race Master Democracy.



The % of Southerners who owned slaves was very small.

They fought to protect their families and homes from northern invaders.

Slavery was a secondary concern.


----------



## Equat

Sunni Man said:


> All Confederate soldiers should be treated with the same respect and honor as the Union soldiers.
> 
> Both fought for a better nation and the ideals associated with patriotism and love of country.




Treasonous racist fools should be treated with the same respect as those who were loyal to their country? Do you think Nazis should be treated the same as US soldiers by the US because "Both fought for a better nation and the ideals associated with patriotism and love of country"?


----------



## paperview

Sunni Man said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The German soldiers of the Reich fought for their country, but I don't honor Naziism.  The Confederates fought for their country, but I don't honor their despicable cause, to continue a White Race Master Democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The % of Southerners who owned slaves was very small.
> 
> They fought to protect their families and homes from northern invaders.
> 
> Slavery was a secondary concern.
Click to expand...

25 - 30% of a population is not "very small."


----------



## Equat

Sunni Man said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The German soldiers of the Reich fought for their country, but I don't honor Naziism.  The Confederates fought for their country, but I don't honor their despicable cause, to continue a White Race Master Democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The % of Southerners who owned slaves was very small.
> 
> They fought to protect their families and homes from northern invaders.
> 
> Slavery was a secondary concern.
Click to expand...


The % of Rebs who owned slaves is irrelevant to the Rebs in their Declaration of Causes of Secession. Additionally, therein is the primary (not "secondary") concern: racist slavery. If they wanted to protect their families and homes, then they would have joined the Union as many did and were saved from destruction of their homes.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Famous Treasonous traitors


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sunni Man said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The German soldiers of the Reich fought for their country, but I don't honor Naziism.  The Confederates fought for their country, but I don't honor their despicable cause, to continue a White Race Master Democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The % of Southerners who owned slaves was very small.
> 
> They fought to protect their families and homes from northern invaders.
> 
> Slavery was a secondary concern.
Click to expand...


One out of every four southern families owned at least one slave.  The other southern families endorsed the peculiar insitutiton because it regulated the place of blacks in a Master Race White Democracy.  All of the secession ordinances earlier provided on this thread support that.

Your argument is false, Sunni Man.


----------



## paperview

Little factoid:

South Carolina, 1860:

*Free Population:   301,302 
Slave Population: 402,406 		*


----------



## paperview

Mississippi, 1860: 

*Free Population:   354,674      
Slave Population: 436,631*


----------



## Equat

Such "famous treasonous traitors" were winners who have the priviledge to write and judge history. The Soviets had the right to try the Nazis for killing Jews, while absolving the former who killed more than the latter.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

So, basically paperview's arguing that the ******* were the majority and were still too stupid to claim their own liberation until it was handed to them by the White man? That kinda bolsters the slaveowners' claims about the natural order of things, doesn't it?


----------



## paperview

It disgusts me  proletarian that you continue to use racial slurs in your contributions.  

You diminish everything you ever say with that vile language.


----------



## Equat

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1823840 said:
			
		

> So, basically paperview's arguing that the ******* were the majority and were still too stupid to claim their own liberation until it was handed to them by the White man? That kinda bolsters the slaveowners' claims about the natural order of things, doesn't it?



The slaves weren't allowed to read by the Rebs. True, they were ignorant as a consequence. They were outnumbered by whites in other states. Note that the states which had a greater % of slaves than whites seceded first! Yes, the slaves did need whites to free them. It wasn't natural for a "Christian" society of men to prohibit reading (even the Bible), nor the seperation of families at slave auctions, nor the raping of women by owners, nor the beating of slaves with whips, nor all of the evil atrocities of the Rebs.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Equat said:


> The slaves weren't allowed to read by the Rebs.



You need a book to tell you that your condition sucks? Then you must be truly stupid. 




> Yes, the slaves did need whites to free them.



Then they should remember that and thank the White man every day for taking pity on a lesser creature. Lots of other people in the world have freed themselves with or without help. 





> It wasn't natural for a "Christian" society of men to prohibit reading (even the Bible)



read up on your European history, especially the parts about the CHurch and the bible


> , nor the seperation of families at slave auctions



which has what to do with the subject at hand?


> , nor the raping of women by owners,



Like the Union general who told his men they had a right to rape any southern woman who looked at them?



> nor the beating of slaves with whips, nor all of the evil atrocities of the Rebs.


I've only ever heard 'Reps' used to refer to Republicans; what are you referring to?


----------



## paperview

He said _Rebs_.  Rebels.  You racist idiot.


----------



## Equat

The slaves condition was not natural as the Rebs (short for "Rebels" not "Reps") claimed.

Which Union general gave permission to rape? I know that that Union tried both Union and Confederates for raping whites and slaves. Rape is commonplace for occupying armies. A German woman I knew told me that her father hid her in the hay in the barn to protect her from the Soviet rapist invaders and wished the Americans to be their occupiers.

I've got work to do. TTYL.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Equat said:


> The slaves condition was not natural as the Rebs (short for "Rebels" not "Reps") claimed.


Nor is their condition now.

What's your point?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Proletarian, I am asking gently here: do you hvae a point


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any defense of the Confederacy is a defense of slavery.  Both are inhumane abominations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following that logic any defense of the Union is a defense of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure? The Union didn't war against Brittan nor fight a war to preserve slavery like the racist treasonist Rebs.
Click to expand...


I was referring to the fact that the Union had slavery during the Civil War.  So if you defend them you're defending slavery.  But the case could be made for the Revolutionary War as well.  The British offered freedom to any slaves that joined them against the U.S.  So maybe they did have the moral high ground?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

RetiredGySgt said:


> I absolutely love the idiocy of the argument that the South was justified in attacking Federal Forts because Lincoln wouldn't sell the forts.
> 
> The President of the United States has no power, no authority , no right to sell Federal Property. Never has and probably never will. Congress was not in session and could not be addressed until it was. South Carolina KNEW this as well as every Politician in the South.
> 
> They were not interested in a peaceful solution at all. That would be why they raised armies, incited revolt, seized Federal property and attacked a federal Fort. Lincoln had done NOTHING at all until the fort was attacked. NOTHING. Once the Federal Government was attacked he did the only thing he could, he called for the raising of the Militia to put down armed rebellion.



Yeah, because we know Lincoln was VERY concerned with following the Constitution down to the letter.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> The slaves condition was not natural as the Rebs (short for "Rebels" not "Reps") claimed.
> 
> Which Union general gave permission to rape? I know that that Union tried both Union and Confederates for raping whites and slaves. Rape is commonplace for occupying armies. A German woman I knew told me that her father hid her in the hay in the barn to protect her from the Soviet rapist invaders and wished the Americans to be their occupiers.
> 
> I've got work to do. TTYL.



Sherman's men were big on rape.


----------



## paperview

Rape being used as a weapon goes back to Ancient History, and the confederates did their share - and they surely did it to the slaves.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Rape being used as a weapon goes back to Ancient History, and the confederates did their share - and they surely did it to the slaves.



I'm sure they did, but Equat asked which Union general gave permission to rape.  Sherman never gave any official permission, but there are widespread accounts of his men raping free women and slaves alike.  Not to mention the looting, murder, and sacking of cities that they committed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rape is an age-old military behavior that goes back to the beginning of man.  And rape was customary in the old South between white men and black women.  No slave woman had the right either to consent or to resist.  That alone made the destruction of slavery while preserving the Union worthwhile.


----------



## paperview

Equat said:


> The slaves condition was not natural as the Rebs (short for "Rebels" not "Reps") claimed.
> 
> Which Union general gave permission to rape? I know that that Union tried both Union and Confederates for raping whites and slaves. Rape is commonplace for occupying armies. A German woman I knew told me that her father hid her in the hay in the barn to protect her from the Soviet rapist invaders and wished the Americans to be their occupiers.
> 
> I've got work to do. TTYL.


There was no Union General that gave permission to rape.  That is propaganda.

The punishment for rape was death. 

"...*It                 has come to the knowledge of the major-general commanding that                 some of the few men among us who are evilly disposed have                 attempted the commission of a crime which will justly draw upon                 the troops universal condemnation
...The punishment for rape will                 be death, and any violence offered a female, white or colored,                 with the evident intent or purpose to commit rape will be                 considered as one and punished accordingly.*"                 (Gl order N°12, may 1862 by command of gl McDowell- OR S2                 vol III)
  
During               the war, rape is a capital offense punished
              by death - (Gl order N°100, April 1863, US War dpt)


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Rape is an age-old military behavior that goes back to the beginning of man.  And rape was customary in the old South between white men and black women.  No slave woman had the right either to consent or to resist.  That alone made the destruction of slavery while preserving the Union worthwhile.



So it's ok that the Union raped free women and slaves, but not the Confederacy?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

JakeStarkey said:


> Proletarian, I am asking gently here: do you hvae a point




What does it mean, 'to hvae'?

I'm just clarifying the facts.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape is an age-old military behavior that goes back to the beginning of man.  And rape was customary in the old South between white men and black women.  No slave woman had the right either to consent or to resist.  That alone made the destruction of slavery while preserving the Union worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's ok that the Union raped free women and slaves, but not the Confederacy?
Click to expand...

No it wasn't OK, you dunderhead.



*According               to the "List of US soldiers executed by the United States               military authorities during the late war" (established in               1885 - National Archives)  24 US soldiers were executed :               *
 

Execution               of pvt William H.Johnson 23rd USCT
*               Petersburg, Va, probably 20 june 1864 for attempted rape (not on               the official list !)*​
*
*
[*]*Bell John*, 23 years old, born in Va, farmer,                           pvt, Co I, 2nd Ks Cav, hanged 11 july 1862 for the                           rape of Mrs Elizabeth Haywood, (a soldier's wife of                            9th Ks vol.), near Iola (Ks) on 4 july night.
[*]*Callaghan (or Callahan) John*, 18, b.Ireland,                           Pvt Co.H, 2nd NJ cav. / *Snover Jacob F*., b. NJ                           1823, farmer, married, 4 children, pvt Co M, 2nd NJ                           cav./ *Johnson Thomas*, 22, b. England, saddler,                           pvt co.D, 2nd NJ Cav. all three shooted 10 june 1864                           at Memphis (Tn) for the gang rape of Mrs Margaret J.                           Brooks (married, 2 young children) in the afternoon of                           12 march on the road near Memphis.
[*]*Carroll (Carrol) John*, 38, pvt, Co D, 20th Ws,                           shooted 11 november 1864 for attempt of rape on Mrs                           Mary Gidon (colored) and others crimes at Brownsville                           (Tx) 19 november 1863.
[*]*Dawson Thomas*, 32, b.ireland, laborer, pvt,                           Co H, 20th Mass., hanged at Stevensburg (Va) 20 april                           1864 for desertion and rape of Mrs Frances West (60)                           near Morrisville (Va)
[*]*Geary Daniel*, 18, pvt, co G, 72nd NY Vol. / *Gordon                           Ransom S*. 23, pvt, Co E, 72nd NY vol. both hanged                           15 july 1864  for the rape of Mrs Mary Stiles                           (b.1835, married, 2 children, seamstress) near Prince                           george Courthouse (Va) on the night of 18 june.
[*]*Preble James*, 22, b.Batavia (NY), pvt, co K,                           12 NY cav., shooted at Goldsboro (NC) 31 march 1865                           for attempted rape on Mrs Rebecca Drake (23) and                            Miss Louise Jane Bedard, her cousin (17) and rape of                           Miss Letitia Craft her aunt (58) near Kingston (NC) on                           the afternoon of 16 march 1865.
[*]*Sperry Charles*, 29, b. Ireland, printer, sgt,                           co E, 13th NY cav., executed in Old Capitol prison,                           Washington DC, 3 march 1865 for attempted rape of Miss                           Annie Nelson (15) in Fairfax county (Va) in the night                           of 18 june 1864.
[*]*Catlett Alfred*, 20, from Richmond (Va),                           farmer, pvt, co E, 1st heavy Art. USCT / *Colwell                           Alexander*, 26, farmer from NC, pvt same unit / *Turner                           Charles*, 18, farmer from Charleston (SC), pvt same                           unit / *Washington Jackson*, 22, farmer from NC,                           pvt co K same unit / The four was shooted at Asheville                           (NC) 6 may 1865 for the gang rape of "_a young                           white woman_" (in OR S1 vol XLIX part II).
[*]*Brooks Dandridge*, 22, driver, b.Va, sgt, Co                           G, 38th USCT /* Jackson William*, 24, laborer, b                           Va, cpl co G, 38th USCT / *Sheppard John*, 20, laborer, b Va, cpl co I, 38th USCT / hanged at Brownsville (Tx) 30 july 1865 (Sheppard 13 october) for the gang rape of Miss Eliza Harriet Woodson (14) and Mrs Fannie Crawford near Richmond (Va) during the night of 11 april 1865. The 38th USCT was transfered to Texas where the three men was executed. A fourth was never seized.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape is an age-old military behavior that goes back to the beginning of man.  And rape was customary in the old South between white men and black women.  No slave woman had the right either to consent or to resist.  That alone made the destruction of slavery while preserving the Union worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's ok that the Union raped free women and slaves, but not the Confederacy?
Click to expand...


Kevin, try being honest here.


----------



## Sunni Man

Both Confederate and Union soldiers were Americans.

They all deserve the same honor and respect.

Both should be hailed as heros who shaped this nations ultimate destiny


----------



## JakeStarkey

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1824252 said:
			
		

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proletarian, I am asking gently here: do you hvae a point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it mean, 'to hvae'?
> 
> I'm just clarifying the facts.
Click to expand...


Don't be silly, Proletarian.  What is your point?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape is an age-old military behavior that goes back to the beginning of man.  And rape was customary in the old South between white men and black women.  No slave woman had the right either to consent or to resist.  That alone made the destruction of slavery while preserving the Union worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's ok that the Union raped free women and slaves, but not the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it wasn't OK, you dunderhead.
> 
> 
> 
> *According               to the "List of US soldiers executed by the United States               military authorities during the late war" (established in               1885 - National Archives)  24 US soldiers were executed :               *
> 
> 
> Execution               of pvt William H.Johnson 23rd USCT
> *               Petersburg, Va, probably 20 june 1864 for attempted rape (not on               the official list !)*​
> *
> *
> [*]*Bell John*, 23 years old, born in Va, farmer,                           pvt, Co I, 2nd Ks Cav, hanged 11 july 1862 for the                           rape of Mrs Elizabeth Haywood, (a soldier's wife of                            9th Ks vol.), near Iola (Ks) on 4 july night.
> [*]*Callaghan (or Callahan) John*, 18, b.Ireland,                           Pvt Co.H, 2nd NJ cav. / *Snover Jacob F*., b. NJ                           1823, farmer, married, 4 children, pvt Co M, 2nd NJ                           cav./ *Johnson Thomas*, 22, b. England, saddler,                           pvt co.D, 2nd NJ Cav. all three shooted 10 june 1864                           at Memphis (Tn) for the gang rape of Mrs Margaret J.                           Brooks (married, 2 young children) in the afternoon of                           12 march on the road near Memphis.
> [*]*Carroll (Carrol) John*, 38, pvt, Co D, 20th Ws,                           shooted 11 november 1864 for attempt of rape on Mrs                           Mary Gidon (colored) and others crimes at Brownsville                           (Tx) 19 november 1863.
> [*]*Dawson Thomas*, 32, b.ireland, laborer, pvt,                           Co H, 20th Mass., hanged at Stevensburg (Va) 20 april                           1864 for desertion and rape of Mrs Frances West (60)                           near Morrisville (Va)
> [*]*Geary Daniel*, 18, pvt, co G, 72nd NY Vol. / *Gordon                           Ransom S*. 23, pvt, Co E, 72nd NY vol. both hanged                           15 july 1864  for the rape of Mrs Mary Stiles                           (b.1835, married, 2 children, seamstress) near Prince                           george Courthouse (Va) on the night of 18 june.
> [*]*Preble James*, 22, b.Batavia (NY), pvt, co K,                           12 NY cav., shooted at Goldsboro (NC) 31 march 1865                           for attempted rape on Mrs Rebecca Drake (23) and                            Miss Louise Jane Bedard, her cousin (17) and rape of                           Miss Letitia Craft her aunt (58) near Kingston (NC) on                           the afternoon of 16 march 1865.
> [*]*Sperry Charles*, 29, b. Ireland, printer, sgt,                           co E, 13th NY cav., executed in Old Capitol prison,                           Washington DC, 3 march 1865 for attempted rape of Miss                           Annie Nelson (15) in Fairfax county (Va) in the night                           of 18 june 1864.
> [*]*Catlett Alfred*, 20, from Richmond (Va),                           farmer, pvt, co E, 1st heavy Art. USCT / *Colwell                           Alexander*, 26, farmer from NC, pvt same unit / *Turner                           Charles*, 18, farmer from Charleston (SC), pvt same                           unit / *Washington Jackson*, 22, farmer from NC,                           pvt co K same unit / The four was shooted at Asheville                           (NC) 6 may 1865 for the gang rape of "_a young                           white woman_" (in OR S1 vol XLIX part II).
> [*]*Brooks Dandridge*, 22, driver, b.Va, sgt, Co                           G, 38th USCT /* Jackson William*, 24, laborer, b                           Va, cpl co G, 38th USCT / *Sheppard John*, 20, laborer, b Va, cpl co I, 38th USCT / hanged at Brownsville (Tx) 30 july 1865 (Sheppard 13 october) for the gang rape of Miss Eliza Harriet Woodson (14) and Mrs Fannie Crawford near Richmond (Va) during the night of 11 april 1865. The 38th USCT was transfered to Texas where the three men was executed. A fourth was never seized.
Click to expand...


My question was in response to Jake's post where he seems to rationalize away the Union's use of rape as a means of terrorizing southern women as simply being a form of warfare, but condemning the southerners who raped their slaves.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape is an age-old military behavior that goes back to the beginning of man.  And rape was customary in the old South between white men and black women.  No slave woman had the right either to consent or to resist.  That alone made the destruction of slavery while preserving the Union worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's ok that the Union raped free women and slaves, but not the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kevin, try being honest here.
Click to expand...


I'm trying my very hardest.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's ok that the Union raped free women and slaves, but not the Confederacy?
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't OK, you dunderhead.
> 
> 
> 
> *According               to the "List of US soldiers executed by the United States               military authorities during the late war" (established in               1885 - National Archives)  24 US soldiers were executed :               *
> 
> 
> Execution               of pvt William H.Johnson 23rd USCT
> *               Petersburg, Va, probably 20 june 1864 for attempted rape (not on               the official list !)*​
> *
> *
> [*]*Bell John*, 23 years old, born in Va, farmer,                           pvt, Co I, 2nd Ks Cav, hanged 11 july 1862 for the                           rape of Mrs Elizabeth Haywood, (a soldier's wife of                            9th Ks vol.), near Iola (Ks) on 4 july night.
> [*]*Callaghan (or Callahan) John*, 18, b.Ireland,                           Pvt Co.H, 2nd NJ cav. / *Snover Jacob F*., b. NJ                           1823, farmer, married, 4 children, pvt Co M, 2nd NJ                           cav./ *Johnson Thomas*, 22, b. England, saddler,                           pvt co.D, 2nd NJ Cav. all three shooted 10 june 1864                           at Memphis (Tn) for the gang rape of Mrs Margaret J.                           Brooks (married, 2 young children) in the afternoon of                           12 march on the road near Memphis.
> [*]*Carroll (Carrol) John*, 38, pvt, Co D, 20th Ws,                           shooted 11 november 1864 for attempt of rape on Mrs                           Mary Gidon (colored) and others crimes at Brownsville                           (Tx) 19 november 1863.
> [*]*Dawson Thomas*, 32, b.ireland, laborer, pvt,                           Co H, 20th Mass., hanged at Stevensburg (Va) 20 april                           1864 for desertion and rape of Mrs Frances West (60)                           near Morrisville (Va)
> [*]*Geary Daniel*, 18, pvt, co G, 72nd NY Vol. / *Gordon                           Ransom S*. 23, pvt, Co E, 72nd NY vol. both hanged                           15 july 1864  for the rape of Mrs Mary Stiles                           (b.1835, married, 2 children, seamstress) near Prince                           george Courthouse (Va) on the night of 18 june.
> [*]*Preble James*, 22, b.Batavia (NY), pvt, co K,                           12 NY cav., shooted at Goldsboro (NC) 31 march 1865                           for attempted rape on Mrs Rebecca Drake (23) and                            Miss Louise Jane Bedard, her cousin (17) and rape of                           Miss Letitia Craft her aunt (58) near Kingston (NC) on                           the afternoon of 16 march 1865.
> [*]*Sperry Charles*, 29, b. Ireland, printer, sgt,                           co E, 13th NY cav., executed in Old Capitol prison,                           Washington DC, 3 march 1865 for attempted rape of Miss                           Annie Nelson (15) in Fairfax county (Va) in the night                           of 18 june 1864.
> [*]*Catlett Alfred*, 20, from Richmond (Va),                           farmer, pvt, co E, 1st heavy Art. USCT / *Colwell                           Alexander*, 26, farmer from NC, pvt same unit / *Turner                           Charles*, 18, farmer from Charleston (SC), pvt same                           unit / *Washington Jackson*, 22, farmer from NC,                           pvt co K same unit / The four was shooted at Asheville                           (NC) 6 may 1865 for the gang rape of "_a young                           white woman_" (in OR S1 vol XLIX part II).
> [*]*Brooks Dandridge*, 22, driver, b.Va, sgt, Co                           G, 38th USCT /* Jackson William*, 24, laborer, b                           Va, cpl co G, 38th USCT / *Sheppard John*, 20, laborer, b Va, cpl co I, 38th USCT / hanged at Brownsville (Tx) 30 july 1865 (Sheppard 13 october) for the gang rape of Miss Eliza Harriet Woodson (14) and Mrs Fannie Crawford near Richmond (Va) during the night of 11 april 1865. The 38th USCT was transfered to Texas where the three men was executed. A fourth was never seized.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question was in response to Jake's post where he seems to rationalize away the Union's use of rape as a means of terrorizing southern women as simply being a form of warfare, but condemning the southerners who raped their slaves.
Click to expand...

Maybe the difference is, the southerners could do it legally.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

paperview said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves condition was not natural as the Rebs (short for "Rebels" not "Reps") claimed.
> 
> Which Union general gave permission to rape? I know that that Union tried both Union and Confederates for raping whites and slaves. Rape is commonplace for occupying armies. A German woman I knew told me that her father hid her in the hay in the barn to protect her from the Soviet rapist invaders and wished the Americans to be their occupiers.
> 
> I've got work to do. TTYL.
> 
> 
> 
> There was no Union General that gave permission to rape.  That is propaganda.
Click to expand...

Butler's General Order No. 28 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*HDQRS. DEPARTMENT OF THE GULF*
 New Orleans, May 15, 1862.  As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women (calling themselves ladies) of New Orleans in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall by word, gesture, or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.  By command of Major-General Butler: *GEO. C. STRONG*,Assistant Adjutant-General and Chief of Staff.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler's_General_Order_No._28#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler's_General_Order_No._28#cite_note-3​


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't OK, you dunderhead.
> 
> 
> 
> *According               to the "List of US soldiers executed by the United States               military authorities during the late war" (established in               1885 - National Archives)  24 US soldiers were executed :               *
> 
> 
> Execution               of pvt William H.Johnson 23rd USCT
> *               Petersburg, Va, probably 20 june 1864 for attempted rape (not on               the official list !)*​
> *
> *
> [*]*Bell John*, 23 years old, born in Va, farmer,                           pvt, Co I, 2nd Ks Cav, hanged 11 july 1862 for the                           rape of Mrs Elizabeth Haywood, (a soldier's wife of                            9th Ks vol.), near Iola (Ks) on 4 july night.
> [*]*Callaghan (or Callahan) John*, 18, b.Ireland,                           Pvt Co.H, 2nd NJ cav. / *Snover Jacob F*., b. NJ                           1823, farmer, married, 4 children, pvt Co M, 2nd NJ                           cav./ *Johnson Thomas*, 22, b. England, saddler,                           pvt co.D, 2nd NJ Cav. all three shooted 10 june 1864                           at Memphis (Tn) for the gang rape of Mrs Margaret J.                           Brooks (married, 2 young children) in the afternoon of                           12 march on the road near Memphis.
> [*]*Carroll (Carrol) John*, 38, pvt, Co D, 20th Ws,                           shooted 11 november 1864 for attempt of rape on Mrs                           Mary Gidon (colored) and others crimes at Brownsville                           (Tx) 19 november 1863.
> [*]*Dawson Thomas*, 32, b.ireland, laborer, pvt,                           Co H, 20th Mass., hanged at Stevensburg (Va) 20 april                           1864 for desertion and rape of Mrs Frances West (60)                           near Morrisville (Va)
> [*]*Geary Daniel*, 18, pvt, co G, 72nd NY Vol. / *Gordon                           Ransom S*. 23, pvt, Co E, 72nd NY vol. both hanged                           15 july 1864  for the rape of Mrs Mary Stiles                           (b.1835, married, 2 children, seamstress) near Prince                           george Courthouse (Va) on the night of 18 june.
> [*]*Preble James*, 22, b.Batavia (NY), pvt, co K,                           12 NY cav., shooted at Goldsboro (NC) 31 march 1865                           for attempted rape on Mrs Rebecca Drake (23) and                            Miss Louise Jane Bedard, her cousin (17) and rape of                           Miss Letitia Craft her aunt (58) near Kingston (NC) on                           the afternoon of 16 march 1865.
> [*]*Sperry Charles*, 29, b. Ireland, printer, sgt,                           co E, 13th NY cav., executed in Old Capitol prison,                           Washington DC, 3 march 1865 for attempted rape of Miss                           Annie Nelson (15) in Fairfax county (Va) in the night                           of 18 june 1864.
> [*]*Catlett Alfred*, 20, from Richmond (Va),                           farmer, pvt, co E, 1st heavy Art. USCT / *Colwell                           Alexander*, 26, farmer from NC, pvt same unit / *Turner                           Charles*, 18, farmer from Charleston (SC), pvt same                           unit / *Washington Jackson*, 22, farmer from NC,                           pvt co K same unit / The four was shooted at Asheville                           (NC) 6 may 1865 for the gang rape of "_a young                           white woman_" (in OR S1 vol XLIX part II).
> [*]*Brooks Dandridge*, 22, driver, b.Va, sgt, Co                           G, 38th USCT /* Jackson William*, 24, laborer, b                           Va, cpl co G, 38th USCT / *Sheppard John*, 20, laborer, b Va, cpl co I, 38th USCT / hanged at Brownsville (Tx) 30 july 1865 (Sheppard 13 october) for the gang rape of Miss Eliza Harriet Woodson (14) and Mrs Fannie Crawford near Richmond (Va) during the night of 11 april 1865. The 38th USCT was transfered to Texas where the three men was executed. A fourth was never seized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question was in response to Jake's post where he seems to rationalize away the Union's use of rape as a means of terrorizing southern women as simply being a form of warfare, but condemning the southerners who raped their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe the difference is, the southerners could do it legally.
Click to expand...


Whether it could be done legally or not makes no difference.  If you're opposed to rape then you should condemn it whether it was southern slaveowners or northern soldiers committing the act, not rationalize for one and condemn the other.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The issue of rape, Kevin, has nothing to do with the causes or the outcome of the war.

The Southern White Master Race Democracy was evil, was crushed, and the earth has been better off without it.


----------



## paperview

It was not a call to rape.  Read his words about it.  It was a threat and to insult  the women of NO who had been violent and aggressive.
 Martial Law in teh area had been declared. 

But Butler _*was*_ a scum. There was a reason he was called the Beast of New Orleans. he also was removed after that order. 

I'm quite familiar with the General, and in fact have three original letters from him on my desk at this very moment.

edit to add:  http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-10654972/General-Benjamin-Butler-the-threat.html


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question was in response to Jake's post where he seems to rationalize away the Union's use of rape as a means of terrorizing southern women as simply being a form of warfare, but condemning the southerners who raped their slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the difference is, the southerners could do it legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether it could be done legally or not makes no difference.  If you're opposed to rape then you should condemn it whether it was southern slaveowners or northern soldiers committing the act, not rationalize for one and condemn the other.
Click to expand...

Who the fuck doesn't condemn rape?

We put to death soldiers found guilty  of the crime.

The southerners just went on their merry way after the woman had been brutalized.
What did it matter?  She was property. 

Legality does matter.  I don;t see *you* condemning those rapes Kevin.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> The issue of rape, Kevin, has nothing to do with the causes or the outcome of the war.
> 
> The Southern White Master Race Democracy was evil, was crushed, and the earth has been better off without it.



No, but you see rape is evil too, and the northern troops were guilty of this.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one has said they weren't, Kevin!  But that does not excuse the South for treason and trying to break up the Union.  For that is was murdered and slavery ended.  Good riddance, say I, to both.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of rape, Kevin, has nothing to do with the causes or the outcome of the war.
> 
> The Southern White Master Race Democracy was evil, was crushed, and the earth has been better off without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you see rape is evil too, and the northern troops were guilty of this.
Click to expand...

So were WWII soldiers.  Historians note more than 10,000 rapes were committed by soldiers in Europe between 1942 and 1945.

Brutal assholes exist in every war. 

Kinda veering aren't we Kevy?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the difference is, the southerners could do it legally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it could be done legally or not makes no difference.  If you're opposed to rape then you should condemn it whether it was southern slaveowners or northern soldiers committing the act, not rationalize for one and condemn the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who the fuck doesn't condemn rape?
> 
> We put to death soldiers found guilty  of the crime.
> 
> The southerners just went on their merry way after the woman had been brutalized.
> What did it matter?  She was property.
> 
> Legality does matter.  I don;t see *you* condemning those rapes Kevin.
Click to expand...


I condemn all violations of a person's natural rights and that certainly includes rape, but you see I don't differentiate between southern slaveowners and northern troops as our friend Jake appeared to be doing.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

JakeStarkey said:


> that does not excuse the South for treason and trying to break up the Union. .



They never tried to break up the union anymore than Washington tried to crush the British empire


----------



## paperview

> I condemn all violations of a person's natural rights and that certainly includes rape, but you see I don't differentiate between southern slaveowners and northern troops as our friend Jake appeared to be doing


Where did he do that?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> No one has said they weren't, Kevin!  But that does not excuse the South for treason and trying to break up the Union.  For that is was murdered and slavery ended.  Good riddance, say I, to both.



The south was not guilty of treason or trying to break up the Union.  The south was "guilty" only of trying to practice their right to self government as espoused in the Declaration of Independence.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Confederacy did nothing more than our founders did when they seceded from Great Britain.  It was the Confederacy that was fighting for traditional American values, and Lincoln destroyed those values.


----------



## JakeStarkey

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1824565 said:
			
		

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> that does not excuse the South for treason and trying to break up the Union. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never tried to break up the union anymore than Washington tried to crush the British empire
Click to expand...


False conclusion, proletarian.  Leaving the Union was breaking it up.  The War of Independence was not about breaking up the Empire.  The Royal Peace Commission of 1778 understood that entirely in its offer for American autonomy within the empire.  The Americans wisely rejected the commission and its offer.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of rape, Kevin, has nothing to do with the causes or the outcome of the war.
> 
> The Southern White Master Race Democracy was evil, was crushed, and the earth has been better off without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you see rape is evil too, and the northern troops were guilty of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So were WWII soldiers.  Historians note more than 10,000 rapes were committed by soldiers in Europe between 1942 and 1945.
> 
> Brutal assholes exist in every war.
> 
> Kinda veering aren't we Kevy?
Click to expand...


They certainly were.  But I fail to see how I'm veering.  I'm simply trying to address all the points everyone is bringing up.


----------



## JakeStarkey

If you mean the value to keep humans as property, the value to suppress democratic expression and press and freedom of assembly ~ then the South, in the name of decency and dignity, in the course of human rights ~ was most appropriately crushed so that it could never rise again.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1824565 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> that does not excuse the South for treason and trying to break up the Union. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never tried to break up the union anymore than Washington tried to crush the British empire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False conclusion, proletarian.  Leaving the Union was breaking it up.  The War of Independence was not about breaking up the Empire.  The Royal Peace Commission of 1778 understood that entirely in its offer for American autonomy within the empire.  The Americans wisely rejected the commission and its offer.
Click to expand...


How is it different?  If a few states leaving the Union was breaking up the Union, then how are the colonies leaving the empire not breaking it up?


----------



## JakeStarkey

False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.  The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages.  The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced.  That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> If you mean the value to keep humans as property, the value to suppress democratic expression and press and freedom of assembly ~ then the South, in the name of decency and dignity, in the course of human rights ~ was most appropriately crushed so that it could never rise again.



Then you should be calling for the same of the north.  The north should also have been appropriately crushed so that it could never rise again.  You see, the north was just as guilty of everything the south was guilty of.  Slavery and suppression of natural and constitutional rights for its supposedly free citizens.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.



That's your problem Jake, you don't explain a thing and then declare that a conversation is over so that you can avoid discussing it further.  You like to swoop in and make bold declarations, and then attempt to retreat to safety with no further analysis.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The North did not embrace slavery in its legal codes.

The North did not suppress assembly and petititon and free debate about slavery as the South did.

Kevin, give it up.  You cannot win this argument, ever.  The South was crushed because it left the Union to keep slavery.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.  The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages.  The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced.  That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.



The fact that you do not believe the founders considered the states sovereign and independent betrays your complete ignorance over American history.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your problem Jake, you don't explain a thing and then declare that a conversation is over so that you can avoid discussing it further.  You like to swoop in and make bold declarations, and then attempt to retreat to safety with no further analysis.
Click to expand...


Every point you made has been crushed, Kevin.  That is no "bold declaration".  It is the truth.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> The North did not embrace slavery in its legal codes.
> 
> The North did not suppress assembly and petititon and free debate about slavery as the South did.
> 
> Kevin, give it up.  You cannot win this argument, ever.  The South was crushed because it left the Union to keep slavery.



It didn't?  Then why was slavery practiced in five states that remained in the Union?

Again, there were five slave states that remained in the Union.  And the north did suppress the freedom of speech and freedom of press under President Lincoln, for its supposedly free citizens.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your problem Jake, you don't explain a thing and then declare that a conversation is over so that you can avoid discussing it further.  You like to swoop in and make bold declarations, and then attempt to retreat to safety with no further analysis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every point you made has been crushed, Kevin.  That is no "bold declaration".  It is the truth.
Click to expand...


Others have been willing to discuss my points, and have made good points of their own.  You are not numbered among them.  You haven't crushed any argument in this thread.  You've simply said things are false, and then declared that you are right and I am wrong.  That's not an intelligent discussion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

In time of war, Kevin, and that in no way excuses the South trying to illegally leave the Union.

Kevin, all you are doing is looking immorally stubborn now.  The weight of evidence is against you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your problem Jake, you don't explain a thing and then declare that a conversation is over so that you can avoid discussing it further.  You like to swoop in and make bold declarations, and then attempt to retreat to safety with no further analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every point you made has been crushed, Kevin.  That is no "bold declaration".  It is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Others have been willing to discuss my points, and have made good points of their own.  You are not numbered among them.  You haven't crushed any argument in this thread.  You've simply said things are false, and then declared that you are right and I am wrong.  That's not an intelligent discussion.
Click to expand...

Kevin, I and several others have crushed your arguments.  Now you are simply being stubborn.  This does not reflect well on you.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> In time of war, Kevin, and that in no way excuses the South trying to illegally leave the Union.
> 
> Kevin, all you are doing is looking immorally stubborn now.  The weight of evidence is against you.



So freedoms can be suppressed during war?  What kind of freedom is it if it can be suppressed whenever a government goes to war?  I'd have to say it's not freedom at all.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every point you made has been crushed, Kevin.  That is no "bold declaration".  It is the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Others have been willing to discuss my points, and have made good points of their own.  You are not numbered among them.  You haven't crushed any argument in this thread.  You've simply said things are false, and then declared that you are right and I am wrong.  That's not an intelligent discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kevin, I and several others have crushed your arguments.  Now you are simply being stubborn.  This does not reflect well on you.
Click to expand...


Several others have been willing to discuss my arguments, you have not.  You merely piggy back their arguments and have offered nothing of substance to this discussion whatsoever.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Read the Constitution, Kevin.  Whether you agree personally is irrelevant.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

JakeStarkey said:


> Inthat in no way excuses the South trying to illegally leave the Union..


What excuses the colonies illegally leaving the Empire?

Do you know what they did to tories like you?


----------



## paperview

All your  southern brethren and those  you sympathize with who fought that war are dead now...

I'm sure even some of them, from on high, are whispering,through the clouds: *"Let it go*."


----------



## JakeStarkey

My folks, some of them in Tennessee, were "tories" according to the secesh.  When the Home Guard came for my ancestors, they were done unto as they planned to do unto mine.  True justice that!

The South was not monolithically for secession, that numerous swaths of it were held by unionists.  By 1864, northwest and west Texas as well as the Big Thicket were the domain of unionists and anti-secesh.  Confederate and state troops were dealt with in the way common to all traitors.  That led to a generation of feuding after the war.  The Texas Germans of the Hill Country simply lynched their opprressors after the war.  Good reads by Terry Jordan and David Smith are available for those who are interested.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> My folks, some of them in Tennessee, were "tories" according to the secesh.  When the Home Guard came for my ancestors, they were done unto as they planned to do unto mine.  True justice that!
> 
> The South was not monolithically for secession, that numerous swaths of it were held by unionists.  By 1864, northwest and west Texas as well as the Big Thicket were the domain of unionists and anti-secesh.  Confederate and state troops were dealt with in the way common to all traitors.  That led to a generation of feuding after the war.  The Texas Germans of the Hill Country simply lynched their opprressors after the war.  Good reads by Terry Jordan and David Smith are available for those who are interested.


Thanks for that info Jake.


----------



## Sunni Man

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The fact that you do not believe the founders considered the states sovereign and independent betrays your complete ignorance over American history.



You are 100% correct Kevin that the founders considered the states sovereign and independent


----------



## JakeStarkey

paperview said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> My folks, some of them in Tennessee, were "tories" according to the secesh.  When the Home Guard came for my ancestors, they were done unto as they planned to do unto mine.  True justice that!
> 
> The South was not monolithically for secession, that numerous swaths of it were held by unionists.  By 1864, northwest and west Texas as well as the Big Thicket were the domain of unionists and anti-secesh.  Confederate and state troops were dealt with in the way common to all traitors.  That led to a generation of feuding after the war.  The Texas Germans of the Hill Country simply lynched their opprressors after the war.  Good reads by Terry Jordan and David Smith are available for those who are interested.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that info Jake.
Click to expand...


Other fine reads are Randolph Campbell, Walter Buenger, and Randolph Campbell for the period in Texas.

Those interested in Texas Mormon history of that era should read Davis Bitton, ed., _The Reminiscences and Civil War Letters of Levi Lamoni Wight _(Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1970), and the epilogue in Melvin C. Johnson, _Polygamy On The Pedernales: Lyman Wight's Mormon Villages in Antebellum Texas, 1845 to 1858 _(Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2006).  The Mormon Texas men overwhelmingly supported the South against the North.


----------



## paperview

> Quote: Originally Posted by *Kevin_Kennedy*
> 
> 
> _
> The fact that you do not believe the founders considered the states sovereign and independent betrays your complete ignorance over American history._



I guess the guy who actually wrote the Constitution was completely ignorant too.

_He _did not believe secession was constitutional.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Don't confuse KK with the facts.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

paperview said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by *Kevin_Kennedy*
> 
> 
> _
> The fact that you do not believe the founders considered the states sovereign and independent betrays your complete ignorance over American history._
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the guy who actually wrote the Constitution was completely ignorant too.
> 
> _He _did not believe secession was constitutional.
Click to expand...


Yet the Constitution itself involves seceding from the British Empire over the bodies of as many dead Redcoats and Tories as it took


----------



## paperview

You will be ignored by me proletarian.

I refuse to engage in a conversation with someone who uses vile slurs, as you do, 
 to describe African Americans.

So don;t expect any response from me.


----------



## JakeStarkey

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1825135 said:
			
		

> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by *Kevin_Kennedy*
> 
> 
> _
> The fact that you do not believe the founders considered the states sovereign and independent betrays your complete ignorance over American history._
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the guy who actually wrote the Constitution was completely ignorant too.
> 
> _He _did not believe secession was constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the Constitution itself involves seceding from the British Empire over the bodies of as many dead Redcoats and Tories as it took
Click to expand...


So what?  Justification of intepretation is through the sword, as the dimwits of the Confederacy found to their sorrow and almost 325,000 dead soldiers and civilians.  The northern troops lost even more in enforcing that interpretation.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1825135 said:
			
		

> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by *Kevin_Kennedy*
> 
> 
> _
> The fact that you do not believe the founders considered the states sovereign and independent betrays your complete ignorance over American history._
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the guy who actually wrote the Constitution was completely ignorant too.
> 
> _He _did not believe secession was constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the Constitution itself involves seceding from the British Empire over the bodies of as many dead Redcoats and Tories as it took
Click to expand...




paperview said:


> You will be ignored by me proletarian..



So you concede that you're a moronic liar and you keep contradicting yourself



JakeStarkey said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1825135 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the guy who actually wrote the Constitution was completely ignorant too.
> 
> _He _did not believe secession was constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the Constitution itself involves seceding from the British Empire over the bodies of as many dead Redcoats and Tories as it took
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  Justification of intepretation is through the sword, as the dimwits of the Confederacy found to their sorrow and almost 325,000 dead soldiers and civilians.  The northern troops lost even more in enforcing that interpretation.
Click to expand...

So there are no rights and you just make it up as you go along. Might makes right and whoever kills the most people gets to decide who has rights and who doesn't. You're done trying to cover up the fact your dearth of honesty and consistency and you finally admit that whoever hasthe bigger gun can do whatever they want.

Noted. I'll remember this when I'm, marching you off to a concentration camp; so long as my gun's bigger, you'll defend my right to do so.


----------



## JakeStarkey

So you fell for it?  I wanted to see if you would.  The South was morally, ethically, legally, and constitutionally wrong for seceding.  That has been conclusively proven for more than 140 years. They also were stupid enough to lose.

You believe in might makes right if you wish, but it is not the only decider.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

JakeStarkey said:


> So you fell for it?  I wanted to see if you would.  The South was morally, ethically, legally, and constitutionally wrong for seceding.  That has been conclusively proven for more than 140 years. They also were stupid enough to lose.
> 
> You believe in might makes right if you wish, but it is not the only decider.


It was you who said might makes right.


> Justification of interpretation is through the sword



The Constitution cannot stand by its own standards if it says it's not justifiable to break away form a country.

The say that secession is ethically wrong is to say the US should not and does not exist.

You've proven yourself both an idiot and a liar.

Goodbye


----------



## JakeStarkey

Proletarian, act like a grown up.  The South was morally and constitutionally wrong.  You have added nothing to change that conclusion.  Neither has KevinKennedy.  The war was caused by the South's unwillingness to limit slavery to the confines of the Old South.  It was unwilling to accept the constitutional electoral process of 1860.  It chose to secede, it _fired on the national __flag_, and was punished most severely as it should have been.  If you choose to not believe that, then do it on faith, because neither evidence nor reason support your unrequited faith.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by *Kevin_Kennedy*
> 
> 
> _
> The fact that you do not believe the founders considered the states sovereign and independent betrays your complete ignorance over American history._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the guy who actually wrote the Constitution was completely ignorant too.
> 
> _He _did not believe secession was constitutional.
Click to expand...


No one person wrote the Constitution.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

I point out the logical inconsistencies in your statements and you respond by attacking me?

It seems you are the one who needs to act like an adult 

We'll just note that you'd be happy to condemn Washington and his guerrilla fighters had the Redcoats won. We'll continue to stand for principles, even if you lack the fortitude to do so.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The logical inconsistencies have been from Proletarian and KevinKennedy.

Paper View, I, and others have completely demolished the revisionists' attempts to rewrite history.

That they can't accept that they are wrong merely reveals their immoral stubborness.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by *Kevin_Kennedy*
> 
> 
> _
> The fact that you do not believe the founders considered the states sovereign and independent betrays your complete ignorance over American history._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the guy who actually wrote the Constitution was completely ignorant too.
> 
> _He _did not believe secession was constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one person wrote the Constitution.
Click to expand...

No, KK, but who is referred to as the principle author...you know, 
the person who is called the "Father of the Constitution?"

I think you know the answer.


----------



## paperview

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1825314 said:
			
		

> I point out the logical inconsistencies in your statements and you respond by attacking me?
> 
> It seems you are the one who needs to act like an adult
> 
> We'll just note that you'd be happy to condemn Washington and his guerrilla fighters had the Redcoats won. We'll continue to stand for principles, even if you lack the fortitude to do so.


To be attacked by someone who in and out uses simplistic analysis and is a recist to boot,
one who refers to black people as N****** regularly here --

is a badge of honor.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> Paper View, I, and others have completely demolished the revisionists' attempts to rewrite history.



  Only in your mind Dude, only in your mind


----------



## JakeStarkey

My friend, paperview, a professor, once remarked that he had students who simply could not get that they were wrong, that their opinions convoluted and torturous, were not evidence of anything other than their own inability to understand that they were wrong.  The P's and KK's personal identies cannot accept the possibility that they could be wrong.  Oh, well.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Let us add Sunni Man to that list of those who are immorally stubborn.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> Let us add Sunni Man to that list of those who are *immorally* stubborn.



"immorally"    You are really full of yourself


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, Sunni Man, you are wrong, simply and completely.

The 'immorally' describes a venial weakness of character that prevents you from admitting when you are wrong and have to change your view.

Lots of people have that pathology.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> The 'immorally' describes a venial weakness of character that prevents you from admitting when you are wrong and have to change your view.


You JakeStarkey are a perfect example of someone with that character flaw.


----------



## JakeStarkey

But I can, and have, admitted when I have erred on this forum, and I will the next time I do.

On this thread, paper view and so many others have shown that you, KK, proletarian are on the wrong side of history and evidence.

I understand that your pathology makes that unbearable for you to admit, so I am not angry or mocking of you.  Simply reporting accurately where you are at.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

paperview said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1825314 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I point out the logical inconsistencies in your statements and you respond by attacking me?
> 
> It seems you are the one who needs to act like an adult
> 
> We'll just note that you'd be happy to condemn Washington and his guerrilla fighters had the Redcoats won. We'll continue to stand for principles, even if you lack the fortitude to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> To be attacked by someone who in and out uses simplistic analysis and is a recist to boot,
> 
> 
> is a badge of honor.
Click to expand...



I have no problem with reece's. in fact, I quite like them


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> I understand that your pathology makes that unbearable for you to admit, so I am not angry or mocking of you.  Simply reporting accurately where you are at.



Actually, your pathetic attempt at amature psychology is giving me a laugh.

So in a way, thanks for the levity.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are in denial, obviously.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> You are in denial, obviously.



  You should talk!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Watching Sunni Man squirm like a worm, while I the Cowboys beat up on the Saints.  Wow!  And there is my honey with the soft drinks and the popcorn.  Wow!  Can't get much better than this.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> Watching Sunni Man squirm like a worm, while I the Cowboys beat up on the Saints.  Wow!  And there is my honey with the soft drinks and the popcorn.  Wow!  Can't get much better than this.



I guess you have to resort to slander and name calling. When your argument has grown weak as your's has.

But you do have ONE redeaming quality by cheering for the Cowboys.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sunni Man said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watching Sunni Man squirm like a worm, while I the Cowboys beat up on the Saints.  Wow!  And there is my honey with the soft drinks and the popcorn.  Wow!  Can't get much better than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you have to resort to slander and name calling. When your argument has grown weak as your's has.
> 
> But you do have ONE redeaming quality by cheering for the Cowboys.
Click to expand...


Who is slandering and name calling?  I have accurately and clearly defined your behavior based on what you have said on this thread.  That you refuse to accept it is immaterial.

I will leave it at that, wish you a good evening, and let's hope the Cowboys can beat the Saints.  Good night.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> But I can, and have, admitted when I have erred on this forum, and I will the next time I do.
> 
> On this thread, paper view and so many others have shown that you, KK, proletarian are on the wrong side of history and evidence.
> 
> I understand that your pathology makes that unbearable for you to admit, so I am not angry or mocking of you.  Simply reporting accurately where you are at.


As I just witnessed on the other thread, proletarian is also a Holocaust denier too.

Being a run of the mill racist isn't quite enough for him I see.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Wow!  The holocaust deniers manifest the same type of pathologies as do truthers.  I wonder what motivates a Sunni Man, a Eots, a Proletarian to believe as they do.  Amazing.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> Wow!  The holocaust deniers manifest the same type of pathologies as do truthers.  I wonder what motivates a Sunni Man, a Eots, a Proletarian to believe as they do.  Amazing.



FYI- I am a Psychologist by profession.

Belief or denial in the holocaust, or any other historical event, is not in any way pathological or indictive of any medical condition as you intimate.


----------



## Equat

JakeStarkey said:


> Wow!  The holocaust deniers manifest the same type of pathologies as do truthers.  I wonder what motivates a Sunni Man, a Eots, a Proletarian to believe as they do.  Amazing.



I denied such things to ineffectively deal with my white guilt.


----------



## Equat

JakeStarkey said:


> Watching Sunni Man squirm like a worm, while I the Cowboys beat up on the Saints.  Wow!  And there is my honey with the soft drinks and the popcorn.  Wow!  Can't get much better than this.



Stick with the subject respecting the Confederacy.


----------



## Equat

paperview said:


> You will be ignored by me proletarian.
> 
> I refuse to engage in a conversation with someone who uses vile slurs, as you do,
> to describe African Americans.
> 
> So don;t expect any response from me.



I'll ignore him as well for the same reasons and because he adds nothing of substance to the topic at hand. Some others in this forum with whom I disagree offer some form of reasoning howerver convoluted.


----------



## Equat

Sunni Man said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  The holocaust deniers manifest the same type of pathologies as do truthers.  I wonder what motivates a Sunni Man, a Eots, a Proletarian to believe as they do.  Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI- I am a Psychologist by profession.
> 
> Belief or denial in the holocaust, or any other historical event, is not in any way pathological or indictive of any medical condition as you intimate.
Click to expand...


Do you know Dr. Hassan ( http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...iman_who_preached_to_911_hijackers_in_su.html ) from Ft. Hood who shares your vocation? When I took Psych in college, our profs claimed that the feid attacks such characters.


----------



## Equat

JakeStarkey said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> My folks, some of them in Tennessee, were "tories" according to the secesh.  When the Home Guard came for my ancestors, they were done unto as they planned to do unto mine.  True justice that!
> 
> The South was not monolithically for secession, that numerous swaths of it were held by unionists.  By 1864, northwest and west Texas as well as the Big Thicket were the domain of unionists and anti-secesh.  Confederate and state troops were dealt with in the way common to all traitors.  That led to a generation of feuding after the war.  The Texas Germans of the Hill Country simply lynched their opprressors after the war.  Good reads by Terry Jordan and David Smith are available for those who are interested.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that info Jake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other fine reads are Randolph Campbell, Walter Buenger, and Randolph Campbell for the period in Texas.
> 
> Those interested in Texas Mormon history of that era should read Davis Bitton, ed., _The Reminiscences and Civil War Letters of Levi Lamoni Wight _(Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1970), and the epilogue in Melvin C. Johnson, _Polygamy On The Pedernales: Lyman Wight's Mormon Villages in Antebellum Texas, 1845 to 1858 _(Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2006).  The Mormon Texas men overwhelmingly supported the South against the North.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the info. I've lived in Texas for a score.


----------



## Polk

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Texas permitted its citizens to vote on the secession ordinance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry didn't you just say the states were the agents of the will of the people?  If they didn't want to secede then secession wouldn't have happened.  Look at West Virginia for example.
Click to expand...


Interesting. I've never heard someone pro-Confederacy argue that the division of Virginia was legal.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> In time of war, Kevin, and that in no way excuses the South trying to illegally leave the Union.
> 
> Kevin, all you are doing is looking immorally stubborn now.  The weight of evidence is against you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So freedoms can be suppressed during war?  What kind of freedom is it if it can be suppressed whenever a government goes to war?  I'd have to say it's not freedom at all.
Click to expand...


What agressor (e.g. S.C. upon Sumter) or nation under war occupation has not been denied freedom? That's the nature of war = "Hell. You cannot refine it." in the words of our national hero - Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman.


----------



## Polk

CrimsonWhite said:


> I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.
> 
> The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.



I disagree with the premise the war was unconstitutional. At no point does the Constitution of the United States give states the right to unilaterally exit.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The North did not embrace slavery in its legal codes.
> 
> The North did not suppress assembly and petititon and free debate about slavery as the South did.
> 
> Kevin, give it up.  You cannot win this argument, ever.  The South was crushed because it left the Union to keep slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't?  Then why was slavery practiced in five states that remained in the Union?
> 
> Again, there were five slave states that remained in the Union.  And the north did suppress the freedom of speech and freedom of press under President Lincoln, for its supposedly free citizens.
Click to expand...


The slave states that were wise enough not be choose the path of treason didn't chastize the Union for not suppressing Constitutional rights as Jake mentions. Though some slave states remained with the Union due to loyalty and wisdom, the Union as a whole was generally anti-slavery. The slave states that remained with the Union were simply not as foolish as the rest.


----------



## Polk

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The North did not embrace slavery in its legal codes.
> 
> The North did not suppress assembly and petititon and free debate about slavery as the South did.
> 
> Kevin, give it up.  You cannot win this argument, ever.  The South was crushed because it left the Union to keep slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't?  Then why was slavery practiced in five states that remained in the Union?
> 
> Again, there were five slave states that remained in the Union.  And the north did suppress the freedom of speech and freedom of press under President Lincoln, for its supposedly free citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The slave states that were wise enough not be choose the path of treason didn't chastize the Union for not suppressing Constitutional rights as Jake mentions. Though some slave states remained with the Union due to loyalty and wisdom, the Union as a whole generally anti-slavery. The slave states that remained with the Union were simply not as foolish as the rest.
Click to expand...


As a technical point, two of them (Missouri and Kentucky) voted to leave but were denied exit by force of arms.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you see rape is evil too, and the northern troops were guilty of this.
> 
> 
> 
> So were WWII soldiers.  Historians note more than 10,000 rapes were committed by soldiers in Europe between 1942 and 1945.
> 
> Brutal assholes exist in every war.
> 
> Kinda veering aren't we Kevy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They certainly were.  But I fail to see how I'm veering.  I'm simply trying to address all the points everyone is bringing up.
Click to expand...


Have you heard of Abu Graib and Mi Lai?


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1824565 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never tried to break up the union anymore than Washington tried to crush the British empire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False conclusion, proletarian.  Leaving the Union was breaking it up.  The War of Independence was not about breaking up the Empire.  The Royal Peace Commission of 1778 understood that entirely in its offer for American autonomy within the empire.  The Americans wisely rejected the commission and its offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it different?  If a few states leaving the Union was breaking up the Union, then how are the colonies leaving the empire not breaking it up?
Click to expand...


The US never tried to "crush" the British Empire. The US was too weak to do so. We needed the French as demonstrated in the War of 1812 when we got our tails kicked, our capital burned to the ground, and accomplished non of our initially expressed objectives.


----------



## Equat

JakeStarkey said:


> False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.  The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages.  The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced.  That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.



Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution.


----------



## Polk

Equat said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.  The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages.  The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced.  That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Exactly. That the states lose their sovereign functions in the transition from the Articles to the Constitution is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the union's eternal bond.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the value to keep humans as property, the value to suppress democratic expression and press and freedom of assembly ~ then the South, in the name of decency and dignity, in the course of human rights ~ was most appropriately crushed so that it could never rise again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be calling for the same of the north.  The north should also have been appropriately crushed so that it could never rise again.  You see, the north was just as guilty of everything the south was guilty of.  Slavery and suppression of natural and constitutional rights for its supposedly free citizens.
Click to expand...


For the second time I agree with you on the point that the union was guilty of many of the same evils. However, it repented before the south and tried to promote change. All mainline protestant churches in the south went south by seperating from the American churches singularly over the issue of slavery during the 1830s. The US judged and punished the rebs - who seceded over slavery - for attacking the US at Sumter.


----------



## Equat

Polk said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.  The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages.  The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced.  That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. That the states lose their sovereign functions in the transition from the Articles to the Constitution is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the union's eternal bond.
Click to expand...



Amen!


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> In time of war, Kevin, and that in no way excuses the South trying to illegally leave the Union.
> 
> Kevin, all you are doing is looking immorally stubborn now.  The weight of evidence is against you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So freedoms can be suppressed during war?  What kind of freedom is it if it can be suppressed whenever a government goes to war?  I'd have to say it's not freedom at all.
Click to expand...


The Rebs seceded their freedoms to the US by attacking Sumter as the Japs did by attacking Pearl Harbor. Both seceded their freedoms in surrender as well.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has said they weren't, Kevin!  But that does not excuse the South for treason and trying to break up the Union.  For that is was murdered and slavery ended.  Good riddance, say I, to both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The south was not guilty of treason or trying to break up the Union.  The south was "guilty" only of trying to practice their right to self government as espoused in the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
> 
> The Confederacy did nothing more than our founders did when they seceded from Great Britain.  It was the Confederacy that was fighting for traditional American values, and Lincoln destroyed those values.
Click to expand...


You forget that the US Declartion of Independence predated the first government under the Articles of "Confederation," which was a failure. That is why the US's second government came about under the Constitution which ceeded rights of sovereign states under a Federal government.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question was in response to Jake's post where he seems to rationalize away the Union's use of rape as a means of terrorizing southern women as simply being a form of warfare, but condemning the southerners who raped their slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the difference is, the southerners could do it legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether it could be done legally or not makes no difference.  If you're opposed to rape then you should condemn it whether it was southern slaveowners or northern soldiers committing the act, not rationalize for one and condemn the other.
Click to expand...


If the Rebs didn't want to get raped, then they should have thought about that prior to attacking Sumter. Unfortunately "War is Hell. You cannot refine it" and the Rebs choose HELL! Notwithstanding, I do condemn rape, whoever comits it. I know many Vietnam Vets who admit to rape, genocide, torture, etc. Although I condemn their evil, I don't condemn them. Do you? I forgive them. It's relatively easy for me since they didn't rape, torture, or commit genocide to me or anyone whom I directly knew.


----------



## Equat

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape is an age-old military behavior that goes back to the beginning of man.  And rape was customary in the old South between white men and black women.  No slave woman had the right either to consent or to resist.  That alone made the destruction of slavery while preserving the Union worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's ok that the Union raped free women and slaves, but not the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it wasn't OK, you dunderhead.
> 
> 
> 
> *According               to the "List of US soldiers executed by the United States               military authorities during the late war" (established in               1885 - National Archives)  24 US soldiers were executed :               *
> 
> 
> Execution               of pvt William H.Johnson 23rd USCT
> *               Petersburg, Va, probably 20 june 1864 for attempted rape (not on               the official list !)*​
> *
> *
> [*]*Bell John*, 23 years old, born in Va, farmer,                           pvt, Co I, 2nd Ks Cav, hanged 11 july 1862 for the                           rape of Mrs Elizabeth Haywood, (a soldier's wife of                            9th Ks vol.), near Iola (Ks) on 4 july night.
> [*]*Callaghan (or Callahan) John*, 18, b.Ireland,                           Pvt Co.H, 2nd NJ cav. / *Snover Jacob F*., b. NJ                           1823, farmer, married, 4 children, pvt Co M, 2nd NJ                           cav./ *Johnson Thomas*, 22, b. England, saddler,                           pvt co.D, 2nd NJ Cav. all three shooted 10 june 1864                           at Memphis (Tn) for the gang rape of Mrs Margaret J.                           Brooks (married, 2 young children) in the afternoon of                           12 march on the road near Memphis.
> [*]*Carroll (Carrol) John*, 38, pvt, Co D, 20th Ws,                           shooted 11 november 1864 for attempt of rape on Mrs                           Mary Gidon (colored) and others crimes at Brownsville                           (Tx) 19 november 1863.
> [*]*Dawson Thomas*, 32, b.ireland, laborer, pvt,                           Co H, 20th Mass., hanged at Stevensburg (Va) 20 april                           1864 for desertion and rape of Mrs Frances West (60)                           near Morrisville (Va)
> [*]*Geary Daniel*, 18, pvt, co G, 72nd NY Vol. / *Gordon                           Ransom S*. 23, pvt, Co E, 72nd NY vol. both hanged                           15 july 1864  for the rape of Mrs Mary Stiles                           (b.1835, married, 2 children, seamstress) near Prince                           george Courthouse (Va) on the night of 18 june.
> [*]*Preble James*, 22, b.Batavia (NY), pvt, co K,                           12 NY cav., shooted at Goldsboro (NC) 31 march 1865                           for attempted rape on Mrs Rebecca Drake (23) and                            Miss Louise Jane Bedard, her cousin (17) and rape of                           Miss Letitia Craft her aunt (58) near Kingston (NC) on                           the afternoon of 16 march 1865.
> [*]*Sperry Charles*, 29, b. Ireland, printer, sgt,                           co E, 13th NY cav., executed in Old Capitol prison,                           Washington DC, 3 march 1865 for attempted rape of Miss                           Annie Nelson (15) in Fairfax county (Va) in the night                           of 18 june 1864.
> [*]*Catlett Alfred*, 20, from Richmond (Va),                           farmer, pvt, co E, 1st heavy Art. USCT / *Colwell                           Alexander*, 26, farmer from NC, pvt same unit / *Turner                           Charles*, 18, farmer from Charleston (SC), pvt same                           unit / *Washington Jackson*, 22, farmer from NC,                           pvt co K same unit / The four was shooted at Asheville                           (NC) 6 may 1865 for the gang rape of "_a young                           white woman_" (in OR S1 vol XLIX part II).
> [*]*Brooks Dandridge*, 22, driver, b.Va, sgt, Co                           G, 38th USCT /* Jackson William*, 24, laborer, b                           Va, cpl co G, 38th USCT / *Sheppard John*, 20, laborer, b Va, cpl co I, 38th USCT / hanged at Brownsville (Tx) 30 july 1865 (Sheppard 13 october) for the gang rape of Miss Eliza Harriet Woodson (14) and Mrs Fannie Crawford near Richmond (Va) during the night of 11 april 1865. The 38th USCT was transfered to Texas where the three men was executed. A fourth was never seized.
Click to expand...


Great substantive information!


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Following that logic any defense of the Union is a defense of slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure? The Union didn't war against Brittan nor fight a war to preserve slavery like the racist treasonist Rebs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to the fact that the Union had slavery during the Civil War.  So if you defend them you're defending slavery.  But the case could be made for the Revolutionary War as well.  The British offered freedom to any slaves that joined them against the U.S.  So maybe they did have the moral high ground?
Click to expand...


Wrong! The US didn't secede from England over slavery as the Rebs stated that they did in their Declaration of Causes of Secession .


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False conclusion, proletarian.  Leaving the Union was breaking it up.  The War of Independence was not about breaking up the Empire.  The Royal Peace Commission of 1778 understood that entirely in its offer for American autonomy within the empire.  The Americans wisely rejected the commission and its offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it different?  If a few states leaving the Union was breaking up the Union, then how are the colonies leaving the empire not breaking it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US never tried to "crush" the British Empire.
Click to expand...

-and the Confederacy never tried to destroy the Union.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Polk said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Texas permitted its citizens to vote on the secession ordinance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry didn't you just say the states were the agents of the will of the people?  If they didn't want to secede then secession wouldn't have happened.  Look at West Virginia for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. I've never heard someone pro-Confederacy argue that the division of Virginia was legal.
Click to expand...

If the People have a right to self-governance, wouldn't that right outweigh any 'law' which restricts it, just as the right to liberty and freedom from bondage outweighs any laws which declare a man lesser than his neighbor and seek to deny him equal rights?

That's what I don't get about people who claim that the Confederate secession was 'illegal'      yet support the American War for Independence and consider the United States a 'legal' ir 'rightful' nation.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Equat said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.  The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages.  The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced.  That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Wait so a 'more perfect union' is an oppressive state that recognizes no right to self-determination?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Equat said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. That the states lose their sovereign functions in the transition from the Articles to the Constitution is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the union's eternal bond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
Click to expand...


Does the term 'statist' mean anyything to you?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the guy who actually wrote the Constitution was completely ignorant too.
> 
> _He _did not believe secession was constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one person wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, KK, but who is referred to as the principle author...you know,
> the person who is called the "Father of the Constitution?"
> 
> I think you know the answer.
Click to expand...


Well there are two or three people who are among the principle architects, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison are the two most prominent.  James Madison is called the father of the Constitution, and he would not have supported the notion that the states are not sovereign and independent.  Hamilton would have supported that, but of course he wouldn't have supported it until after the Constitution was ratified.  Hamilton may have been the first "flip flopper" of our nation now that I think about it.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Polk said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Texas permitted its citizens to vote on the secession ordinance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry didn't you just say the states were the agents of the will of the people?  If they didn't want to secede then secession wouldn't have happened.  Look at West Virginia for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. I've never heard someone pro-Confederacy argue that the division of Virginia was legal.
Click to expand...


It wasn't legal by the Constitution, the federal government is explicitly banned from creating a new territory or state from an existing territory or state without consent of that state's government.  I doubt Virginia was asked permission.  However, I also believe in the right of self-government.  So I have no problem with the people of West Virginia refusing to join the rest of their state in the Confederacy and joining the Union instead.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> In time of war, Kevin, and that in no way excuses the South trying to illegally leave the Union.
> 
> Kevin, all you are doing is looking immorally stubborn now.  The weight of evidence is against you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So freedoms can be suppressed during war?  What kind of freedom is it if it can be suppressed whenever a government goes to war?  I'd have to say it's not freedom at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What nation under war occupation has not been denied freedom? That's the nature of war = "Hell" in the words of our national hero - Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman.
Click to expand...


Sherman isn't a national hero.  If we had any sense we'd look at him as a national disgrace.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Polk said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.
> 
> The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the premise the war was unconstitutional. At no point does the Constitution of the United States give states the right to unilaterally exit.
Click to expand...


See the 10th Amendment.  Not to mention that the Constitution defines treason as waging war against the states.  Lincoln was also guilty of treason, under the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False conclusion, proletarian.  Leaving the Union was breaking it up.  The War of Independence was not about breaking up the Empire.  The Royal Peace Commission of 1778 understood that entirely in its offer for American autonomy within the empire.  The Americans wisely rejected the commission and its offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it different?  If a few states leaving the Union was breaking up the Union, then how are the colonies leaving the empire not breaking it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US never tried to "crush" the British Empire. The US was too weak to do so. We needed the French as demonstrated in the War of 1812 when we got our tails kicked and our capital burned to the ground.
Click to expand...


The Confederacy never tried to "crush" the United States.  They simply wanted to be left alone.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.  The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages.  The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced.  That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution.
Click to expand...


The Constitution simply made a stronger federal government.  It didn't usurp the sovereignty of the states.  Why would the states have voted away their sovereignty to ratify the Constitution?  And what of the three states that explicitly reserved the right, upon their ratification, to exit the Union should it become destructive of their liberty?  It certainly was not interpreted as usurping the independence of the states when it was ratified by the states.  You can't change the meaning of a contract after the contract is signed and claim the moral high ground.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Funny how the right wingers who always talk about rights ignore them when it comes to the Confederacy


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has said they weren't, Kevin!  But that does not excuse the South for treason and trying to break up the Union.  For that is was murdered and slavery ended.  Good riddance, say I, to both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The south was not guilty of treason or trying to break up the Union.  The south was "guilty" only of trying to practice their right to self government as espoused in the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
> 
> The Confederacy did nothing more than our founders did when they seceded from Great Britain.  It was the Confederacy that was fighting for traditional American values, and Lincoln destroyed those values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forget that the US Declartion of Independence predated the first government under the Articles of "Confederation," which was a failure. That is why the US's second government came about under the Constitution which ceeded rights of sovereign states under a Federal government.
Click to expand...


First off, the federal government existed under the Articles as well.  All the Constitution did was restructure the government, and give them more powers.  It did not change the status of the independent states whatsoever.  Also, the Declaration of Independence has been law since the founding of this nation, whether under the Articles or the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the difference is, the southerners could do it legally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it could be done legally or not makes no difference.  If you're opposed to rape then you should condemn it whether it was southern slaveowners or northern soldiers committing the act, not rationalize for one and condemn the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Rebs didn't want to get raped, then they should have thought about that prior to attacking Sumter. Unfortunately "War is Hell" and the Rebs choose HELL! Notwithstanding, I do condemn rape, whoever comits it. I know many Vietnam Vets who admit to rape, genocide, torture, etc. Although I condemn their evil, I don't condemn them. Do you? I forgive them. It's relatively easy for me since they didn't rape, torture, or commit genocide to me or anyone whom I directly knew.
Click to expand...


No, I don't forgive them.  They didn't rape me so I have nothing to forgive.  What about all the slaves that were raped by northern troops?  Did they get what they deserved since the "rebs" "attacked" Fort Sumter?  I mean, they lived in the south right?  They must be guilty.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure? The Union didn't war against Brittan nor fight a war to preserve slavery like the racist treasonist Rebs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to the fact that the Union had slavery during the Civil War.  So if you defend them you're defending slavery.  But the case could be made for the Revolutionary War as well.  The British offered freedom to any slaves that joined them against the U.S.  So maybe they did have the moral high ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong! The US didn't secede from England over slavery as the Rebs stated that they did in their Declaration of Causes of Secession .
Click to expand...


And yet the British offered freedom to slaves who fought for them, while the colonies would have kept them in servitude.  So it would seem the British had the moral high ground, and we never should have been an independent confederation in the first place.


----------



## JW Frogen

Polk said:


> Interesting. I've never heard someone pro-Confederacy argue that the division of Virginia was legal.



Check for share purchases in coal. Economics usually trumps ideology.

See China for further details.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1826051 said:
			
		

> Funny how the right wingers who always talk about rights ignore them when it comes to the Confederacy



Statism is a bipartisan disease.


----------



## Polk

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always love these threads and how they avoid the actual causation of the war to begin with. The State's right that the south was fighting for was slavery. Economic disparity was caused by slavery. All causes for war come back to slavery.
> 
> The fact is that the war was illegal. The state's did in fact have the right to secede. The problem is when a portion of a naton secedes from itself it better be ready to back it up as in the case of the Colones vs. Great Britain and Texas vs. Mexico. The South failed in their bid to become free. Simple as that. The war was unconstitutional, but it was a just war. It was fought to grant human beings freedom. A freedom that was devestating to the South, yet neccessary. We can argue all day that the war was legal or illegal, but no one can argue its righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the premise the war was unconstitutional. At no point does the Constitution of the United States give states the right to unilaterally exit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the 10th Amendment.  Not to mention that the Constitution defines treason as waging war against the states.  Lincoln was also guilty of treason, under the Constitution.
Click to expand...


10th Amendment only applies in the case of a power not delegated the national government by the Constitution. The power at play here would be sovereignty, which the Constitution does vest in the national government.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Polk said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the premise the war was unconstitutional. At no point does the Constitution of the United States give states the right to unilaterally exit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the 10th Amendment.  Not to mention that the Constitution defines treason as waging war against the states.  Lincoln was also guilty of treason, under the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 10th Amendment only applies in the case of a power not delegated the national government by the Constitution. The power at play here would be sovereignty, which the Constitution does vest in the national government.
Click to expand...


No, the power at play here is secession, which the Constitution doesn't mention at all.  Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, secession is perfectly legal.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

> 10th Amendment only applies in the case of a power not delegated the national government by the Constitution.



now read the rest of the sentence...


----------



## Polk

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the 10th Amendment.  Not to mention that the Constitution defines treason as waging war against the states.  Lincoln was also guilty of treason, under the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10th Amendment only applies in the case of a power not delegated the national government by the Constitution. The power at play here would be sovereignty, which the Constitution does vest in the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the power at play here is secession, which the Constitution doesn't mention at all.  Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, secession is perfectly legal.
Click to expand...


Secession is only possible if the states are sovereign, which they are not.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Polk said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10th Amendment only applies in the case of a power not delegated the national government by the Constitution. The power at play here would be sovereignty, which the Constitution does vest in the national government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the power at play here is secession, which the Constitution doesn't mention at all.  Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, secession is perfectly legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secession is only possible if the states are sovereign, which they are not.
Click to expand...


A stretch I'd say, especially since among the powers denied to the states in the Constitution secession is conspicuous only by its absence.  But which portion of the Constitution posits that the states are not sovereign, and why would the states vote to ratify a document that destroys their sovereignty?  And why were three states under the impression that they would still be sovereign under the Constitution when they reserved the right to exit the Union should it become destructive of their liberty?


----------



## Polk

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Polk said:


> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.



That doesn't take away the sovereignty of the states, as evidenced by the power of nullification that arose after the Constitution was ratified.  The states were able to stop any federal law they felt was unconstitutional from being enforced within their borders.  This obviously means they were sovereign.

And you also failed to answer my other questions.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Polk said:


> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.


Not quite. That very same Constitution says that the States posses ultimate authority in all 'powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States'. The right to withdraw their consent to be governed as to secede as a peaceable alternative to open rebellion is not denied in the Constitution (nowhere does it say 'The member states are to be the bitches of the Fed and they are not permitted to leave or exercise their righto self determination'); therefore that power is ' reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JW Frogen

Come now Kevin, how are we free men, "We few, we happy few" , how can we enjoy our porn if each Bible belting Southern State regulates it?

I mean there are no more slave women, so were is a good, old fashioned, southern man to go for some extra booty?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

JW Frogen said:


> Come now Kevin, how are we free men, "We few, we happy few" , how can we enjoy our porn if each Bible belting Southern State regulate this?



Invoke the 1st and 9th amendments


----------



## JW Frogen

I can use your lawyer when you are done with it.


----------



## Polk

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't take away the sovereignty of the states, as evidenced by the power of nullification that arose after the Constitution was ratified.  The states were able to stop any federal law they felt was unconstitutional from being enforced within their borders.  This obviously means they were sovereign.
> 
> And you also failed to answer my other questions.
Click to expand...


That does take away the sovereignty of the states. That is a forfeiting of the very thing that defines them as sovereign entities. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that the national government ensure every state a "republican form of government". If a state were to become an independent nation, the national government would no longer be able to do this.

As for your other questions, they don't really address the issue. Why would states vote to ratify a document that destroys their sovereignty? Perhaps because they saw the alternative of being gobbled up by European powers as far worse. It's not like we lack other examples of states which have surrendered all or part of their sovereignty. 

As for those three states, I don't know why the felt that way, but their feelings does not change the clear language of the agreement.


----------



## Polk

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1826100 said:
			
		

> nowhere does it say 'The member states are to be the bitches of the Fed



Guess you don't understand the meaning of "supreme law of the land".


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Polk said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't take away the sovereignty of the states, as evidenced by the power of nullification that arose after the Constitution was ratified.  The states were able to stop any federal law they felt was unconstitutional from being enforced within their borders.  This obviously means they were sovereign.
> 
> And you also failed to answer my other questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does take away the sovereignty of the states. That is a forfeiting of the very thing that defines them as sovereign entities. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that the national government ensure every state a "republican form of government". If a state were to become an independent nation, the national government would no longer be able to do this.
> 
> As for your other questions, they don't really address the issue. Why would states vote to ratify a document that destroys their sovereignty? Perhaps because they saw the alternative of being gobbled up by European powers as far worse. It's not like we lack other examples of states which have surrendered all or part of their sovereignty.
> 
> As for those three states, I don't know why the felt that way, but their feelings does not change the clear language of the agreement.
Click to expand...


The mandate to ensure a republican form of government only applies to those states that are within the Union.  If they seceded then the federal government would have no authority or responsibility to ensure a republican form of government.

Also, what about nullification?  If they weren't sovereign how did nullification become the force that it was?

I agree that it doesn't change the clear language of the agreement.  But I think we're differing on what that clear language actually says.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Polk said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1826100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nowhere does it say 'The member states are to be the bitches of the Fed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you don't understand the meaning of "supreme law of the land".
Click to expand...


Yes, supreme law of the land while the states are under the Constitution.  But since the supreme law of the land does not prohibit them from seceding they are fully within their legal rights to cast off the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.


----------



## Polk

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't take away the sovereignty of the states, as evidenced by the power of nullification that arose after the Constitution was ratified.  The states were able to stop any federal law they felt was unconstitutional from being enforced within their borders.  This obviously means they were sovereign.
> 
> And you also failed to answer my other questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does take away the sovereignty of the states. That is a forfeiting of the very thing that defines them as sovereign entities. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that the national government ensure every state a "republican form of government". If a state were to become an independent nation, the national government would no longer be able to do this.
> 
> As for your other questions, they don't really address the issue. Why would states vote to ratify a document that destroys their sovereignty? Perhaps because they saw the alternative of being gobbled up by European powers as far worse. It's not like we lack other examples of states which have surrendered all or part of their sovereignty.
> 
> As for those three states, I don't know why the felt that way, but their feelings does not change the clear language of the agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandate to ensure a republican form of government only applies to those states that are within the Union.  If they seceded then the federal government would have no authority or responsibility to ensure a republican form of government.
> 
> Also, what about nullification?  If they weren't sovereign how did nullification become the force that it was?
> 
> I agree that it doesn't change the clear language of the agreement.  But I think we're differing on what that clear language actually says.
Click to expand...


And what happened when a state actually tried to nullify a law? Congress gave the President the authority to enforce the law using all necessary force.


----------



## Polk

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1826100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nowhere does it say 'The member states are to be the bitches of the Fed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you don't understand the meaning of "supreme law of the land".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, supreme law of the land while the states are under the Constitution.  But since the supreme law of the land does not prohibit them from seceding they are fully within their legal rights to cast off the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...


Except that to secede, they'd need to be sovereign and if something else is the supreme law over them, they're not sovereign.


----------



## Equat

Polk said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't take away the sovereignty of the states, as evidenced by the power of nullification that arose after the Constitution was ratified.  The states were able to stop any federal law they felt was unconstitutional from being enforced within their borders.  This obviously means they were sovereign.
> 
> And you also failed to answer my other questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does take away the sovereignty of the states. That is a forfeiting of the very thing that defines them as sovereign entities. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that the national government ensure every state a "republican form of government". If a state were to become an independent nation, the national government would no longer be able to do this.
> 
> As for your other questions, they don't really address the issue. Why would states vote to ratify a document that destroys their sovereignty? Perhaps because they saw the alternative of being gobbled up by European powers as far worse. It's not like we lack other examples of states which have surrendered all or part of their sovereignty.
> 
> As for those three states, I don't know why the felt that way, but their feelings does not change the clear language of the agreement.
Click to expand...


Thanks for adding clear reasoning and substance to this discussion!


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the power at play here is secession, which the Constitution doesn't mention at all.  Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, secession is perfectly legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secession is only possible if the states are sovereign, which they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A stretch I'd say, especially since among the powers denied to the states in the Constitution secession is conspicuous only by its absence.  But which portion of the Constitution posits that the states are not sovereign, and why would the states vote to ratify a document that destroys their sovereignty?  And why were three states under the impression that they would still be sovereign under the Constitution when they reserved the right to exit the Union should it become destructive of their liberty?
Click to expand...


States choose to ratify a Constitution that destroyed their sovereignty in order to have a more perfect Union, a stronger Federal government. Otherwise, the US would have remained under its first government under the Articles of Confederation.


----------



## Equat

Polk said:


> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Sovereignty requires supreme authority within your borders. The states lack that, as noted above.



Right on! That is why the Confederates complained that they were unable to exercise authority over the free states in their Declaration of Causes of Secession.  The Rebs also complained that new terretories couldn't vote for themselves as to whether they would allow slavery. The Confederates wanted the Federal government to mandate slavery in the terretories.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1826100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nowhere does it say 'The member states are to be the bitches of the Fed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you don't understand the meaning of "supreme law of the land".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, supreme law of the land while the states are under the Constitution.  But since the supreme law of the land does not prohibit them from seceding they are fully within their legal rights to cast off the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...


Do the Hawaiians have the right to secede and bomb Pearl Harbor as the South Carolinians did Sumpter? If so, then the Japs in WWII wouldn't look so bad, would they?


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to the fact that the Union had slavery during the Civil War.  So if you defend them you're defending slavery.  But the case could be made for the Revolutionary War as well.  The British offered freedom to any slaves that joined them against the U.S.  So maybe they did have the moral high ground?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! The US didn't secede from England over slavery as the Rebs stated that they did in their Declaration of Causes of Secession .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet the British offered freedom to slaves who fought for them, while the colonies would have kept them in servitude.  So it would seem the British had the moral high ground, and we never should have been an independent confederation in the first place.
Click to expand...


For the third time I agree with you, unless you're being sarcastic (something southerners don't quite get). The British freed slaves in its empire in the 1830s. My Scot ancestors fought the British in the Revolutionary War, though I'm a Tory with no known Tory ancestors and no desire to disparage my ancestors with whom I disagree. The Scots fought the English because of bigotry and sour grapes that dated back to the UK during their civil wars and to William Wallace. I agree with you that the US revolutionaries were treasonous. My beliefs and sentiments don't simiply follow my ancestry and culture. If we were never an independent confederation in the first place via revolution, then the Confederates wouldn't have seceded (without the help of the French that won our Revolution) and no "War of the Rebellion." KK: For once, you actually have sound and uncharectoristicly consistent reasoning here. Our non-rebellious brother Canada was a nation of freedom sought by slaves and by Americans (a land of slaves) who ferried them there because of the Fugitive Slave Act. Rebellious Undeniably, America is founded on a faulty (e.g. genocide of the Indians) and hypocritical foundation. That is precisly why we have had many problems (e.g. Slavery, The Civil War, Civil Rights, & race relations to name a few) after our revolution. Samuel Johnson spoke eloquently reflecting English sentiments toward us "Yankees," by saying, "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" (Note: http://www.samueljohnson.com/freedom.html) That is quite clear as Johnson pointed out. So were the Confederates. The diffrence is one was a winner and the other was a loser.

My primary disagreement with your reasoning is your denial that the central and foremost reason that the Confederate "Slave States" seceded was due to slavery as explicated in their http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html. Slavery was not the reason that US fought against slave-supporting (at the time) England. My opposition to you is your support for slavery via support for the Rebs and justifying, minimizing, and denying their evil racist cause.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it could be done legally or not makes no difference.  If you're opposed to rape then you should condemn it whether it was southern slaveowners or northern soldiers committing the act, not rationalize for one and condemn the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Rebs didn't want to get raped, then they should have thought about that prior to attacking Sumter. Unfortunately "War is Hell" and the Rebs choose HELL! Notwithstanding, I do condemn rape, whoever comits it. I know many Vietnam Vets who admit to rape, genocide, torture, etc. Although I condemn their evil, I don't condemn them. Do you? I forgive them. It's relatively easy for me since they didn't rape, torture, or commit genocide to me or anyone whom I directly knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't forgive them.  They didn't rape me so I have nothing to forgive.  What about all the slaves that were raped by northern troops?  Did they get what they deserved since the "rebs" "attacked" Fort Sumter?  I mean, they lived in the south right?  They must be guilty.
Click to expand...


Oh please! The slaves didn't attack Sumter, thus they didn't deserve HELL, like the Rebs did.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.  The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages.  The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced.  That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution simply made a stronger federal government.  It didn't usurp the sovereignty of the states.  Why would the states have voted away their sovereignty to ratify the Constitution?  And what of the three states that explicitly reserved the right, upon their ratification, to exit the Union should it become destructive of their liberty?  It certainly was not interpreted as usurping the independence of the states when it was ratified by the states.  You can't change the meaning of a contract after the contract is signed and claim the moral high ground.
Click to expand...


Which three states reserved exit from the Union upon ratification? Where's the evidence? I don't deny what you are claiming. I am simply asking for support of your argument.


----------



## Douger

United, By Force.
Wait till you see what they have planned for you next year.


----------



## JakeStarkey

False and silly implied analogy, Douger.  Sheesh.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves condition was not natural as the Rebs (short for "Rebels" not "Reps") claimed.
> 
> Which Union general gave permission to rape? I know that that Union tried both Union and Confederates for raping whites and slaves. Rape is commonplace for occupying armies. A German woman I knew told me that her father hid her in the hay in the barn to protect her from the Soviet rapist invaders and wished the Americans to be their occupiers.
> 
> I've got work to do. TTYL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherman's men were big on rape.
Click to expand...


The US disciplined (via hanging) its rapists post-Civil War. Have you heard of Abu Graib? "War is Hell you cannot refine it." -Sherman


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rape is an age-old military behavior that goes back to the beginning of man.  And rape was customary in the old South between white men and black women.  No slave woman had the right either to consent or to resist.  That alone made the destruction of slavery while preserving the Union worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's ok that the Union raped free women and slaves, but not the Confederacy?
Click to expand...


No! Rape is innate to war which the Rebs chose for themselves by attacking Sumter. 
The slaves didn't choose rape like the Rebs did because the slaves didn't attack the US, nor were the slaves in charge deserving the destruction of their nation. The slaves had no nation. They were denied American citizenship and rights by law.


----------



## JakeStarkey

KevinKennedy, you have offered nothing that has stood up for your contention that the primary cause of the war was anything else than slavery.  The contempories of the times then would tell you to your face that you are wrong.


----------



## Equat

Polk said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does take away the sovereignty of the states. That is a forfeiting of the very thing that defines them as sovereign entities. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that the national government ensure every state a "republican form of government". If a state were to become an independent nation, the national government would no longer be able to do this.
> 
> As for your other questions, they don't really address the issue. Why would states vote to ratify a document that destroys their sovereignty? Perhaps because they saw the alternative of being gobbled up by European powers as far worse. It's not like we lack other examples of states which have surrendered all or part of their sovereignty.
> 
> As for those three states, I don't know why the felt that way, but their feelings does not change the clear language of the agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate to ensure a republican form of government only applies to those states that are within the Union.  If they seceded then the federal government would have no authority or responsibility to ensure a republican form of government.
> 
> Also, what about nullification?  If they weren't sovereign how did nullification become the force that it was?
> 
> I agree that it doesn't change the clear language of the agreement.  But I think we're differing on what that clear language actually says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what happened when a state actually tried to nullify a law? Congress gave the President the authority to enforce the law using all necessary force.
Click to expand...


Precisely! The other slave states didn't yelp about it nor rebel either.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Polk said:


> Furthermore, the Constitution requires that the national government ensure every state a "republican form of government". If a state were to become an independent nation, the national government would no longer be able to do this.




Because the counties and cities would all suddenly and necessarily cease to exist?


> As for your other questions, they don't really address the issue.



Again, see the Tenth Amendment


> their feelings does not change the clear language of the agreement.



Show me where it says explicitly that the States are denied the right and power to exercise their right to self-governance and secede from the union.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Polk said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1826100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nowhere does it say 'The member states are to be the bitches of the Fed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you don't understand the meaning of "supreme law of the land".
Click to expand...


And that law says that unless you caN SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS 'tHE sTATES ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO SECEDE', THEY POSSESS THAT RIGHT AND THAT POWER UNDER THE trENTH aMENDMENT.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

I am too lazy to fix that caps lock >.>


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Polk said:


> And what happened when a state actually tried to nullify a law? Congress gave the President the authority to enforce the law using all necessary force.


The Fed breaks a lot of Constitutional law. What's your point?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you don't understand the meaning of "supreme law of the land".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, supreme law of the land while the states are under the Constitution.  But since the supreme law of the land does not prohibit them from seceding they are fully within their legal rights to cast off the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do the Hawaiians have the right to secede and bomb Pearl Harbor as the South Carolinians did Sumpter? If so, then the Japs in WWII wouldn't look so bad, would they?
Click to expand...


Funny that you ask if a territory that never wanted to join us and which was conquered and taken by force has the right to say they still want nothing to do with us...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Go read Hawaiin history, please.  The U.S. did not "conquer" the islands.  They were in the control of a business elite, some of whom who were American, who in a filibuster overthrew the rule of the constitutional monarch in the early 1890s.  The islands were annexed by the U.S. in 1898.


----------



## Charles Stucker

JakeStarkey said:


> Go read Hawaiin history, please.  The U.S. did not "conquer" the islands.  They were in the control of a business elite, some of whom who were American, who in a filibuster overthrew the rule of the constitutional monarch in the early 1890s.  The islands were annexed by the U.S. in 1898.



Sounds like conquering to me. 
But "Might makes Right" in your lexicon, so conquering is as good as convincing.

Why do I remain unconvinced?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

JakeStarkey said:


> Go read Hawaiin history, please.  The U.S. did not "conquer" the islands.  They were in the control of a business elite, some of whom who were American, who in a filibuster overthrew the rule of the constitutional monarch in the early 1890s.  The islands were annexed by the U.S. in 1898.


Annexed with cannons surrounding the palace


----------



## JakeStarkey

OK, Proletarian, do you have snakes roiling in your brains.  You and KK have been conclusively defeated whether the South had the constitutional right to secede from the Union.  And if you were correct, so what if the South won?  The consequences would have been catastrophic for North America.  

The North would have bided its time and struck again even more violently and devastatingly at the South.  The South, because it was rooted in slave agriculture, would have attempted to move into the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America.  The West may have seceded and struck at British Vancouver and the Hawaiin Islands.  And who knows what the freaky LDS would have done in the Rocky Mountains (we see what the write here!).  The northern continent would have been drenched in blood and suffering.

The South, instead, inherited the just desserts for its master race white democracy.  The sonuvgans did win the peace, forced segregation and Jim Crow for another 100 years.  But a reckoning came, did it not, and it was righteous, was it not, and the high schools and the colleges in the South have been teaching within the last ten years that slavery was immoral, that it was the primary cause of the Civil War, and that America has been a better place for the South's defeat.  Amen.


----------



## Equat

Charles Stucker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go read Hawaiin history, please.  The U.S. did not "conquer" the islands.  They were in the control of a business elite, some of whom who were American, who in a filibuster overthrew the rule of the constitutional monarch in the early 1890s.  The islands were annexed by the U.S. in 1898.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like conquering to me.
> But "Might makes Right" in your lexicon, so conquering is as good as convincing.
> 
> Why do I remain unconvinced?
Click to expand...


The Confederates believed in "Might for Right" as they upheld the "righteousness" of our revolution from England, blamed the US for John Brown and Nat Turner to whom they alluded in their Declaration of Causes of Secession. Therein, the Confederates upheld "Might for Right" in their self-righteous and racists might over blacks. The Confederates decried racial equality then, during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, and in their present double-talk by upholding and defending the racist Confederacy, while claiming that they aren't racists.

Conquering is better than convincing when obstinate people like the Confederates refused to abolish slavery, maintain the Union, restrain themselves from attacking US military installations, and allow civil rights to blacks. The Confederates couldn't be convinced then or now. They are right in their own socially narcissistic minds, regardless of their evil.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go read Hawaiin history, please.  The U.S. did not "conquer" the islands.  They were in the control of a business elite, some of whom who were American, who in a filibuster overthrew the rule of the constitutional monarch in the early 1890s.  The islands were annexed by the U.S. in 1898.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like conquering to me.
> But "Might makes Right" in your lexicon, so conquering is as good as convincing.
> 
> Why do I remain unconvinced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederates believed in "Might for Right" as they upheld the "righteousness" of our revolution from England, blamed the US for John Brown and Nat Turner to whom they alluded in their Declaration of Causes of Secession. Therein, the Confederates upheld "Might for Right" in their self-righteous and racists might over blacks. The Confederates decried racial equality then, during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, and in their present double-talk by upholding and defending the racist Confederacy, while claiming that they aren't racists.
> 
> Conquering is better than convincing when obstinate people like the Confederates refused to abolish slavery, and maintain the Union, and to restrain themselves from attacking US military installations. The Confederates couldn't be convinced then or now. They are right in their own socially narcissistic mind, regardless of their evil.
Click to expand...


Do you consider the Union evil?


----------



## Equat

KK: You asked me if I thought the Union were evil. Sure! All societies of evil men are and always have been evil. The Union is no exception. That isn't the point of your premise. Your point was to assert the righteousness of the Confederacy. The Confederates weren't righteous, morally or legally. Their assertions were flagrantly hypocritical, which made the Union "saviors" of oppressed people. In the Civil War, the Union had the moral high ground more than the British did in our revolution. As stated previously, the US didn't revolt against England over slavery as the Confederates seceded  (as stated in their http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html ) from the Union.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> KK: You asked me if I thought the Union were evil. Sure! All societies of evil men are and always have been evil. The Union is no exception. That isn't the point of your premise. Your point was to assert the righteousness of the Confederacy. The Confederates weren't righteous, morally or legally. Their assertions were flagrantly hypocritical, which made the Union "saviors" of oppressed people. In the Civil War, the Union had the moral high ground more than the British did in our revolution. As stated previously, the US didn't revolt against England over slavery as the Confederates seceded  (as stated in their Declaration of Causes of Secession ) from the Union.



Well at least you're not a hypocrite.  At any rate, never have I claimed that the Confederacy was righteous.  You can go ahead and try to attribute that belief to me, but ultimately you can really only go by what I actually say.  My claim is that the Confederate States, and any states for that matter, have the natural and constitutional right to secession and self-government.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> KK: You asked me if I thought the Union were evil. Sure! All societies of evil men are and always have been evil. The Union is no exception. That isn't the point of your premise. Your point was to assert the righteousness of the Confederacy. The Confederates weren't righteous, morally or legally. Their assertions were flagrantly hypocritical, which made the Union "saviors" of oppressed people. In the Civil War, the Union had the moral high ground more than the British did in our revolution. As stated previously, the US didn't revolt against England over slavery as the Confederates seceded  (as stated in their Declaration of Causes of Secession ) from the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you're not a hypocrite.  At any rate, never have I claimed that the Confederacy was righteous.  You can go ahead and try to attribute that belief to me, but ultimately you can really only go by what I actually say.  My claim is that the Confederate States, and any states for that matter, have the natural and constitutional right to secession and self-government.
Click to expand...


You are claiming the righteousness of the Confederacy to secede and self-govern.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Supporting the right to self-governance doesn't mean one supports anything else any other party might do. KK and I are also defending _your right_ to self governance and that of the FF.


----------



## Equat

I agree with Polk's post On 19 Dec 09.

Quote: Originally Posted by Equat:  
_Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were mostly sovereign. However, the US abolished its first government and established a more perfect union under the Constitution._

Quote by Polk: 
_Exactly. That the states lose their sovereign functions in the transition from the Articles to the Constitution is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the union's eternal bond._


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> KK: You asked me if I thought the Union were evil. Sure! All societies of evil men are and always have been evil. The Union is no exception. That isn't the point of your premise. Your point was to assert the righteousness of the Confederacy. The Confederates weren't righteous, morally or legally. Their assertions were flagrantly hypocritical, which made the Union "saviors" of oppressed people. In the Civil War, the Union had the moral high ground more than the British did in our revolution. As stated previously, the US didn't revolt against England over slavery as the Confederates seceded  (as stated in their Declaration of Causes of Secession ) from the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you're not a hypocrite.  At any rate, never have I claimed that the Confederacy was righteous.  You can go ahead and try to attribute that belief to me, but ultimately you can really only go by what I actually say.  My claim is that the Confederate States, and any states for that matter, have the natural and constitutional right to secession and self-government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are claiming the righteousness of the Confederacy to secede and self-govern.
Click to expand...


I am claiming that the right to secession and self-government is righteous I suppose.  But no government is righteous.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you're not a hypocrite.  At any rate, never have I claimed that the Confederacy was righteous.  You can go ahead and try to attribute that belief to me, but ultimately you can really only go by what I actually say.  My claim is that the Confederate States, and any states for that matter, have the natural and constitutional right to secession and self-government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are claiming the righteousness of the Confederacy to secede and self-govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am claiming that the right to secession and self-government is righteous I suppose.  But no government is righteous.
Click to expand...


Righteous in what way and according to whom? One's moral righteousness is diminished in proportion to his hypocrisy. Society's morality is no different. Moral authority is earned, not to be demanded.

Something to think about. Have a good night's sleep. I hope to.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are claiming the righteousness of the Confederacy to secede and self-govern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am claiming that the right to secession and self-government is righteous I suppose.  But no government is righteous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Righteous in what way and according to whom? One's moral righteousness is diminished in proportion to his hypocrisy. Society's morality is no different. Moral authority is earned, not to be demanded.
> 
> Something to think about. Have a good night's sleep. I hope to.
Click to expand...


Righteous in the sense that people have the right to their own self-government, and if the people of any state decide they'd be better off outside of the Union we should not be using force of arms to suppress their natural rights and force them to remain.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am claiming that the right to secession and self-government is righteous I suppose.  But no government is righteous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Righteous in what way and according to whom? One's moral righteousness is diminished in proportion to his hypocrisy. Society's morality is no different. Moral authority is earned, not to be demanded.
> 
> Something to think about. Have a good night's sleep. I hope to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Righteous in the sense that people have the right to their own self-government, and if the people of any state decide they'd be better off outside of the Union we should not be using force of arms to suppress their natural rights and force them to remain.
Click to expand...


How can hypocritical Confederates that secede to protect racism and slavery ( according to Declaration of Causes of Secession) claim righteousness? 

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
Samuel Johnson

"Slavery is now nowhere more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty." Samuel Johnson


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Righteous in what way and according to whom? One's moral righteousness is diminished in proportion to his hypocrisy. Society's morality is no different. Moral authority is earned, not to be demanded.
> 
> Something to think about. Have a good night's sleep. I hope to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Righteous in the sense that people have the right to their own self-government, and if the people of any state decide they'd be better off outside of the Union we should not be using force of arms to suppress their natural rights and force them to remain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can hypocritical Confederates that secede to protect racism and slavery ( according to Declaration of Causes of Secession) claim righteousness?
> 
> "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
> Samuel Johnson
> 
> "Slavery is now nowhere more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty." Samuel Johnson
Click to expand...


You keep saying that, but you give the U.S. pass on that very subject.  If you condemn the Confederacy for slavery and say they have no right to self-government because of that, you have to condemn the U.S. and say that they had no right to self-government from the British.  You say, "Well they didn't secede over slavery," but what difference does it make?  The south didn't secede over just slavery, if you read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address he doesn't mention slavery one time.  He does, however, mention tariffs.  The U.S. seceded while practicing slavery, and so did the Confederacy.  If you condemn one you must condemn the other.


----------



## Charles Stucker

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Righteous in the sense that people have the right to their own self-government, and if the people of any state decide they'd be better off outside of the Union we should not be using force of arms to suppress their natural rights and force them to remain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can hypocritical Confederates that secede to protect racism and slavery ( according to Declaration of Causes of Secession) claim righteousness?
> 
> "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
> Samuel Johnson
> 
> "Slavery is now nowhere more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty." Samuel Johnson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that, but you give the U.S. pass on that very subject.  If you condemn the Confederacy for slavery and say they have no right to self-government because of that, you have to condemn the U.S. and say that they had no right to self-government from the British.  You say, "Well they didn't secede over slavery," but what difference does it make?  The south didn't secede over just slavery, if you read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address he doesn't mention slavery one time.  He does, however, mention tariffs.  The U.S. seceded while practicing slavery, and so did the Confederacy.  If you condemn one you must condemn the other.
Click to expand...


You don't understand the hypocritical stance of the opposing posters. For them might makes right, because the Confederacy was crushed they must have been unrepentant evil and hence (in their tiny brains) all acts of seceding from "the freest country *evah*" are also evil.


----------



## midcan5

Egads does this debate never end. The South signed on to the Union, they agreed to be a part of that union, the fact they wanted to secede because they found slavery to their liking is hardly an argument for them dropping out. But scholars argue both ways as the links below demonstrate.

But this is an interesting twist as the [many of] same wingnuts who argue we had a right to invade Iraq because it was bad, see no evil in the slavery reason for the civil war, instead like all revisionists they now stress state rights and ignore the key reason for the civil war.  

Southern Arguments for and Against Secession from the Union - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Argument v Lincoln's position
http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?


*"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."*

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War

court ruling on secession
Texas v. White

admission of state to union
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18


John C. Calhoun's Speech: Slavery, a Positive Good

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?


"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede.* Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act &#8220;entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution&#8221; (Cook 114).* Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support &#8220;this Constitution,&#8221; which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from first url)


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

the northern leaders went to war for economic reasons


----------



## Charles Stucker

midcan5 said:


> Egads does this debate never end. The South signed on to the Union


Blah, Blah, Blah.

So because someone voted for something generations ago, the people alive today cannot make their own decisions?
Yet you have the unmitigated gall to claim you favor freedom.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

midcan5 said:


> Egads does this debate never end. The South signed on to the Union, they agreed to be a part of that union, the fact they wanted to secede because they found slavery to their liking is hardly an argument for them dropping out. But scholars argue both ways as the links below demonstrate.
> 
> But this is an interesting twist as the [many of] same wingnuts who argue we had a right to invade Iraq because it was bad, see no evil in the slavery reason for the civil war, instead like all revisionists they now stress state rights and ignore the key reason for the civil war.
> 
> Southern Arguments for and Against Secession from the Union - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
> 
> Argument v Lincoln's position
> http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html
> 
> FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?
> 
> 
> *"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."*
> 
> AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
> AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War
> 
> court ruling on secession
> Texas v. White
> 
> admission of state to union
> FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18
> 
> 
> John C. Calhoun's Speech: Slavery, a Positive Good
> 
> FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?
> 
> 
> "A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede.* Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution (Cook 114).* Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support this Constitution, which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from first url)



If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.


----------



## midcan5

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.



I would then suggest removing slavery from the topic. See where you can go with that. Read a bit about the times and read the link I boldfaced. Politics is always balance, Lincoln's actions like every political act since is a balancing act.


----------



## Charles Stucker

Charles Stucker said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egads does this debate never end. The South signed on to the Union
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, Blah, Blah.
> 
> So because someone voted for something generations ago, the people alive today cannot make their own decisions?
> Yet you have the unmitigated gall to claim you favor freedom.
Click to expand...

Just so it's not ignored


----------



## Equat

midcan5 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would then suggest removing slavery from the topic. See where you can go with that. Read a bit about the times and read the link I boldfaced. Politics is always balance, Lincoln's actions like every political act since is a balancing act.
Click to expand...


The Confederates didn't remove racist slavery from their reasons for seceding. Why should we remove this singular and central issue?


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egads does this debate never end. The South signed on to the Union, they agreed to be a part of that union, the fact they wanted to secede because they found slavery to their liking is hardly an argument for them dropping out. But scholars argue both ways as the links below demonstrate.
> 
> But this is an interesting twist as the [many of] same wingnuts who argue we had a right to invade Iraq because it was bad, see no evil in the slavery reason for the civil war, instead like all revisionists they now stress state rights and ignore the key reason for the civil war.
> 
> Southern Arguments for and Against Secession from the Union - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
> 
> Argument v Lincoln's position
> http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html
> 
> FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?
> 
> 
> *"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."*
> 
> AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
> AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War
> 
> court ruling on secession
> Texas v. White
> 
> admission of state to union
> FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18
> 
> 
> John C. Calhoun's Speech: Slavery, a Positive Good
> 
> FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?
> 
> 
> "A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede.* Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution (Cook 114).* Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support this Constitution, which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from first url)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.
Click to expand...


False conclusion. Because someone doesn't want to be punished by joining a gang of rebels that share similar interests doesn't mean that the gang doesn't rebel for the shared reasons. 

You ignored all the evidence above.

First of all, as Polk pointed out Missouri & Kentucky were prevented from seceding my military occupation. 

The others non-seceding rebels weren't gluttons for punishment like those that seceded and those that joined the Confederacy and who believed that the US should allow its military installations to be overrun by rebels.


----------



## Charles Stucker

Equat said:


> The Confederates didn't remove racist slavery from their reasons for seceding. Why should we remove this singular and central issue?



Because it is not an issue in the modern question of secession.
Yet again what the would be *Tyrants* ignore is that *Popular self Determination* is a central theme to the modern US Democracy. We have pushed this theme on other countries (for example communist Russia) and yet it is not allowed for our own population based on the *Moronic* principle that since someone once voted for something generations ago, their descendants are forever barred from voting differently.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would then suggest removing slavery from the topic. See where you can go with that. Read a bit about the times and read the link I boldfaced. Politics is always balance, Lincoln's actions like every political act since is a balancing act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederates didn't remove racist slavery from their reasons for seceding. Why should we remove this singular and central issue?
Click to expand...


You can parrot this talking point if you like, but it's not going to make it true.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egads does this debate never end. The South signed on to the Union, they agreed to be a part of that union, the fact they wanted to secede because they found slavery to their liking is hardly an argument for them dropping out. But scholars argue both ways as the links below demonstrate.
> 
> But this is an interesting twist as the [many of] same wingnuts who argue we had a right to invade Iraq because it was bad, see no evil in the slavery reason for the civil war, instead like all revisionists they now stress state rights and ignore the key reason for the civil war.
> 
> Southern Arguments for and Against Secession from the Union - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
> 
> Argument v Lincoln's position
> http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html
> 
> FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?
> 
> 
> *"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."*
> 
> AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
> AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War
> 
> court ruling on secession
> Texas v. White
> 
> admission of state to union
> FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18
> 
> 
> John C. Calhoun's Speech: Slavery, a Positive Good
> 
> FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?
> 
> 
> "A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede.* Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution (Cook 114).* Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support this Constitution, which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from first url)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False conclusion. Because someone doesn't want to be punished by joining a gang of rebels that share similar interests doesn't mean that the gang doesn't rebel for the shared reasons.
> 
> You ignored all the evidence above.
> 
> First of all, as Polk pointed out Missouri & Kentucky were prevented from seceding my military occupation.
> 
> The others non-seceding rebels weren't gluttons for punishment like those that seceded and those that joined the Confederacy and who believed that the US should allow its military installations to be overrun by rebels.
Click to expand...


Since Lincoln had no problem with militarily forcing states to remain in the Union then why didn't he militarily force those states to end slavery?  I mean if his goal was to end slavery then why didn't he do it in the states he could have easily achieved that goal in?


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Righteous in the sense that people have the right to their own self-government, and if the people of any state decide they'd be better off outside of the Union we should not be using force of arms to suppress their natural rights and force them to remain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can hypocritical Confederates that secede to protect racism and slavery ( according to Declaration of Causes of Secession) claim righteousness?
> 
> "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
> Samuel Johnson
> 
> "Slavery is now nowhere more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty." Samuel Johnson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that, but you give the U.S. pass on that very subject.  If you condemn the Confederacy for slavery and say they have no right to self-government because of that, you have to condemn the U.S. and say that they had no right to self-government from the British.  You say, "Well they didn't secede over slavery," but what difference does it make?  The south didn't secede over just slavery, if you read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address he doesn't mention slavery one time.  He does, however, mention tariffs.  The U.S. seceded while practicing slavery, and so did the Confederacy.  If you condemn one you must condemn the other.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that the Confederacy has no right to self-government. I'm stating that the means by which it seceded for self-government were illegal and the reasons as stated in their Declaration of Causes of Secession were morally hypocrital and immoral. Anyone can claim a right. I don't deny the claim of a right. I deny the righteousness of Confederate hypocrisy. I don't have to condemn that US for reasons you mention because the US made no Federal government under a Constitution with England, although I do believe that the US was unjustified and immoral in its rebelling. Although my ancestors were Revolutionary rebels as Scots (which rebelled because of their centuries-old grudges against Englishmen) and not Tories, I condemn the US's act of rebelling, even of the US against England. Notwithstanding, the US it its rebellion wasn't as hypocritical as the Confederacy in their Declaration of Causes of Secession which explicitly and universally states that it seceded over the central issue of slavery.

Incidentally, my wife's great-great grandather was Confederate Captain Cook. She agrees with me.

The existence of more than one reason for an action doesn't negate the central issue for that action. Because the US idicted Afganastan for its opium trade doesn't mean that it didn't war against the Taliban over the primary reason of terrorism against the West. Every war has multiple reasons. A minor reason or that shared by a few doesn't mean that all share the same minor reason. The US didn't secede from racist slave-practicing England over racist slavery as the Confedracy did against non-slave practicing "free states" which it indicted (to the absence of the three border slave states that weren't gluttons for punishment) in its Declaration of Causes of Secession.

Your straw man can't bear the heat of the evidence from its own mouth.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery was the reason Lincoln went to war then it seems odd that he allowed five slave states to remain in the Union, and it's also odd that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in any of those five states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False conclusion. Because someone doesn't want to be punished by joining a gang of rebels that share similar interests doesn't mean that the gang doesn't rebel for the shared reasons.
> 
> You ignored all the evidence above.
> 
> First of all, as Polk pointed out Missouri & Kentucky were prevented from seceding my military occupation.
> 
> The others non-seceding rebels weren't gluttons for punishment like those that seceded and those that joined the Confederacy and who believed that the US should allow its military installations to be overrun by rebels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Lincoln had no problem with militarily forcing states to remain in the Union then why didn't he militarily force those states to end slavery?  I mean if his goal was to end slavery then why didn't he do it in the states he could have easily achieved that goal in?
Click to expand...


KK: I keep repeating my words in response to your repitition. Lincoln was a politition who, like all polititians compromised and employed incrementalism. That's part of the answer. Lincoln didn't military force states to end slavery partly because he was assassinated before his slow and steady incrementalism could take effect. Those states weren't foolish enough to require the military to end slavery. They were submissive to the Federal government and wise. Lincoln's foremost objective wasn't to end slavery, but rather to preserve the Union. Slavery was only one goal, secondary to the preservation of the Union. If Lincoln thought that could have preserved the Union by preserving slavery, then he likely would have done so as evidenced in the fact that he didn't abolish slavery except in the rebellious states and counties years after the war began. If Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery first and foremost, then he would have done so at the outset of the war. He hoped to win back the rebs by going easy on them. They didn't get atom bombs on them like the Japs, nor did they have their women and children killed like the Germans who suffered from allied bomb raids upon their civilians. Sherman, villanized by the rebs, was a pussycat to the Confederates compared to how he dealt with the Indians and compared with how the US dealt with the Germans, Japs, Vietnamese, Iraqis, et. al.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can hypocritical Confederates that secede to protect racism and slavery ( according to Declaration of Causes of Secession) claim righteousness?
> 
> "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
> Samuel Johnson
> 
> "Slavery is now nowhere more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty." Samuel Johnson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that, but you give the U.S. pass on that very subject.  If you condemn the Confederacy for slavery and say they have no right to self-government because of that, you have to condemn the U.S. and say that they had no right to self-government from the British.  You say, "Well they didn't secede over slavery," but what difference does it make?  The south didn't secede over just slavery, if you read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address he doesn't mention slavery one time.  He does, however, mention tariffs.  The U.S. seceded while practicing slavery, and so did the Confederacy.  If you condemn one you must condemn the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that the Confederacy has no right to self-government. I'm stating that the means by which it seceded for self-government were illegal and the reasons as stated in their Declaration of Causes of Secession were morally hypocrital and immoral. Anyone can claim a right. I don't deny the claim of a right. I deny the righteousness of Confederate hypocrisy. I don't have to condemn that US for reasons you mention because the US made no Federal government under a Constitution with England, although I do believe that the US was unjustified and immoral in its rebelling. Although my ancestors were Revolutionary rebels as Scots (which rebelled because of their centuries-old grudges against Englishmen) and not Tories, I condemn the US's act of rebelling, even of the US against England. Notwithstanding, the US it its rebellion wasn't as hypocritical as the Confederacy in their Declaration of Causes of Secession which explicitly and universally states that it seceded over the central issue of slavery.
> 
> Incidentally, my wife's great-great grandather was Confederate Captain Cook. She agrees with me.
> 
> The existence of more than one reason for an action doesn't negate the central issue for that action. Because the US idicted Afganastan for its opium trade doesn't mean that it didn't war against the Taliban over the primary reason of terrorism against the West. Every war has multiple reasons. A minor reason or that shared by a few doesn't mean that all share the same minor reason. The US didn't secede from racist slave-practicing England over racist slavery as the Confedracy did against non-slave practicing "free states" which it indicted (to the absence of the three border slave states that weren't gluttons for punishment) in its Declaration of Causes of Secession.
> 
> Your straw man can't bear the heat of the evidence from its own mouth.
Click to expand...


You keep bringing up that link, but it only links to four states.  Did every single Confederate state that slavery was a reason they were seceding?  You can't link to only four of the states and say they speak for the whole.  In his inaugural address the President of the Confederacy did not mention the issue of slavery so much as one time.

Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address

If slavery was the "singular and central issue," as you claim, you'd think it would at least merit a mention in the President of that confederacy's inaugural address.


----------



## Charles Stucker

Equat said:


> Your straw man can't bear the heat of the evidence from its own mouth.


Talk about straw man.
The "No one has the right to secede" crowd insists they are not tyrants.
Yet they absolutely *DENY* anyone the right to not take part in their pillaging of workers productivity to pay for lazy socialists. 

ONE MORE
Just because someone else voted for something in the past does not mean that I should be forced to vote for the same thing.
The people who freely voted to join the US are long dead - it is not a free vote when your choice is only "Join or remain a territorial possession of the US"
Thus the claim that people chose is a *MAJOR* straw man because the *PEOPLE* to whom you are no referring DID NOT MAKE THAT CHOICE.
They were given *NO CHOICE*
People with no choice is the hallmark of tyranny.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> False conclusion. Because someone doesn't want to be punished by joining a gang of rebels that share similar interests doesn't mean that the gang doesn't rebel for the shared reasons.
> 
> You ignored all the evidence above.
> 
> First of all, as Polk pointed out Missouri & Kentucky were prevented from seceding my military occupation.
> 
> The others non-seceding rebels weren't gluttons for punishment like those that seceded and those that joined the Confederacy and who believed that the US should allow its military installations to be overrun by rebels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Lincoln had no problem with militarily forcing states to remain in the Union then why didn't he militarily force those states to end slavery?  I mean if his goal was to end slavery then why didn't he do it in the states he could have easily achieved that goal in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> KK: I keep repeating my words in response to your repitition. Lincoln was a politition who, like all polititians compromised and employed incrementalism. That's part of the answer. Lincoln didn't military force states to end slavery partly because he was assassinated before his slow and steady incrementalism could take effect. Those states weren't foolish enough to require the military to end slavery. They were submissive to the Federal government and wise. Lincoln's foremost objective wasn't to end slavery, but rather to preserve the Union. Slavery was only one goal, secondary to the preservation of the Union. If Lincoln thought that could have preserved the Union by preserving slavery, then he likely would have done so as evidenced in the fact that he didn't abolish slavery except in the rebellious states and counties years after the war began. If Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery first and foremost, then he would have done so at the outset of the war. He hoped to win back the rebs by going easy on them. They didn't get atom bombs on them like the Japs, nor did they have their women and children killed like the Germans who suffered from allied bomb raids upon their civilians. Sherman, villanized by the rebs, was a pussycat to the Confederates compared to how he dealt with the Indians and compared with how the US dealt with the Germans, Japs, Vietnamese, Iraqis, et. al.
Click to expand...


The claim, and it wasn't your claim to be fair, was that Lincoln's goal was to end slavery.  His actions prove otherwise.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would then suggest removing slavery from the topic. See where you can go with that. Read a bit about the times and read the link I boldfaced. Politics is always balance, Lincoln's actions like every political act since is a balancing act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederates didn't remove racist slavery from their reasons for seceding. Why should we remove this singular and central issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can parrot this talking point if you like, but it's not going to make it true.
Click to expand...


I'm only parrotting to your parrotting and your refusal to answer questions.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Lincoln had no problem with militarily forcing states to remain in the Union then why didn't he militarily force those states to end slavery?  I mean if his goal was to end slavery then why didn't he do it in the states he could have easily achieved that goal in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KK: I keep repeating my words in response to your repitition. Lincoln was a politition who, like all polititians compromised and employed incrementalism. That's part of the answer. Lincoln didn't military force states to end slavery partly because he was assassinated before his slow and steady incrementalism could take effect. Those states weren't foolish enough to require the military to end slavery. They were submissive to the Federal government and wise. Lincoln's foremost objective wasn't to end slavery, but rather to preserve the Union. Slavery was only one goal, secondary to the preservation of the Union. If Lincoln thought that could have preserved the Union by preserving slavery, then he likely would have done so as evidenced in the fact that he didn't abolish slavery except in the rebellious states and counties years after the war began. If Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery first and foremost, then he would have done so at the outset of the war. He hoped to win back the rebs by going easy on them. They didn't get atom bombs on them like the Japs, nor did they have their women and children killed like the Germans who suffered from allied bomb raids upon their civilians. Sherman, villanized by the rebs, was a pussycat to the Confederates compared to how he dealt with the Indians and compared with how the US dealt with the Germans, Japs, Vietnamese, Iraqis, et. al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim, and it wasn't your claim to be fair, was that Lincoln's goal was to end slavery.  His actions prove otherwise.
Click to expand...


I don't understand what you are saying.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederates didn't remove racist slavery from their reasons for seceding. Why should we remove this singular and central issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can parrot this talking point if you like, but it's not going to make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only parrotting to your parrotting and your refusal to answer questions.
Click to expand...


I wasn't aware I was asked any questions.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> KK: I keep repeating my words in response to your repitition. Lincoln was a politition who, like all polititians compromised and employed incrementalism. That's part of the answer. Lincoln didn't military force states to end slavery partly because he was assassinated before his slow and steady incrementalism could take effect. Those states weren't foolish enough to require the military to end slavery. They were submissive to the Federal government and wise. Lincoln's foremost objective wasn't to end slavery, but rather to preserve the Union. Slavery was only one goal, secondary to the preservation of the Union. If Lincoln thought that could have preserved the Union by preserving slavery, then he likely would have done so as evidenced in the fact that he didn't abolish slavery except in the rebellious states and counties years after the war began. If Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery first and foremost, then he would have done so at the outset of the war. He hoped to win back the rebs by going easy on them. They didn't get atom bombs on them like the Japs, nor did they have their women and children killed like the Germans who suffered from allied bomb raids upon their civilians. Sherman, villanized by the rebs, was a pussycat to the Confederates compared to how he dealt with the Indians and compared with how the US dealt with the Germans, Japs, Vietnamese, Iraqis, et. al.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim, and it wasn't your claim to be fair, was that Lincoln's goal was to end slavery.  His actions prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you are saying.
Click to expand...


Someone else in this thread claimed the Civil War was fought to end slavery.  You responded to my response to that post.  It doesn't make sense for us to argue the point if you don't think the Civil War was fought to end slavery.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that, but you give the U.S. pass on that very subject.  If you condemn the Confederacy for slavery and say they have no right to self-government because of that, you have to condemn the U.S. and say that they had no right to self-government from the British.  You say, "Well they didn't secede over slavery," but what difference does it make?  The south didn't secede over just slavery, if you read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address he doesn't mention slavery one time.  He does, however, mention tariffs.  The U.S. seceded while practicing slavery, and so did the Confederacy.  If you condemn one you must condemn the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that the Confederacy has no right to self-government. I'm stating that the means by which it seceded for self-government were illegal and the reasons as stated in their Declaration of Causes of Secession were morally hypocrital and immoral. Anyone can claim a right. I don't deny the claim of a right. I deny the righteousness of Confederate hypocrisy. I don't have to condemn that US for reasons you mention because the US made no Federal government under a Constitution with England, although I do believe that the US was unjustified and immoral in its rebelling. Although my ancestors were Revolutionary rebels as Scots (which rebelled because of their centuries-old grudges against Englishmen) and not Tories, I condemn the US's act of rebelling, even of the US against England. Notwithstanding, the US it its rebellion wasn't as hypocritical as the Confederacy in their Declaration of Causes of Secession which explicitly and universally states that it seceded over the central issue of slavery.
> 
> Incidentally, my wife's great-great grandather was Confederate Captain Cook. She agrees with me.
> 
> The existence of more than one reason for an action doesn't negate the central issue for that action. Because the US idicted Afganastan for its opium trade doesn't mean that it didn't war against the Taliban over the primary reason of terrorism against the West. Every war has multiple reasons. A minor reason or that shared by a few doesn't mean that all share the same minor reason. The US didn't secede from racist slave-practicing England over racist slavery as the Confedracy did against non-slave practicing "free states" which it indicted (to the absence of the three border slave states that weren't gluttons for punishment) in its Declaration of Causes of Secession.
> 
> Your straw man can't bear the heat of the evidence from its own mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep bringing up that link, but it only links to four states.  Did every single Confederate state that slavery was a reason they were seceding?  You can't link to only four of the states and say they speak for the whole.  In his inaugural address the President of the Confederacy did not mention the issue of slavery so much as one time.
> 
> Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address
> 
> If slavery was the "singular and central issue," as you claim, you'd think it would at least merit a mention in the President of that confederacy's inaugural address.
Click to expand...


The reasons that I mention the four states is because only they provided a Declaration. The others didn't. I ask you, where is the other state's Declaration of secession? If none, then how can I mention something that doesn't exist?

Absence of reasons for secession in a president's innagural address doesn't mean anything when the president was elected after secession and the Declaration of Causes of Secession predates the president. Did Washington rehash the reasons for the revolution in his innaugural address? Davis didn't need to rehash.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim, and it wasn't your claim to be fair, was that Lincoln's goal was to end slavery.  His actions prove otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you are saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else in this thread claimed the Civil War was fought to end slavery.  You responded to my response to that post.  It doesn't make sense for us to argue the point if you don't think the Civil War was fought to end slavery.
Click to expand...


Why should I speak on behalf of "someone"? I don't. I speak for myself. I'm not a card-carrying anything. I have a brain. I disagree with what you alledge this "someone" said.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can parrot this talking point if you like, but it's not going to make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only parrotting to your parrotting and your refusal to answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware I was asked any questions.
Click to expand...


Reading enhances awareness. Read all the words preceeded by a "?" in my posts.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that the Confederacy has no right to self-government. I'm stating that the means by which it seceded for self-government were illegal and the reasons as stated in their Declaration of Causes of Secession were morally hypocrital and immoral. Anyone can claim a right. I don't deny the claim of a right. I deny the righteousness of Confederate hypocrisy. I don't have to condemn that US for reasons you mention because the US made no Federal government under a Constitution with England, although I do believe that the US was unjustified and immoral in its rebelling. Although my ancestors were Revolutionary rebels as Scots (which rebelled because of their centuries-old grudges against Englishmen) and not Tories, I condemn the US's act of rebelling, even of the US against England. Notwithstanding, the US it its rebellion wasn't as hypocritical as the Confederacy in their Declaration of Causes of Secession which explicitly and universally states that it seceded over the central issue of slavery.
> 
> Incidentally, my wife's great-great grandather was Confederate Captain Cook. She agrees with me.
> 
> The existence of more than one reason for an action doesn't negate the central issue for that action. Because the US idicted Afganastan for its opium trade doesn't mean that it didn't war against the Taliban over the primary reason of terrorism against the West. Every war has multiple reasons. A minor reason or that shared by a few doesn't mean that all share the same minor reason. The US didn't secede from racist slave-practicing England over racist slavery as the Confedracy did against non-slave practicing "free states" which it indicted (to the absence of the three border slave states that weren't gluttons for punishment) in its Declaration of Causes of Secession.
> 
> Your straw man can't bear the heat of the evidence from its own mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep bringing up that link, but it only links to four states.  Did every single Confederate state that slavery was a reason they were seceding?  You can't link to only four of the states and say they speak for the whole.  In his inaugural address the President of the Confederacy did not mention the issue of slavery so much as one time.
> 
> Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address
> 
> If slavery was the "singular and central issue," as you claim, you'd think it would at least merit a mention in the President of that confederacy's inaugural address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reasons that I mention the four states is because only they provided a Declaration. The others didn't. I ask you, where is the other state's Declaration of secession? If none, then how can I mention something that doesn't exist?
> 
> Absence of reasons for secession in a president's innagural address doesn't mean anything when the president was elected after secession and the Declaration of Causes of Secession predates the president. Did Washington rehash the reasons for the revolution in his innaugural address? Davis didn't need to rehash.
Click to expand...


But you're trying to say that the Declarations from four states speak for the whole.  That's ridiculous.

He specifically mentions tariffs, however.  Why mention what is, in your opinion, a side issue but not the central issue?  It doesn't make sense.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else in this thread claimed the Civil War was fought to end slavery.  You responded to my response to that post.  It doesn't make sense for us to argue the point if you don't think the Civil War was fought to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I speak on behalf of "someone"? I don't. I speak for myself. I'm not a card-carrying anything. I have a brain. I disagree with what you alledge this "someone" said.
Click to expand...


I didn't say you were speaking on behalf of somebody else.  I said you responded to one of my posts that was in response to somebody else.  I don't believe that your position is the same as his, so it makes no sense to argue a point you don't believe.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only parrotting to your parrotting and your refusal to answer questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware I was asked any questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading enhances awareness. Read all the words preceeded by a "?" in my posts.
Click to expand...


Well I'm not going to go back through all your posts looking for questions, so if you have a question you'd like me to address then re-post it.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Righteous in the sense that people have the right to their own self-government, and if the people of any state decide they'd be better off outside of the Union we should not be using force of arms to suppress their natural rights and force them to remain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can hypocritical Confederates that secede to protect racism and slavery ( according to Declaration of Causes of Secession) claim righteousness?
> 
> "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
> Samuel Johnson
> 
> "Slavery is now nowhere more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty." Samuel Johnson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that, but you give the U.S. pass on that very subject.  If you condemn the Confederacy for slavery and say they have no right to self-government because of that, you have to condemn the U.S. and say that they had no right to self-government from the British.  You say, "Well they didn't secede over slavery," but what difference does it make?  The south didn't secede over just slavery, if you read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address he doesn't mention slavery one time.  He does, however, mention tariffs.  The U.S. seceded while practicing slavery, and so did the Confederacy.  If you condemn one you must condemn the other.
Click to expand...


I don't give the US a pass on that subject. I merely know that the US wasn't as blatantly hypociritical visa-vis the Confederacy. The US is hypocritical and has been since its inception and aforetime. One's hypocrisy doesn't excuse another's evil. However, the righteousness of one's cause is diminished in proportion to his hypocrisy. Societies (e.g. the Confederacy) are no different. For answers to your other questions, read my previous posts.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else in this thread claimed the Civil War was fought to end slavery.  You responded to my response to that post.  It doesn't make sense for us to argue the point if you don't think the Civil War was fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I speak on behalf of "someone"? I don't. I speak for myself. I'm not a card-carrying anything. I have a brain. I disagree with what you alledge this "someone" said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were speaking on behalf of somebody else.  I said you responded to one of my posts that was in response to somebody else.  I don't believe that your position is the same as his, so it makes no sense to argue a point you don't believe.
Click to expand...


Why are we discussing this? I still don't understand.


----------



## Annie

I'm speaking only for myself. I've never been a big 'states' righter, as that seemed to me the way of slavery. This would be confirmed for me by arguments over time, regarding constricting the rights of blacks and other minorities to vote and achieve equality.

I'd never go for that.

However, things are changing rapidly, more rapidly than most of us can keep up with. I still disagree with those previous claims, but now am ready to join with those that believe we need to wrest power from the fed. I won't stand for curtailing rights, but will stand for expanding what others wish to extinguish.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Annie said:


> I'm speaking only for myself. I've never been a big 'states' righter, as that seemed to me the way of slavery. This would be confirmed for me by arguments over time, regarding constricting the rights of blacks and other minorities to vote and achieve equality.
> 
> I'd never go for that.
> 
> However, things are changing rapidly, more rapidly than most of us can keep up with. I still disagree with those previous claims, but now am ready to join with those that believe we need to wrest power from the fed. I won't stand for curtailing rights, but will stand for expanding what others wish to extinguish.



States' rights wasn't just about slavery or racism, however.  For example, states' rights and nullification were used by northern states to not comply with the Constitution or Fugitive Slave Act in returning escaped slaves to the south.


----------



## Equat

Annie said:


> I'm speaking only for myself. I've never been a big 'states' righter, as that seemed to me the way of slavery. This would be confirmed for me by arguments over time, regarding constricting the rights of blacks and other minorities to vote and achieve equality.
> 
> I'd never go for that.
> 
> However, things are changing rapidly, more rapidly than most of us can keep up with. I still disagree with those previous claims, but now am ready to join with those that believe we need to wrest power from the fed. I won't stand for curtailing rights, but will stand for expanding what others wish to extinguish.



You are free to wrest as you wish within certain legal limitations. I agree that the Fed abuses power. All governments do. It is the nature of those in power to abuse it. If wresting involves armed revolution, then let me know so that I can get out of the way. I may have some investments (e.g. gold and real estate) to buy or sell in such case. I'm not a military revolutionary. Nor do I agree with those that rationalize such actions.


----------



## Annie

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking only for myself. I've never been a big 'states' righter, as that seemed to me the way of slavery. This would be confirmed for me by arguments over time, regarding constricting the rights of blacks and other minorities to vote and achieve equality.
> 
> I'd never go for that.
> 
> However, things are changing rapidly, more rapidly than most of us can keep up with. I still disagree with those previous claims, but now am ready to join with those that believe we need to wrest power from the fed. I won't stand for curtailing rights, but will stand for expanding what others wish to extinguish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States' rights wasn't just about slavery or racism, however.  For example, states' rights and nullification were used by northern states to not comply with the Constitution or Fugitive Slave Act in returning escaped slaves to the south.
Click to expand...


Do not try to lecture me. I know more about the Civil War causes than you can hope to. You are one of the reasons that there are so many that would help, but don't want to be connected with present day slime.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking only for myself. I've never been a big 'states' righter, as that seemed to me the way of slavery. This would be confirmed for me by arguments over time, regarding constricting the rights of blacks and other minorities to vote and achieve equality.
> 
> I'd never go for that.
> 
> However, things are changing rapidly, more rapidly than most of us can keep up with. I still disagree with those previous claims, but now am ready to join with those that believe we need to wrest power from the fed. I won't stand for curtailing rights, but will stand for expanding what others wish to extinguish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States' rights wasn't just about slavery or racism, however.  For example, states' rights and nullification were used by northern states to not comply with the Constitution or Fugitive Slave Act in returning escaped slaves to the south.
Click to expand...



Right on, but free states also didn't war against the US. As you read the Confederates'  they opposed Constitutional rights in their reasons for secession and war:
&#8226;	Confederates oppose Freedom of speech and thought:
o	&#8220;It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.&#8221; &#8211; Mississippi 
o	&#8220;they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. &#8211; South Carolina
o	&#8220;They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.&#8221;
&#8226;	Confederates oppose freedom of the press and speech:
o	&#8220;It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.&#8221; - Mississippi
&#8226;	Confederates oppose freedom of assembly:
o	&#8220;It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.&#8221; - Mississippi


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Annie said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking only for myself. I've never been a big 'states' righter, as that seemed to me the way of slavery. This would be confirmed for me by arguments over time, regarding constricting the rights of blacks and other minorities to vote and achieve equality.
> 
> I'd never go for that.
> 
> However, things are changing rapidly, more rapidly than most of us can keep up with. I still disagree with those previous claims, but now am ready to join with those that believe we need to wrest power from the fed. I won't stand for curtailing rights, but will stand for expanding what others wish to extinguish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States' rights wasn't just about slavery or racism, however.  For example, states' rights and nullification were used by northern states to not comply with the Constitution or Fugitive Slave Act in returning escaped slaves to the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do not try to lecture me. I know more about the Civil War causes than you can hope to. You are one of the reasons that there are so many that would help, but don't want to be connected with present day slime.
Click to expand...


What's with the venom?


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep bringing up that link, but it only links to four states.  Did every single Confederate state that slavery was a reason they were seceding?  You can't link to only four of the states and say they speak for the whole.  In his inaugural address the President of the Confederacy did not mention the issue of slavery so much as one time.
> 
> Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address
> 
> If slavery was the "singular and central issue," as you claim, you'd think it would at least merit a mention in the President of that confederacy's inaugural address.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons that I mention the four states is because only they provided a Declaration. The others didn't. I ask you, where is the other state's Declaration of secession? If none, then how can I mention something that doesn't exist?
> 
> Absence of reasons for secession in a president's innagural address doesn't mean anything when the president was elected after secession and the Declaration of Causes of Secession predates the president. Did Washington rehash the reasons for the revolution in his innaugural address? Davis didn't need to rehash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're trying to say that the Declarations from four states speak for the whole.  That's ridiculous.
> 
> He specifically mentions tariffs, however.  Why mention what is, in your opinion, a side issue but not the central issue?  It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...


Any reading of the many papers and speeches and pamphlets and appeals and resolutions of the time show where the states stood Kevin.

Here's Louisiana:  (I can find some of these for other states, too tired tonight though

"*Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery*, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity...

 The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages....

 That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government *we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy* that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. *With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery*, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual."

 Geo. Williamson 
 Commissioner of the State of Louisiana 
 City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.​


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> You keep bringing up that link, but it only links to four states.  Did every single Confederate state that slavery was a reason they were seceding?  You can't link to only four of the states and say they speak for the whole.  In his inaugural address the President of the Confederacy did not mention the issue of slavery so much as one time.
> 
> Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address
> 
> If slavery was the "singular and central issue," as you claim, you'd think it would at least merit a mention in the President of that confederacy's inaugural address.




"This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. *Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."*

*Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.* 

*This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.*"
*
-Alexander Stephens.  Vice President of the Confederacy*


----------



## Equat

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep bringing up that link, but it only links to four states.  Did every single Confederate state that slavery was a reason they were seceding?  You can't link to only four of the states and say they speak for the whole.  In his inaugural address the President of the Confederacy did not mention the issue of slavery so much as one time.
> 
> Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address
> 
> If slavery was the "singular and central issue," as you claim, you'd think it would at least merit a mention in the President of that confederacy's inaugural address.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. *Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."*
> 
> *Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.*
> 
> *This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.*"
> *
> -Alexander Stephens.  Vice President of the Confederacy*
Click to expand...


Substantive evidence!  Can KK read? He won't answer questions when they pose a threat to his position. The Confederate VP you quoted above reflects the Confederate sentiments that have remained in the former Confederate states through the defacto slavery period till the 60s civil rights movement and to the present day. Since the daughters of the Confederacy decided that DENIAL of racist SLAVERY was their primary goal, they've ignored all the other evidence. Somehow their god must have changed his mind about the subject of racist slavery.

Denial of the evils of racist slavery is the sole purpose of neo-Confederates. The monument they left at the Texas capital reads "We therefore pledge ourselves to preserve ... and teach the truths of history (one of the most important of which is that the war between the states was *not a rebellion nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery*)," - http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=92 (a source of many other incriminating Confederate documents)

http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/15/long-legged-yankee-lies/ also quotes neo-Confederates and the UDC in showing their purpose to skew history:
1_. Reject a book that speaks of the Constitution other than [as] a compact between Sovereign states. 
2. Reject a text-book that . . . does not clearly outline the interferences with the rights guaranteed to the South by the Constitution, and which caused secession. 
3. Reject a book that says the South fought to hold her slaves. 
4. Reject a book that speaks of the slaveholders of the South as cruel and unjust to his slaves. 
5. Reject a text-book that glorifies Abraham Lincoln and vilifies Jefferson Davis. 
6. Reject a text-book that omits to tell of the South&#8217;s heroes and their deeds. (p. 72)
Here are corrections to common mistakes found in textbooks:

1. Southern men were anxious for the slaves to be free. They were studying earnestly the problem of freedom, when Northern fanatical Abolitionists took matters into their own hands. 
2. &#8220;More slaveholders and sons of slaveholders fought for the Union than for the Confederacy (this fit awkwardly with assertions elsewhere that the Yankees got immigrants and blacks to do most of their fighting &#8211; McPherson comment). 
3. Gen. Lee freed his slaves before the war began and Gen. Ulysses S. Grand did not free his until the war ended. 
4. The war did not begin with the firing on Fort Sumter. It began when Lincoln ordered 2,400 men and 285 guns to the defense of Sumter.&#8221; 
5. Union forces outnumbered Confederate forces five to one, not surprising when the Union population was 31 million while the Confederate population was only 5 million whites and 4 million slaves.&#8221; (p. 73)
And there you have it. I wonder if Rutherford and the rest of the gang had any idea of just how successful they were in shaping an interpretation that continues to prove to be attractive throughout this country.  Consider the following two posts (here and here) if you have any doubts._[/I]

Here's a link to a copied letter at http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/ObamaLetterNR.pdf ) to the President expressing reasons for not honoring the UDC memorial. The reasons quote the UDC in their attempt to covertly veil and spread their racism.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> States' rights wasn't just about slavery or racism, however.  For example, states' rights and nullification were used by northern states to not comply with the Constitution or Fugitive Slave Act in returning escaped slaves to the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not try to lecture me. I know more about the Civil War causes than you can hope to. You are one of the reasons that there are so many that would help, but don't want to be connected with present day slime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's with the venom?
Click to expand...


The Confederacy and their reasons for secession are "What's with the venom?"


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not try to lecture me. I know more about the Civil War causes than you can hope to. You are one of the reasons that there are so many that would help, but don't want to be connected with present day slime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's with the venom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederacy and their reasons for secession are "What's with the venom?"
Click to expand...


Which has nothing to do with me.


----------



## Equat

Charles Stucker said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederates didn't remove racist slavery from their reasons for seceding. Why should we remove this singular and central issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is not an issue in the modern question of secession.
> Yet again what the would be *Tyrants* ignore is that *Popular self Determination* is a central theme to the modern US Democracy. We have pushed this theme on other countries (for example communist Russia) and yet it is not allowed for our own population based on the *Moronic* principle that since someone once voted for something generations ago, their descendants are forever barred from voting differently.
Click to expand...


Issues respecting modern secession are not the topic of this discussion/dispute.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

This thread is about secession and limits on federal power,. This is not a slavery thread. Focus, equat.


----------



## Toronado3800

I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.

Right or wrong?  I dunno.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Toronado3800 said:


> I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.
> 
> Right or wrong?  I dunno.



Obviously.  The debate here is whether the "Union" is justified in pursuing violence to force a state and it's people to remain in a Union they no longer feel effectively represents them or protects their liberty.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.
> 
> Right or wrong?  I dunno.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.  The debate here is whether the "Union" is justified in pursuing violence to force a state and it's people to remain in a Union they no longer feel effectively represents them or protects their liberty.
Click to expand...


In 1856, your hero "Robert E. Lee" addressed this issue. Do you disagree with him (a man who keeps his word?)

_I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honour for its preservation. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for 'perpetual Union,' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession: anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution.... If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none._
Robert E. Lee - Wikiquote Letter to his wife, Mary Anne Lee (1856-12-27)


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.
> 
> Right or wrong?  I dunno.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.  The debate here is whether the "Union" is justified in pursuing violence to force a state and it's people to remain in a Union they no longer feel effectively represents them or protects their liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1856, your hero "Robert E. Lee" addressed this issue. Do you disagree with him (a man who keeps his word?)
> 
> _I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honour for its preservation. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for 'perpetual Union,' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession: anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution.... If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none._
> Robert E. Lee - Wikiquote Letter to his wife, Mary Anne Lee (1856-12-27)
Click to expand...


Why do you believe Robert E. Lee is my personal hero?  I've certainly never mentioned anything of the sort.

At any rate, what does this prove?  That Robert E. Lee opposed secession?  So what?  Jefferson Davis opposed secession as well, but both believed their first loyalty lay to their country (state) and not the federal government.

Here is what Lee had to say on the subject after the war.



> I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.



The Acton-Lee Correspondence


----------



## Equat

Toronado3800 said:


> I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.
> 
> Right or wrong?  I dunno.



Precedents with the US may be observed it its force exercised against the will of the people with the Indians, Mexico, Canada, Spain, et. al. Even if the Confederates were to have had (and they did not) the right to secede, their losing their war lost them whatever rights they had to begin with. After they lost they were at the mercy of the USA as Japan and Germany were at the end of WWII.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.
> 
> Right or wrong?  I dunno.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precedents with the US may be observed it its force exercised against the will of the people with the Indians, Mexico, Canada, Spain, et. al. Even if the Confederates were to have had (and they did not) the right to secede, their losing their war lost them whatever rights they had to begin with. After they lost they were at the mercy of the USA as Japan and Germany were at the end of WWII.
Click to expand...


Losing a war does not take away ones rights.  If you were to get assaulted for speaking your mind would you then say you had lost your right to freedom of speech?


----------



## Equat

KK: To answer your questions, my quote "prove" that Lee disagreed with your position that the Confederacy had the right to secede. 

If Lee (indicted by a Federal court in post-war VA) were loyal, then why didn't he keep his word and "suffer with" his "people" and "draw" his "sword on none"? 

You said Lee was loyal to his "country (state) and not the federal government." Loyal to "anarchy ... and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution..."?


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.
> 
> Right or wrong?  I dunno.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precedents with the US may be observed it its force exercised against the will of the people with the Indians, Mexico, Canada, Spain, et. al. Even if the Confederates were to have had (and they did not) the right to secede, their losing their war lost them whatever rights they had to begin with. After they lost they were at the mercy of the USA as Japan and Germany were at the end of WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Losing a war does not take away ones rights.  If you were to get assaulted for speaking your mind would you then say you had lost your right to freedom of speech?
Click to expand...


Tell that to the Indians, Mexicans, Canadians, Spaniards, Panamanians, Japanese, Germans, et. al.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> KK: To answer your questions, my quote "prove" that Lee disagreed with your position that the Confederacy had the right to secede.
> 
> If Lee (indicted by a Federal court in post-war VA) were loyal, then why didn't he keep his word and "suffer with" his "people" and "draw" his "sword on none"?
> 
> You said Lee was loyal to his "country (state) and not the federal government." Loyal to "anarchy ... and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution..."?




No where did Lee state that secession was illegal.

He said he would draw his sword on none save for self defense.  Lincoln sending his army to force the southern states back into the Union is cause for self defense.

Anarchy is the absence of government.  Are you attempting to imply that the government of Virginia was abolished when Virginia seceded from the Union?  Or that the Confederate States of America was not a functioning federal government?


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> KK: To answer your questions, my quote "prove" that Lee disagreed with your position that the Confederacy had the right to secede.
> 
> If Lee (indicted by a Federal court in post-war VA) were loyal, then why didn't he keep his word and "suffer with" his "people" and "draw" his "sword on none"?
> 
> You said Lee was loyal to his "country (state) and not the federal government." Loyal to "anarchy ... and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution..."?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No where did Lee state that secession was illegal.
> 
> He said he would draw his sword on none save for self defense.  Lincoln sending his army to force the southern states back into the Union is cause for self defense.
> 
> Anarchy is the absence of government.  Are you attempting to imply that the government of Virginia was abolished when Virginia seceded from the Union?  Or that the Confederate States of America was not a functioning federal government?
Click to expand...



Where did Lee provide the exception for self-defense? How could he "suffer" with his "people" from peaceful secession? Lincoln sent troops to SC, not to the "independent" (as you falsely claim) "country" of VA. How was Lee defending himself?

Lee used the word "anarchy". I am merely quoting your hero whom you are now defending and excusing.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> KK: To answer your questions, my quote "prove" that Lee disagreed with your position that the Confederacy had the right to secede.
> 
> If Lee (indicted by a Federal court in post-war VA) were loyal, then why didn't he keep his word and "suffer with" his "people" and "draw" his "sword on none"?
> 
> You said Lee was loyal to his "country (state) and not the federal government." Loyal to "anarchy ... and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution..."?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No where did Lee state that secession was illegal.
> 
> He said he would draw his sword on none save for self defense.  Lincoln sending his army to force the southern states back into the Union is cause for self defense.
> 
> Anarchy is the absence of government.  Are you attempting to imply that the government of Virginia was abolished when Virginia seceded from the Union?  Or that the Confederate States of America was not a functioning federal government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Lee provide the exception for self-defense? How could he "suffer" with his "people" from peaceful secession? Lincoln sent troops to SC, not to the "independent" (as you falsely claim) "country" of VA. How was Lee defending himself?
> 
> Lee used the word "anarchy". I am merely quoting your hero whom you are now defending and excusing.
Click to expand...



I suggest you read your own quote over again.

"I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none."

Lincoln's intent was to force the states back into the Union against their will, all of the states.  Lee was defending his country, Virginia, from the U.S.

And you once again falsely claim that Robert E. Lee is my hero, despite my having already corrected you once.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Toronado3800 said:


> I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.
> 
> Right or wrong?  I dunno.



Right. The union recognizes no right to self determination-- just look at Vietnam.


----------



## Toronado3800

Its a practical limitation to my "right of self determination" that I can't rile up the voters in my census tract and declare our independence. 

Thank goodness fewer folks these days identify themselves as Georgians or Mississippians or Nevadans or whatever, enough lines are drawn between imaginary groups of ppl.  

BTW, while the ideological portions of me may cheer Russia's Georgia on in their attempt to be a thorn in the side of their former masters the practical side says, "What if we catch Russia funding some crazy Texan independence movement"?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The pro-secessionists (and covert racists) flatly have not presented an even minimal case for the consideration of secession as a right of the states today, much less than in 1860.  I thank Equat and Paper View for more than competently in handling the inanities of the wing nut presentations here, in demonstrating they have no relevance.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> The pro-secessionists (and covert racists) flatly have not presented an even minimal case for the consideration of secession as a right of the states today, much less than in 1860.  I thank Equat and Paper View for more than competently in handling the inanities of the wing nut presentations here, in demonstrating they have no relevance.





Covert racists?  I can't speak for anyone else, but if you want to imply that I'm racist then please find a post of mine that has any racist connotation whatsoever.


----------



## JakeStarkey

KK, you have offered nothing even remotely probative for secessionism, thus leaving the distasteful inference that your motives must be darker than you suggest.  I do hope I am wrong, and you do not share some of the others' foulness when it comes to matters of color and race.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> *Losing a war does not take away ones rights.*  If you were to get assaulted for speaking your mind would you then say you had lost your right to freedom of speech?



Yeah, it kinda does.  If you lose, you are pretty much at the mercy of the victors. They won.  You lost.  That's the way it works.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> KK, you have offered nothing even remotely probative for secessionism, thus leaving the distasteful inference that your motives must be darker than you suggest.  I do hope I am wrong, and you do not share some of the others' foulness when it comes to matters of color and race.



No.  If you can't provide any evidence that I'm racist other than your opinion that I've not offered anything of substance to the issue of secession, then I suggest you not make any such foolish claims in the future.  If you can't engage in an intelligent discussion then please try to avoid them.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Losing a war does not take away ones rights.*  If you were to get assaulted for speaking your mind would you then say you had lost your right to freedom of speech?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it kinda does.  If you lose, you are pretty much at the mercy of the victors. They won.  You lost.  That's the way it works.
Click to expand...


No, it really doesn't.  Our rights are natural and can't be taken away by anyone or anything.  They can be violated, but they can't be taken away.


----------



## paperview

In the end, the notion of States Rights to secede was a *theory.*

A theory it could work, a theory the constitution allowed it, a theory it would not tear asunder the _United_ States in the process.

That theory failed, and we saw why and how.

Jefferson Davis knew it to be the Truth and said, after his army was whipped and beaten, after he saw the end was nigh, he himself remarked:

*"If the Confederacy falls, there should be written on its tombstone: Died of a theory."*

If only now, 145 years later, those theoretical bones could finally 
Rest In Peace.

Sigh.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Losing a war does not take away ones rights.*  If you were to get assaulted for speaking your mind would you then say you had lost your right to freedom of speech?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it kinda does.  If you lose, you are pretty much at the mercy of the victors. They won.  You lost.  That's the way it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it really doesn't.  Our rights are natural and can't be taken away by anyone or anything.  They can be violated, but they can't be taken away.
Click to expand...

Semantics Kevin.  If you are sitting in some dungy prison, or hanging on the end of rope, 'bout ready to have the hangman let go of the rope as you are tried for treason, you can scream to bloody maryjoseph&jesus ::*but I still have rights*!::

Ain't going to do you one bit of good if you think you still have your rights, _they are just being violated_.  Who you gonna bring your violations to?  No one. 

You're still gonna snap at the neck with the word "Treason" etched in your marble biography.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> KK, you have offered nothing even remotely probative for secessionism, thus leaving the distasteful inference that your motives must be darker than you suggest.  I do hope I am wrong, and you do not share some of the others' foulness when it comes to matters of color and race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  If you can't provide any evidence that I'm racist other than your opinion that I've not offered anything of substance to the issue of secession, then I suggest you not make any such foolish claims in the future.  If you can't engage in an intelligent discussion then please try to avoid them.
Click to expand...

For the record Kevin, I don't think you are racist.  
I have seen no evidence of it.
You are a Lew Rockwell secess'er, and you firmly believe in the cause of the confederacy, I do think you underestimate the true impact slavery played in it, but that does not make you racist, as least, from the counterpoints I have seen you muster, and your general tenor, I will admit, has been respectful. 

Just thought I'd let you know.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it kinda does.  If you lose, you are pretty much at the mercy of the victors. They won.  You lost.  That's the way it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it really doesn't.  Our rights are natural and can't be taken away by anyone or anything.  They can be violated, but they can't be taken away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semantics Kevin.  If you are sitting in some dungy prison, or hanging on the end of rope, 'bout ready to have the hangman let go of the rope as you are tried for treason, you can scream to bloody maryjoseph&jesus ::*but I still have rights*!::
> 
> Ain't going to do you one bit of good if you think you still have your rights, _they are just being violated_.  Who you gonna bring your violations to?  No one.
> 
> You're still gonna snap at the neck with the word "Treason" etched in your marble biography.
Click to expand...


I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I will say that the difference is vast between rights being violated and not having those rights in the first place.  The difference is right and wrong.  If my rights are being violated then I am, at the least, justified in my actions, however, if I don't have those rights in the first place then I am wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That's the point, Kevin, whether you are racist or not.  I agree with Paper View that you are not racist  upon further reflection.  However, you have no legal right to secession, absolutely none.  Your theory has not been, nor can be substantively supported.  It's nothing more than pipe dreams.  But you would certainly not be the first to throw it all away on a pipe dream.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

> you have no legal right to secession, absolutely none



Not what the supreme law of the land says...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> That's the point, Kevin, whether you are racist or not.  I agree with Paper View that you are not racist  upon further reflection.  However, you have no legal right to secession, absolutely none.  Your theory has not been, nor can be substantively supported.  It's nothing more than pipe dreams.  But you would certainly not be the first to throw it all away on a pipe dream.



You keep saying that, but so far I haven't seen you even attempt to back up your point.


----------



## Toronado3800

I'll bite w/o looking it up.  Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states?  That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Toronado3800 said:


> I'll bite w/o looking it up.  Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states?  That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.



That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> KK, you have offered nothing even remotely probative for secessionism, thus leaving the distasteful inference that your motives must be darker than you suggest.  I do hope I am wrong, and you do not share some of the others' foulness when it comes to matters of color and race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  If you can't provide any evidence that I'm racist other than your opinion that I've not offered anything of substance to the issue of secession, then I suggest you not make any such foolish claims in the future.  If you can't engage in an intelligent discussion then please try to avoid them.
Click to expand...


Jake Starkey, like many discerning Americans, probably recognizes that Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists hide. What is the basis of your position? Is it one of social loyalty to a disloyal Confederacy, a legal one, a moral one, or what?

You've previously claimed "right"[eousness] is the basis of your argument. Right to what? I'm not a lawyer. However, I know lawyers who hold both a pro and an anti-secessionist position based on their respective legal views. Lee, prior to becoming a treasonous traitor stated that he believed that secession was contrary to our founding fathers and his ancestors by birth and marriage (e.g. President Washington). I do not believe that a legal discussion of the issue of secession is necessarily racist. The issue of secession is currently quite relevant and applicable in the state in which I live. Notwithstanding, I know that much of what underlies the moral/legal issue is and has historically been racist.

Part of the social disease behind racism is the minimization and denial of the victims. The Confederate overtly and primarily seceded based on racist slavery according to its Declaration of Secession (Declaration of Causes of Secession). You have minimized and obfuscated this fact and have minimized my representation of the Confederacy as being racists simply based on four states' declaration without providing the others' non-existent declarations. You parroting the mantra that slavery was merely a reason - not the primary and central one - without addressing neither this Declaration, nor the plethora of evidence provide by Jake Starkey, Paperview, Polk, et. al. Such evidence includes, " &#8230;the constitution, was &#8230; wrong... upon &#8230; equality of races.... Our [Confederacy]&#8230; is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its &#8230; corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the &#8230;world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." -Alexander Stephens. Vice President of the Confederacy, also echoed by neo-Confederates

Your denial is typically demonstrated in your rebuttals which refuse to address the questions which threaten your straw man&#8217;s position. Thus, also demonstrates dishonesty and disingenuousness by ignoring the facts. 

You uphold the moral right to the Confederate's secession which is amoral and flagrantly hypocritical based on it assertion that the rights and value of whites are greater than those of blacks et. al.  Thus, you raise the questions as to your motives (e.g. racism) for this discussion. Your minimization of the plight of the oppressed blacks vis-a-vis the magnification of the consequential judgment (minimal in comparison to the blacks) demonstrates your racists&#8217; values: whites are more important than blacks. Racism is inherent to America's foundation. We wouldn't be the nation that we are without the pretentiously Christian amoral evil of racism which defines our present society and apologetics (veiled or not) for this evil.
Racism and slavery are inseparable to the Confederacy.

Judgment of racism is not necessarily ad hominem when unfleecing wolves. If you genuinely addressed (rather than ignore and obfuscate) counter-evidence, then you would would demonstrate genuiness, lack of hypocirisy, integrity, and sincerity repecting your position. Thus, you'd be on a much higher ground.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Equathas admitted that KK and I are correct by refusing to address the matter at hand and instead relying on red herrings and ad hominum attacks.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No where did Lee state that secession was illegal.
> 
> He said he would draw his sword on none save for self defense.  Lincoln sending his army to force the southern states back into the Union is cause for self defense.
> 
> Anarchy is the absence of government.  Are you attempting to imply that the government of Virginia was abolished when Virginia seceded from the Union?  Or that the Confederate States of America was not a functioning federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Lee provide the exception for self-defense? How could he "suffer" with his "people" from peaceful secession? Lincoln sent troops to SC, not to the "independent" (as you falsely claim) "country" of VA. How was Lee defending himself?
> 
> Lee used the word "anarchy". I am merely quoting your hero whom you are now defending and excusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you read your own quote over again.
> 
> "I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none."
> 
> Lincoln's intent was to force the states back into the Union against their will, all of the states.  Lee was defending his country, Virginia, from the U.S.
> 
> And you once again falsely claim that Robert E. Lee is my hero, despite my having already corrected you once.
Click to expand...


I meant to ask "Where did Lee indicate that "in defense" meant the defense of S.C. who attacked the US? If such could be defined as "defense" then so could all alliances and acts of aggression or any attack on a foreign military installation. Note that the DOD is a euphamism for its former more accurate name: Department of War. 

You still refuse to address Lee's view respecting the manner in which he disagreed with your positon as to the righteousness of secession and its provisions of the founding fathers. Instead, you obfuscate the issue by focusing on defening Lee's honor from breaking his word to "share the miseries of" his "people". Admittedly, I did ask about Lee. However, his integrity wasn' the focus of my questions. His position - which you ignore - respecting the righteousness of secession is the central focus of my address to you.


----------



## Equat

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it really doesn't.  Our rights are natural and can't be taken away by anyone or anything.  They can be violated, but they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics Kevin.  If you are sitting in some dungy prison, or hanging on the end of rope, 'bout ready to have the hangman let go of the rope as you are tried for treason, you can scream to bloody maryjoseph&jesus ::*but I still have rights*!::
> 
> Ain't going to do you one bit of good if you think you still have your rights, _they are just being violated_.  Who you gonna bring your violations to?  No one.
> 
> You're still gonna snap at the neck with the word "Treason" etched in your marble biography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I will say that the difference is vast between rights being violated and not having those rights in the first place.  The difference is right and wrong.  If my rights are being violated then I am, at the least, justified in my actions, however, if I don't have those rights in the first place then I am wrong.
Click to expand...


Treasonous people loose rights. So do prisoners. Their rights and their claim to their "rights" are diminished in proportion to their hypocrisy and their violations to society. As Sadaam Hussein's rights (e.g. to life) was diminished by his atrocities, so was the Confederacy's (and the post neo-Confederacy which deprived blacks of civil rights) rights. Are you suggesting that the Confederacy be tried in Federal court in order to preserve its rights? The Confederacy didn't want such a trial because they knew that they'd be found guilt for their crimes.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite w/o looking it up.  Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states?  That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.
Click to expand...

If  it was that simple Kevin, and you believe your theory to be correct, why is it in 220 years we've never had a successful secession?


----------



## Equat

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite w/o looking it up.  Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states?  That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If  it was that simple Kevin, and you believe your theory to be correct, why is it in 220 years we've never had a successful secession?
Click to expand...


Agreed. Additionally, what would the purpose of the US Supreme Court be if the states were completely sovereign?

_After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied implied powers.[2] -_ Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_"Implied powers" are powers not given to the government directly through the Constitution, but are implied.

" 'Implied powers" are those powers authorized by a legal document(from the Constitution) which, while not stated, are deemed to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the measure against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.[2] Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the " 'general welfare clause" and the " 'necessary and proper" clause gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.

Even Hamilton's adversary, Thomas Jefferson, used the principle to justify his Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816.

In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress which are not explicitly given by the constitution itself but necessary and proper to execute the powers which are._ - Implied powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point, Kevin, whether you are racist or not.  I agree with Paper View that you are not racist  upon further reflection.  However, you have no legal right to secession, absolutely none.  Your theory has not been, nor can be substantively supported.  It's nothing more than pipe dreams.  But you would certainly not be the first to throw it all away on a pipe dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that, but so far I haven't seen you even attempt to back up your point.
Click to expand...


I don't have to prove anything until you can offer probative commentary.  Equat and Paper View destroyed everything you put out there.  Pipe dreams, Kevin, pipe dreams.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite w/o looking it up.  Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states?  That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.
Click to expand...


That is merely your interpretation, Kevin, and you will find no substantive and final support from the federal courts.  Your opinion does not count as law.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> KK, you have offered nothing even remotely probative for secessionism, thus leaving the distasteful inference that your motives must be darker than you suggest.  I do hope I am wrong, and you do not share some of the others' foulness when it comes to matters of color and race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  If you can't provide any evidence that I'm racist other than your opinion that I've not offered anything of substance to the issue of secession, then I suggest you not make any such foolish claims in the future.  If you can't engage in an intelligent discussion then please try to avoid them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake Starkey, like many discerning Americans, probably recognizes that Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists hide. What is the basis of your position? Is it one of social loyalty to a disloyal Confederacy, a legal one, a moral one, or what?
> 
> You've previously claimed "right"[eousness] is the basis of your argument. Right to what? I'm not a lawyer. However, I know lawyers who hold both a pro and an anti-secessionist position based on their respective legal views. Lee, prior to becoming a treasonous traitor stated that he believed that secession was contrary to our founding fathers and his ancestors by birth and marriage (e.g. President Washington). I do not believe that a legal discussion of the issue of secession is necessarily racist. The issue of secession is currently quite relevant and applicable in the state in which I live. Notwithstanding, I know that much of what underlies the moral/legal issue is and has historically been racist.
> 
> Part of the social disease behind racism is the minimization and denial of the victims. The Confederate overtly and primarily seceded based on racist slavery according to its Declaration of Secession (Declaration of Causes of Secession). You have minimized and obfuscated this fact and have minimized my representation of the Confederacy as being racists simply based on four states' declaration without providing the others' non-existent declarations. You parroting the mantra that slavery was merely a reason - not the primary and central one - without addressing neither this Declaration, nor the plethora of evidence provide by Jake Starkey, Paperview, Polk, et. al. Such evidence includes, " the constitution, was  wrong... upon  equality of races.... Our [Confederacy] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its  corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." -Alexander Stephens. Vice President of the Confederacy, also echoed by neo-Confederates
> 
> Your denial is typically demonstrated in your rebuttals which refuse to address the questions which threaten your straw mans position. Thus, also demonstrates dishonesty and disingenuousness by ignoring the facts.
> 
> You uphold the moral right to the Confederate's secession which is amoral and flagrantly hypocritical based on it assertion that the rights and value of whites are greater than those of blacks et. al.  Thus, you raise the questions as to your motives (e.g. racism) for this discussion. Your minimization of the plight of the oppressed blacks vis-a-vis the magnification of the consequential judgment (minimal in comparison to the blacks) demonstrates your racists values: whites are more important than blacks. Racism is inherent to America's foundation. We wouldn't be the nation that we are without the pretentiously Christian amoral evil of racism which defines our present society and apologetics (veiled or not) for this evil.
> Racism and slavery are inseparable to the Confederacy.
> 
> Judgment of racism is not necessarily ad hominem when unfleecing wolves. If you genuinely addressed (rather than ignore and obfuscate) counter-evidence, then you would would demonstrate genuiness, lack of hypocirisy, integrity, and sincerity repecting your position. Thus, you'd be on a much higher ground.
Click to expand...


You keep saying I'm ignoring things you're saying, or avoiding them, but so far I believe I've addressed everything you've said.  You claim that I avoided some questions you've asked, but I gave you the opportunity to repost those questions and you chose not to.

However, I believe it is you that is ignoring evidence.  I've never denied the impact slavery had on some of the states decision to secede.  But you keep posting up those Declaration's of Secession and claiming wrongly that they apply to the entire Confederacy, and that they're the only possible reason.  You keep posting up a speech by the Confederate Vice-President regarding slavery, but ignore the Confederacy's actual President when he mentions only tariffs and the right to self-government.  You also ignore the fact that many of the states remained in the Union until after Fort Sumter and Lincoln's insistence on war to force the other states back into the Union.

If I have missed some all important questions you seek my answer to, then I once again ask that you repost them in a clear manner and I will do my best to answer them adequately.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Lee provide the exception for self-defense? How could he "suffer" with his "people" from peaceful secession? Lincoln sent troops to SC, not to the "independent" (as you falsely claim) "country" of VA. How was Lee defending himself?
> 
> Lee used the word "anarchy". I am merely quoting your hero whom you are now defending and excusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you read your own quote over again.
> 
> "I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none."
> 
> Lincoln's intent was to force the states back into the Union against their will, all of the states.  Lee was defending his country, Virginia, from the U.S.
> 
> And you once again falsely claim that Robert E. Lee is my hero, despite my having already corrected you once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant to ask "Where did Lee indicate that "in defense" meant the defense of S.C. who attacked the US? If such could be defined as "defense" then so could all alliances and acts of aggression or any attack on a foreign military installation. Note that the DOD is a euphamism for its former more accurate name: Department of War.
> 
> You still refuse to address Lee's view respecting the manner in which he disagreed with your positon as to the righteousness of secession and its provisions of the founding fathers. Instead, you obfuscate the issue by focusing on defening Lee's honor from breaking his word to "share the miseries of" his "people". Admittedly, I did ask about Lee. However, his integrity wasn' the focus of my questions. His position - which you ignore - respecting the righteousness of secession is the central focus of my address to you.
Click to expand...


Lee realized that Lincoln set up the Confederacy at Fort Sumter and that his intention all along was to invade the south.  He knew that the states had the right to self-government, as both made clear by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and would not stand by as his country was forced to assimilate back into a tyrannical government against the will of its people.

I did address Lee's view respecting secession.  I believe this is part of your problem.  It's not that I'm refusing to address your points, you're simply refusing to accept my answer.  I already acknowledged that Lee was opposed to secession, as were many prominent Confederates such as Confederate President Jefferson Davis.  However, I also provided a quote from Lee where he also addresses his opposition to secession, but makes clear that his first duty was to his country, Virginia, and not the federal government.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics Kevin.  If you are sitting in some dungy prison, or hanging on the end of rope, 'bout ready to have the hangman let go of the rope as you are tried for treason, you can scream to bloody maryjoseph&jesus ::*but I still have rights*!::
> 
> Ain't going to do you one bit of good if you think you still have your rights, _they are just being violated_.  Who you gonna bring your violations to?  No one.
> 
> You're still gonna snap at the neck with the word "Treason" etched in your marble biography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I will say that the difference is vast between rights being violated and not having those rights in the first place.  The difference is right and wrong.  If my rights are being violated then I am, at the least, justified in my actions, however, if I don't have those rights in the first place then I am wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treasonous people loose rights. So do prisoners. Their rights and their claim to their "rights" are diminished in proportion to their hypocrisy and their violations to society. As Sadaam Hussein's rights (e.g. to life) was diminished by his atrocities, so was the Confederacy's (and the post neo-Confederacy which deprived blacks of civil rights) rights. Are you suggesting that the Confederacy be tried in Federal court in order to preserve its rights? The Confederacy didn't want such a trial because they knew that they'd be found guilt for their crimes.
Click to expand...


Treason is defined by the Constitution of the United States as follows:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." - Article 3, Section 3

Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, not the federal government.  Who is it that levied war against the states?  Abraham Lincoln.

I am suggesting that the Confederacy committed no crime that the United States was not also guilty of, and to say that the U.S. had the right to punish them for those alleged crimes is sheer hypocrisy.  And the crimes of the U.S. during the Civil War are greater still than the Confederacy, in my opinion.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite w/o looking it up.  Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states?  That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If  it was that simple Kevin, and you believe your theory to be correct, why is it in 220 years we've never had a successful secession?
Click to expand...


Governments are mainly concerned with growing and keeping their power, not the rights of the people.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.
> 
> 
> 
> If  it was that simple Kevin, and you believe your theory to be correct, why is it in 220 years we've never had a successful secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. Additionally, what would the purpose of the US Supreme Court be if the states were completely sovereign?
> 
> _After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied implied powers.[2] -_ Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _"Implied powers" are powers not given to the government directly through the Constitution, but are implied.
> 
> " 'Implied powers" are those powers authorized by a legal document(from the Constitution) which, while not stated, are deemed to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the measure against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.[2] Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the " 'general welfare clause" and the " 'necessary and proper" clause gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.
> 
> Even Hamilton's adversary, Thomas Jefferson, used the principle to justify his Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816.
> 
> In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress which are not explicitly given by the constitution itself but necessary and proper to execute the powers which are._ - Implied powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Let us note that Alexander Hamilton did not believe in these "implied powers" until after the Constitution was ratified by the states, and maintained a strict interpretation of the Constitution was correct in the Federalist Papers and before ratification.  Hamilton was a liar in other words.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point, Kevin, whether you are racist or not.  I agree with Paper View that you are not racist  upon further reflection.  However, you have no legal right to secession, absolutely none.  Your theory has not been, nor can be substantively supported.  It's nothing more than pipe dreams.  But you would certainly not be the first to throw it all away on a pipe dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that, but so far I haven't seen you even attempt to back up your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove anything until you can offer probative commentary.  Equat and Paper View destroyed everything you put out there.  Pipe dreams, Kevin, pipe dreams.
Click to expand...


Yes, Equat and Paperview have been willing to discuss the issue.  You've been more concerned with stating your opinion and then declaring victory.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite w/o looking it up.  Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states?  That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is merely your interpretation, Kevin, and you will find no substantive and final support from the federal courts.  Your opinion does not count as law.
Click to expand...


I am well aware of what my opinion does or does not count for.  However, this is a discussion forum, and I believe the purpose of it is to discuss things.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I will say that the difference is vast between rights being violated and not having those rights in the first place.  The difference is right and wrong.  If my rights are being violated then I am, at the least, justified in my actions, however, if I don't have those rights in the first place then I am wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treasonous people loose rights. So do prisoners. Their rights and their claim to their "rights" are diminished in proportion to their hypocrisy and their violations to society. As Sadaam Hussein's rights (e.g. to life) was diminished by his atrocities, so was the Confederacy's (and the post neo-Confederacy which deprived blacks of civil rights) rights. Are you suggesting that the Confederacy be tried in Federal court in order to preserve its rights? The Confederacy didn't want such a trial because they knew that they'd be found guilt for their crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treason is defined by the Constitution of the United States as follows:
> 
> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." - Article 3, Section 3
> 
> Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, not the federal government.  Who is it that levied war against the states?  Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> I am suggesting that the Confederacy committed no crime that the United States was not also guilty of, and to say that the U.S. had the right to punish them for those alleged crimes is sheer hypocrisy.  And the crimes of the U.S. during the Civil War are greater still than the Confederacy, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

"Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, *not the federal government*."

You seriously think that  levying war against the federal government is *not* treason?  

Really?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Treasonous people loose rights. So do prisoners. Their rights and their claim to their "rights" are diminished in proportion to their hypocrisy and their violations to society. As Sadaam Hussein's rights (e.g. to life) was diminished by his atrocities, so was the Confederacy's (and the post neo-Confederacy which deprived blacks of civil rights) rights. Are you suggesting that the Confederacy be tried in Federal court in order to preserve its rights? The Confederacy didn't want such a trial because they knew that they'd be found guilt for their crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treason is defined by the Constitution of the United States as follows:
> 
> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." - Article 3, Section 3
> 
> Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, not the federal government.  Who is it that levied war against the states?  Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> I am suggesting that the Confederacy committed no crime that the United States was not also guilty of, and to say that the U.S. had the right to punish them for those alleged crimes is sheer hypocrisy.  And the crimes of the U.S. during the Civil War are greater still than the Confederacy, in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, *not the federal government*."
> 
> You seriously think that  levying war against the federal government is *not* treason?
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...


The constitutional definition of treason is quite clear, levying war against the states.  It doesn't mention the federal government whatsoever.  So no, I do not believe it is treasonous to levy war against the federal government.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that, but so far I haven't seen you even attempt to back up your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove anything until you can offer probative commentary.  Equat and Paper View destroyed everything you put out there.  Pipe dreams, Kevin, pipe dreams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Equat and Paperview have been willing to discuss the issue.  You've been more concerned with stating your opinion and then declaring victory.
Click to expand...


Two months ago I competently dismantled your slavery argument.  Paper View and Equat destroyed your pro-secession argument.  We have proved our arguments.  You have not, such as your silly argument about it not being treason when levying war against the U.S.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove anything until you can offer probative commentary.  Equat and Paper View destroyed everything you put out there.  Pipe dreams, Kevin, pipe dreams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Equat and Paperview have been willing to discuss the issue.  You've been more concerned with stating your opinion and then declaring victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two months ago I competently dismantled your slavery argument.  Paper View and Equat destroyed your pro-secession argument.  We have proved our arguments.  You have not, such as your silly argument about it not being treason when levying war against the U.S.
Click to expand...


You claim you dismantled my argument, but that's all you've done is make claims.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Treason is defined by the Constitution of the United States as follows:
> 
> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." - Article 3, Section 3
> 
> Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, not the federal government.  Who is it that levied war against the states?  Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> I am suggesting that the Confederacy committed no crime that the United States was not also guilty of, and to say that the U.S. had the right to punish them for those alleged crimes is sheer hypocrisy.  And the crimes of the U.S. during the Civil War are greater still than the Confederacy, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> "Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, *not the federal government*."
> 
> You seriously think that  levying war against the federal government is *not* treason?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitutional definition of treason is quite clear, levying war against the states.  It doesn't mention the federal government whatsoever.  *So no, I do not believe it is treasonous to levy war against the federal government*.
Click to expand...

Wow.

That's all I can say.

Wow.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, *not the federal government*."
> 
> You seriously think that  levying war against the federal government is *not* treason?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitutional definition of treason is quite clear, levying war against the states.  It doesn't mention the federal government whatsoever.  *So no, I do not believe it is treasonous to levy war against the federal government*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.
> 
> That's all I can say.
> 
> Wow.
Click to expand...


It's not really that difficult to understand.  The states are sovereign to the federal government, and may therefore reject the federal government in any way they see fit.  The framers of the Constitution obviously believed this, or they would not have put the definition of treason that they did in the Constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

KevinKennedy is a loon.  A nicely behaved loon, I must say.  He does not swear or curse or really get angry, so I give him credit.

Immoral stubborness, however, does competently describe his character weakness.  He is wrong, but he simply cannot admit it.  That is why he will inevitably fail at what he does because he cannot learn from his mistakes and from those incidents when others are right.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitutional definition of treason is quite clear, levying war against the states.  It doesn't mention the federal government whatsoever.  *So no, I do not believe it is treasonous to levy war against the federal government*.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> That's all I can say.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not really that difficult to understand.  The states are sovereign to the federal government, and may therefore reject the federal government in any way they see fit.  The framers of the Constitution obviously believed this, or they would not have put the definition of treason that they did in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Washington:  Founder.

Whiskey Rebellion.

Treason.

Federal Government.

Convicted.

/Fin.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The states are the creatures of the federal government, the people are sovereign.  KK merely ingests the basic calhounite fallacy is all.  The South alone abides the responsibility for the loss of at least 700,000 Americans, the destruction of the South economically and politically, and the rise of Jim Crow and segregation.  I am so glad that high school and college students in the Old South are being taught that (1) the Old South was responsible for the Civil War, (2) slavery was its primary cause, and (3) the South's defeat was politically, constitutionally, legally, morally, and ethically the right conclusion.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Equat said:


> Treasonous people loose rights. .


They lost the right?

Then you admit they had the right in the first place, as do all persons.

Unless everyone alive today is to be punished for someone else's crimes.

Either way, you just sad K^2 was correct.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> That's all I can say.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really that difficult to understand.  The states are sovereign to the federal government, and may therefore reject the federal government in any way they see fit.  The framers of the Constitution obviously believed this, or they would not have put the definition of treason that they did in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Washington:  Founder.
> 
> Whiskey Rebellion.
> 
> Treason.
> 
> Federal Government.
> 
> Convicted.
> 
> /Fin.
Click to expand...


The fact that Washington and the federal government put down the Whiskey Rebellion doesn't prove anything, however.  The question is whether they were right to do so, and I would say no.  Thomas Jefferson called Washington's actions tyrannical.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

JakeStarkey said:


> The states are the creatures of the federal government,




:facepalm:


----------



## JakeStarkey

The states are the creatures of the federal government, because federal law is supreme.  The foundation of the country is "We the People", proletarian, so go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

JakeStarkey said:


> The states are the creatures of the federal government, because federal law is supreme.



Only in very few areas


----------



## Toronado3800

> The fact that Washington and the federal government put down the Whiskey Rebellion doesn't prove anything, however. The question is whether they were right to do so, and I would say no. Thomas Jefferson called Washington's actions tyrannical.


I think there is a lesson here.  Some of the founding fathers had different views and this has always been a contested issue.

So like some folks can respect but disagree with Washington and others can do the same to Jefferson I can respect other folk's opinions but disagree w/o calling them wrong or an idiot.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The views of Hamilton, Jay, Marshall, and Lincoln trumped those of Jefferson, Calhoun, and the secessionists.  The world has benefitted far more greatly with a truly United States as a nation rather than a union.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

> The world has benefitted far more greatly with a truly United States as a nation rather than a union.




I can think of many nations who'd disagree...


----------



## JakeStarkey

What those nations, or you, think is immaterial.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

JakeStarkey said:


> .  The world has benefitted far more greatly with a truly United States as a nation rather than a union.





JakeStarkey said:


> What () you, think is immaterial.


----------



## paperview

Everything MUST BE CONCEDED TO ME AT THIS MOMENT.

I JUST TURNED 50 a few minutes ago AND IT'S MY DAY --

So there!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fifty is a great age for either a man or a woman.  One has gained experience, some wisdom, learned to separate the steadiness of real love from the sporadic extreme heights and abysmal lows of silly romance, a view of eternity for one knows s/he is truly mortal and faces the ages.  Congratulations, Paper View, and I concede all to you this evening.


----------



## Equat

paperview said:


> Everything MUST BE CONCEDED TO ME AT THIS MOMENT.
> 
> I JUST TURNED 50 a few minutes ago AND IT'S MY DAY --
> 
> So there!



Congratuations. All is conceded. You sure know how to hide your age!


----------



## Equat

JakeStarkey said:


> The views of Hamilton, Jay, Marshall, and Lincoln trumped those of Jefferson, Calhoun, and the secessionists.  The world has benefitted far more greatly with a truly United States as a nation rather than a union.



What's the difference between a "nation" and a "union"?


----------



## Equat

Toronado3800 said:


> The fact that Washington and the federal government put down the Whiskey Rebellion doesn't prove anything, however. The question is whether they were right to do so, and I would say no. Thomas Jefferson called Washington's actions tyrannical.
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a lesson here.  Some of the founding fathers had different views and this has always been a contested issue.
> 
> So like some folks can respect but disagree with Washington and others can do the same to Jefferson I can respect other folk's opinions but disagree w/o calling them wrong or an idiot.
Click to expand...


Opionions differed then as they do today. At our nations founding, the prevailing views among the decision makers had a lasting impact that affected future generations. The orientation of a sapling determines future direction.


----------



## Equat

JakeStarkey said:


> The states are the creatures of the federal government, the people are sovereign.  KK merely ingests the basic calhounite fallacy is all.  The South alone abides the responsibility for the loss of at least 700,000 Americans, the destruction of the South economically and politically, and the rise of Jim Crow and segregation.  I am so glad that high school and college students in the Old South are being taught that (1) the Old South was responsible for the Civil War, (2) slavery was its primary cause, and (3) the South's defeat was politically, constitutionally, legally, morally, and ethically the right conclusion.



The reason schools teach the truth is why many home educate. I encountered many of these people when I home educated my children. The KKK (according to their website) home educates as well. Many "Robert E. Lee"-worshipping neo-Confederates in that crowd.


----------



## Equat

JakeStarkey said:


> KevinKennedy is a loon.  A nicely behaved loon, I must say.  He does not swear or curse or really get angry, so I give him credit.
> 
> Immoral stubborness, however, does competently describe his character weakness.  He is wrong, but he simply cannot admit it.  That is why he will inevitably fail at what he does because he cannot learn from his mistakes and from those incidents when others are right.



What you describe about KK is Southern gentility.


----------



## Equat

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, *not the federal government*."
> 
> You seriously think that  levying war against the federal government is *not* treason?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitutional definition of treason is quite clear, levying war against the states.  It doesn't mention the federal government whatsoever.  *So no, I do not believe it is treasonous to levy war against the federal government*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.
> 
> That's all I can say.
> 
> Wow.
Click to expand...


Double "Wow"! Do you understand his rebuttal?


----------



## Equat

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove anything until you can offer probative commentary.  Equat and Paper View destroyed everything you put out there.  Pipe dreams, Kevin, pipe dreams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Equat and Paperview have been willing to discuss the issue.  You've been more concerned with stating your opinion and then declaring victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two months ago I competently dismantled your slavery argument.  Paper View and Equat destroyed your pro-secession argument.  We have proved our arguments.  You have not, such as your silly argument about it not being treason when levying war against the U.S.
Click to expand...


KK's claim to "Vicotry" is classic of neo-Confederates. They declare victory in defeat. That's why they rellish Civil War re-enactments. The loosers claim they've won despite all evidence to the contrary. Its all quite dillusional. Most other societies (e.g. Japanese, Germans, and those loyal to the US) hate loosing and would rather forget about it. Rebs are gluttons for punishment. 

They think they win by controlling speach and/or having the last word. In their Confederacy free speach was denied and posession of anti-slavery books were punished in court as seditious.


----------



## paperview

"That's why they rellish Civil War re-enactments."

Hold on there.   Reenactors are both Confederate and Union sympathizing.

I don't agree with your premise about that subset of Civil War buffs.  
They reenact because it was an important, very important war and are true history aficionados.

I don't think neo-confederates (who I will agree, have come from a long line of sore losers)  should be cast in with reenactors.  

CW Reenacting is a noble hobby.


----------



## paperview

Equat said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitutional definition of treason is quite clear, levying war against the states.  It doesn't mention the federal government whatsoever.  *So no, I do not believe it is treasonous to levy war against the federal government*.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> That's all I can say.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Double "Wow"! Do you understand his rebuttal?
Click to expand...

Not really.  But I've noticed when faced with a compelling argument that does not support his theory, Kevin speaks in high vagueness.  Never really addressing the topic, grabbing a flag & constitution and doing a semantical version of _Whistling Dixie _too loud for any one to notice he just got sideswiped.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> KevinKennedy is a loon.  A nicely behaved loon, I must say.  He does not swear or curse or really get angry, so I give him credit.
> 
> Immoral stubborness, however, does competently describe his character weakness.  He is wrong, but he simply cannot admit it.  That is why he will inevitably fail at what he does because he cannot learn from his mistakes and from those incidents when others are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you describe about KK is Southern gentility.
Click to expand...


Yes, I learned my southern gentility up here in northeast Ohio.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Equat said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Equat and Paperview have been willing to discuss the issue.  You've been more concerned with stating your opinion and then declaring victory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two months ago I competently dismantled your slavery argument.  Paper View and Equat destroyed your pro-secession argument.  We have proved our arguments.  You have not, such as your silly argument about it not being treason when levying war against the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> KK's claim to "Vicotry" is classic of neo-Confederates. They declare victory in defeat. That's why they rellish Civil War re-enactments. The loosers claim they've won despite all evidence to the contrary. Its all quite dillusional. Most other societies (e.g. Japanese, Germans, and those loyal to the US) hate loosing and would rather forget about it. Rebs are gluttons for punishment.
> 
> They think they win by controlling speach and/or having the last word. In their Confederacy free speach was denied and posession of anti-slavery books were punished in court as seditious.
Click to expand...


Excuse me?  I never claimed "victory" in this thread or any other.  That would be our friend Jake claiming some imagined victory after piggybacking your and paperview's arguments.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Equat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> That's all I can say.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Double "Wow"! Do you understand his rebuttal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really.  But I've noticed when faced with a compelling argument that does not support his theory, Kevin speaks in high vagueness.  Never really addressing the topic, grabbing a flag & constitution and doing a semantical version of _Whistling Dixie _too loud for any one to notice he just got sideswiped.
Click to expand...


The definition of treason that is in the Constitution is vague and doesn't address the topic of treason?  And my further explanation of why there can be no treason against the federal government was an example of me refusing to address the topic further?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin, all three of us demolished your arguments.

You are wrong, pure and simple.

Because you have refused to accept what reasonably can be construed as "Kevin got his butt whipped royally" merely means that you are now also immorally stubborn as well as wrong.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin, all three of us demolished your arguments.
> 
> You are wrong, pure and simple.
> 
> Because you have refused to accept what reasonably can be construed as "Kevin got his butt whipped royally" merely means that you are now also immorally stubborn as well as wrong.



Another wonderful example of the great and powerful claim to victory by our friend Jake.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin, simply, you did not prove your case.  That you refuse to recognize that simple fact says very much about you.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin, simply, you did not prove your case.  That you refuse to recognize that simple fact says very much about you.



Maybe I did, maybe I didn't.  But the fact that you think you had any relevant role in this discussion is laughable.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, Kevin, this is not a matter of differing opinion.  You did not prove your case, and whether you continue to deny it means absolutely nothing to the discussion.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> No, Kevin, this is not a matter of differing opinion.  You did not prove your case, and whether you continue to deny it means absolutely nothing to the discussion.



Actually it is a matter of differing opinions, as all discussions on this message board are.  It is your opinion that I didn't prove my case.  Others may believe that I did prove my case, and still others may believe that I gave a thorough defense of my case but didn't prove it in the end.  These are all, however, opinions.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that you and those that believe as you that (1) secession was legal and (2) slavery was not the prime cause of the war are wrong.  None of you have offered anything that can offset or move the evidence that clearly substantiates that (1) secession is treason, and (2) slavery was the prime cause of the war.  If you and the others continued this attitude in business you would go bankrupt in short order.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that you and those that believe as you that (1) secession was legal and (2) slavery was not the prime cause of the war are wrong.  None of you have offered anything that can offset or move the evidence that clearly substantiates taht (1) secession is treason, and (2) slavery was the prime cause of the war.



In your opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nope, in the weight of evidence.  As a judge would say, "dismissed".


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Nope, in the weight of evidence.  As a judge would say, "dismissed".



Again, in your opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Not at all, Kevin.


----------



## Toronado3800

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that you and those that believe as you that (1) secession was legal and (2) slavery was not the prime cause of the war are wrong.  None of you have offered anything that can offset or move the evidence that clearly substantiates that (1) secession is treason, and (2) slavery was the prime cause of the war.  If you and the others continued this attitude in business you would go bankrupt in short order.



For the record I believe secession was legal but slavery was the prime cause of the war if for no other reason than the powder keg theory.  Alabama wasn't about to declare independence during the 19th century over any of the tariff arguments.

I'm very Anti-Confederacy though and the practical parts of me would have supported Lincoln.


----------



## Citizen

JakeStarkey said:


> Sunni Man, if that is true, then the South should have lost because of certain defects included in our founding document.  Some, such as representation and freedom from religious intolerance, have been worked out peacefully.  But the issue of slavery had to be eliminated by warfare because of the South's inhumanity to mankind, its hatred of personal liberty.
> 
> And, Kevin, the Sons of the South nonsense is getting old.  The Confederates, like our Republicans in the last election, lost.  Choices have consequences.  Deal with it.



IMHO, you are overlooking the fact that even after the emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves in the Confederate states there were still over 250,000 slaves held in the Union states, so where do you get off claiming the South was the inhumane one when it was the Union that required the 13th Amendment to free the Northern slaves?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Citizen said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man, if that is true, then the South should have lost because of certain defects included in our founding document.  Some, such as representation and freedom from religious intolerance, have been worked out peacefully.  But the issue of slavery had to be eliminated by warfare because of the South's inhumanity to mankind, its hatred of personal liberty.
> 
> And, Kevin, the Sons of the South nonsense is getting old.  The Confederates, like our Republicans in the last election, lost.  Choices have consequences.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, you are overlooking the fact that even after the emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves in the Confederate states there were still over 250,000 slaves held in the Union states, so where do you get off claiming the South was the inhumane one when it was the Union that required the 13th Amendment to free the Northern slaves?
Click to expand...


The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves in the Confederacy.  It was simple political posturing by Lincoln.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Citizen said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man, if that is true, then the South should have lost because of certain defects included in our founding document.  Some, such as representation and freedom from religious intolerance, have been worked out peacefully.  But the issue of slavery had to be eliminated by warfare because of the South's inhumanity to mankind, its hatred of personal liberty.
> 
> And, Kevin, the Sons of the South nonsense is getting old.  The Confederates, like our Republicans in the last election, lost.  Choices have consequences.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, you are overlooking the fact that even after the emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves in the Confederate states there were still over 250,000 slaves held in the Union states, so where do you get off claiming the South was the inhumane one when it was the Union that required the 13th Amendment to free the Northern slaves?
Click to expand...


The North had emancipated its slaves long before.  The South and some of the border states would not emancipate after getting their collective csa butts kicked, so it required the 13th amendment.  Those bad states had to approve the amendment to get back into the Union.  Rightfully so.

The Sons of the Souths' mentalities are traitors, pure and simple.  No need to listen to them, and their children are being educated appropriately on this issue.  Not to worry.  The home and parochial school get it in college and university.  Good for them.


----------



## Citizen

JakeStarkey said:


> Do you know, Sunni Man, the South could have eliminated slavery gradually with state compensation whenever it want to.  It didn't want to is the point, my boy!  The Declaration of Independence was only an incomplete paper flying in the wind with slavery legal in our wonderful country.
> 
> Freedom means everybody, including you, boyo, and the slave men and women.  The South was a bastion of hell, not of liberty.  I am so glad it lost, and feel something close to hatred for the men and women who denied liberty to others in the name of their own liberty.  Hypocrites!



Did you not know that there were over 250,000 slaves held in the Northern states, at the time of the war, and that slaves in the Northern states were not freed for over three years after the slaves in the South were freed, and you have the audacity to call the Southerners hypocrites.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nope, it is simple posturing by Kevin, wrong posturing.


----------



## Citizen

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the guy who actually wrote the Constitution was completely ignorant too.
> 
> _He _did not believe secession was constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one person wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, KK, but who is referred to as the principle author...you know,
> the person who is called the "Father of the Constitution?"
> 
> I think you know the answer.
Click to expand...


Maybe, just maybe, you are unfamilair with the opinion of the "Father of the Constitution" when it came to the Constitution.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788 - considered the 'father of the Constitution'

As to the real causes of the war between the states, or as is it is commonly known, the War of Northern Aggression, I would like to post the following:

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Virginia proposed a requirement for a two-thirds majority to enact laws regulating commerce and levying tariffs, which were the chief revenue of the federal government. Virginia withdrew its amendment at the Convention in the interest of adopting the Constitution, but ratification was with the understanding that it could be rescinded if the powers granted the federal government were used to oppress, and that Virginia could them withdraw from the Union.

Let us not forget that there were at least 250,000 slaves held in the 19 Northern states that fought for the union, which were not freed during the war, but had to wait until the 13 amendment was ratified, which left the Northern slaves in captivity for over three years after the slaves in the South were freed.

The war was really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on the side of the South.

The South knew that it was their import trade that drew from the peoples pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, which were mainly expended in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These were the reasons the people of the North did not wish the South to secede from the Union.

In December 1860, the Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce:

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coast wise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We would lose our trade with the South, with all its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."

One more example would be the NY Times on March 22, 1861.

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States. It is apparent that the people of the principle seceding states are for commercial independence. They dream that the centers of traffic can be changed from the Northern to Southern ports...by a revenue system verging on free trade."

So, now maybe you can understand why we refer to the war as, The War of Northern Aggression. 

Just in case you did not know, the vast majority of the farmers in the South never owned slaves, plowed their own fields, and fought against Northern aggression.

Also, part of our Southern heritage is the fact that our forefathers fought against Northern aggression when the North was forcing the South to pay for most of the Northern improvements, paid for by the federal government, via tariffs imposed upon the South.

As examples, in 1840 the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. The South paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which has a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. 

The South was paying tribute to the North, and the only way to stop it was to withdraw from the Union they had voluntary entered, with nothing included in the US Constitution to prevent such separation. 

In March 1861, over one hundred leading commercial importers in New York, and a similar group in Boston, informed the collector of customs that they would not pay duties on imported gods unless the same duties were collected at Southern ports. This was followed by a threat from New York to withdraw from the Union and establish a free-trade zone. Prior to these events, Lincoln's plan was to evacuate Fort Sumter and not precipitate a war, but now he determined to reinforce it rather than suffer prolonged economic disaster in a losing trade war. The reinforcement was met with force by the South, and the war was upon us.


----------



## JakeStarkey

KevinKennedy is being dishonest.  He present the minority view, very unconvincingly, I might add.  He fails to tell you the press from which he is quoting is Democratic in 1860, and a great enemy of Lincoln.

Yes, the cause of the war was slavery, which threatened the Union.  Every secondary cause can be traced directly to the issue of race and slavery.  The southern states seceded illegally, Lincoln said "no", then murdered the Old South.  Good for him.  Good for the United States.  Good for the world.

Kevin is entitled to his opinion, however as wrong as it is, because we are able to showcase the light of the truth against the darkness of his conceits.


----------



## Citizen

JakeStarkey said:


> Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man, if that is true, then the South should have lost because of certain defects included in our founding document.  Some, such as representation and freedom from religious intolerance, have been worked out peacefully.  But the issue of slavery had to be eliminated by warfare because of the South's inhumanity to mankind, its hatred of personal liberty.
> 
> And, Kevin, the Sons of the South nonsense is getting old.  The Confederates, like our Republicans in the last election, lost.  Choices have consequences.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, you are overlooking the fact that even after the emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves in the Confederate states there were still over 250,000 slaves held in the Union states, so where do you get off claiming the South was the inhumane one when it was the Union that required the 13th Amendment to free the Northern slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The North had emancipated its slaves long before.  The South and some of the border states would not emancipate after getting their collective csa butts kicked, so it required the 13th amendment.  Those bad states had to approve the amendment to get back into the Union.  Rightfully so.
> 
> The Sons of the Souths' mentalities are traitors, pure and simple.  No need to listen to them, and their children are being educated appropriately on this issue.  Not to worry.  The home and parochial school get it in college and university.  Good for them.
Click to expand...


Do you really not know that when the war was fought that Northern states still held slaves until three years after the Emancipation Proclamation before they were freed.

Two months before the Civil War ended. (February 18, 1865) Delaware voted against the 13th Amendment and thus unsuccessfully tried to continue slavery past the civil war... 
It wasn't until 1901 that Delaware ratified the 13th Amendment (a full 40 Years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation).


----------



## JakeStarkey

Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland were not "northern" states.  Are you dishonest, too?  Or you just don't know Civil War history.  Northern states, your butt.


----------



## Citizen

JakeStarkey said:


> Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland were not "northern" states.  Are you dishonest, too?  Or you just don't know Civil War history.  Northern states, your butt.



The American Civil War (18611865), also known as the War Between the States and several other names, was a civil war in the United States of America. Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America (the Confederacy). Led by Jefferson Davis, they fought against the United States (the Union), which was supported by all the free states and the five border slave states. Union states were loosely referred to as "the North". American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Well the next thing you will be posting is that Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland were Southern, or Confederate states.

Maybe you are the one that doesn't know your history, or maybe are you the dishonest one.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> KevinKennedy is being dishonest.  He present the minority view, very unconvincingly, I might add.  He fails to tell you the press from which he is quoting is Democratic in 1860, and a great enemy of Lincoln.
> 
> Yes, the cause of the war was slavery, which threatened the Union.  Every secondary cause can be traced directly to the issue of race and slavery.  The southern states seceded illegally, Lincoln said "no", then murdered the Old South.  Good for him.  Good for the United States.  Good for the world.
> 
> Kevin is entitled to his opinion, however as wrong as it is, because we are able to showcase the light of the truth against the darkness of his conceits.



Did I quote some press?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland were not "northern" states.  Are you dishonest, too?  Or you just don't know Civil War history.  Northern states, your butt.



They remained in the Union as slave states, however.


----------



## Brubricker

Kevin,

I'm new to this thread and I'm not even going to begin to try and read all of it, but there are a few indisputable facts of history you need to understand here. 

1) The island upon which Ft. Sumter rests was never, ever a part of the state of South Carolina. It is an artificially-created island which was constructed for the sole purpose of building Ft. Sumter. The legislature of the state of South Carolina formally passed legislation asking for the creation of the island way back in the 1820's and in the same piece of legislation they fully recognized federal control of the island. The island was CREATED as federal property. You can look it up if you care. 

2) You can argue any states' rights angle you might conceive in your mind but there is one fact of history which is beyond any doubt. A Confederate army began hostilities by firing on a US Army garrison which had fired no shot at anyone. That US Army garrison was sitting on land which has never, ever been part of any state. It is man-made land intentionally created by legislation for federal government purposes. No state ever had any right to claim ownership of it. 

3) States have rights but they do not have the right to attack the United States Army when it is peacefully occupying a piece of land which the federal government has always owned. This is what the Confederate army did. They committed a blatant act of war which was in no way related to the properties or the rights of any state. No state can claim any right to a property which has never, ever been a part of that state. 

4) No one can ignore an act of war, period. The CSA started it. They asked for it. They did it. They set it in motion. You need to come to grips with that fact. States have rights but that does not mean the US Army is automatically required to surrender to any state that starts shooting at it while it sits peacefully on federal land. Latter-day Confederate apologists have somehow concocted the notion that the US Army was somehow constitutionally-required to just surrender in this way in the face of an open act of war. This is absolute nonsense.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Brubricker said:


> Kevin,
> 
> I'm new to this thread and I'm not even going to begin to try and read all of it, but there are a few indisputable facts of history you need to understand here.
> 
> 1) The island upon which Ft. Sumter rests was never, ever a part of the state of South Carolina. It is an artificially-created island which was constructed for the sole purpose of building Ft. Sumter. The legislature of the state of South Carolina formally passed legislation asking for the creation of the island way back in the 1820's and in the same piece of legislation they fully recognized federal control of the island. The island was CREATED as federal property. You can look it up if you care.
> 
> 2) You can argue any states' rights angle you might conceive in your mind but there is one fact of history which is beyond any doubt. A Confederate army began hostilities by firing on a US Army garrison which had fired no shot at anyone. That US Army garrison was sitting on land which has never, ever been part of any state. It is man-made land intentionally created by legislation for federal government purposes. No state ever had any right to claim ownership of it.
> 
> 3) States have rights but they do not have the right to attack the United States Army when it is peacefully occupying a piece of land which the federal government has always owned. This is what the Confederate army did. They committed a blatant act of war which was in no way related to the properties or the rights of any state. No state can claim any right to a property which has never, ever been a part of that state.
> 
> 4) No one can ignore an act of war, period. The CSA started it. They asked for it. They did it. They set it in motion. You need to come to grips with that fact. States have rights but that does not mean the US Army is automatically required to surrender to any state that starts shooting at it while it sits peacefully on federal land. Latter-day Confederate apologists have somehow concocted the notion that the US Army was somehow constitutionally-required to just surrender in this way in the face of an open act of war. This is absolute nonsense.



You make good points.  However, Lincoln knew what was going to happen if he tried to re-supply Fort Sumter.  He knew that the Confederacy would not want a Union base in Confederate borders, so he knowingly and belligerently tried to re-supply the Fort to make the Confederacy fire the first shot.  He did this because he wanted the war, and he knew he needed northern sentiment on his side which it was not before Fort Sumter.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Good, Kevin, you are repeating the lesson that I gave to you several weeks ago.

Yes, Lincoln moved the South into firing the first shots in order to rally the Northern democracy to his side.  He succeeded, the South was destroyed, Heaven was pleased.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Good, Kevin, you are repeating the lesson that I gave to you several weeks ago.
> 
> Yes, Lincoln moved the South into firing the first shots in order to rally the Northern democracy to his side.  He succeeded, the South was destroyed, Heaven was pleased.



You've given no lessons, as it's been my position that Lincoln purposefully started the Civil War since long before you registered at this message board.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You never used that point before I pointed it out to you.  Yes, you were schooled, you learned well, but you can't admit that you are only the student and not a master of the subject.  I am still learning myself.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> You never used that point before I pointed it out to you.  Yes, you were schooled, you learned well, but you can't admit that you are only the student and not a master of the subject.  I am still learning myself.



I didn't?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/979109-post1.html

That post was made on January 6, 2009, nearly a year ago exactly.  You did not join this message board until August of 2009.

The evidence speaks for itself.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I stand corrected, KevinKennedy.

Your error is not that you did not use it, but that you misinterpreted it.  Lincoln had no desire to wage war, but he did desire three things to which the South had to submit: (1) acceptance of Constitutional electoral process ~ Lincoln's victory; (2) no slavery in the territories; and (3) Southern respect for federal properties ~ such as Ft. Sumter.

The South insisted that war was the only way when it fired on Sumter.

Lincoln then constitutionally murdered the Old South.

The history of mankind has been far better served by the national victory rather than a sectional one.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> I stand corrected, KevinKennedy.
> 
> Your error is not that you did not use it, but that you misinterpreted it.  Lincoln had no desire to wage war, but he did desire three things to which the South had to submit: (1) acceptance of Constitutional electoral process ~ Lincoln's victory; (2) no slavery in the territories; and (3) Southern respect for federal properties ~ such as Ft. Sumter.
> 
> The South insisted that war was the only way when it fired on Sumter.
> 
> Lincoln then constitutionally murdered the Old South.
> 
> The history of mankind has been far better served by the national victory rather than a sectional one.



Incorrect.  All Lincoln cared about was forcing them back into the Union and having them pay their taxes and tariffs.  He did not care about slavery whatsoever.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The South never constitutionally or legally left the Union.  Lincoln carried about preserving the nation.  He did so.  The world is far better off because of his steely determination, and my beloved South paid the price for sectional hubris.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> The South never constitutionally or legally left the Union.  Lincoln carried about preserving the nation.  He did so.  The world is far better off because of his steely determination, and my beloved South paid the price for sectional hubris.



If that were so then why did the southern states have to take steps necessary to rejoin the Union during Reconstruction?  If what you say is true when the Civil War ended the southern states should have been immediately recognized by the federal government.


----------



## JakeStarkey

If Lincoln had lived, they would have been readmitted just in that way.  That they weren't was the result of the ignorant Black Codes, former rebels trying to sit in Congress, Andrew Johnson's waffling, and the Radical Reconstructionists' hatred of the Old South.

My opinion only: the North won the war, the South won the peace.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

To deny that the Confederates- no matter how wrong they were on any number of moral points- had the right to self-determination is to deny the same rights of the Patriots and of the People today to.


----------



## JakeStarkey

False analogy, Proletarian.

An aside: just think, P, every person of color who is a citizen of the U.S. can vote, just like you can!

Is this a great country or what!!


----------



## Againsheila

Old Rocks said:


> Well, my great grandfather fought on the side that won, and decided the legality of that issue. The Civil War is over and done with. We decided that the United States was what the name said. Time to move on to today's issues, like a health care system that gives us what we pay for. Issues like energy independence. Issues like dealing with the warming world. Issues of asymetric warfare as practiced by various religious or ideological groups.



My great grandfather fought on the side that lost...do you really believe your great grandfather has more of a right to decide our future than mine?

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it......today, there are at least 1/2 a dozen states openly talking about seceding from the union.  As soon as one does, if it's not this state, I'm leaving my home and going to their state and join them.  

The union only won because the government used the excuse of "slavery" as a reason for fighting the south.  The stupid union soldiers didn't even know that 4 slaveholding states remained with the north or that the emancipation proclamation didn't apply to the slaves in the northern territory or those in southern territory already under northern command.  

As usual, our government getting people to do what they want by LYING to them.

Oh,and just so you know, I have great grandfathers that fought on both sides of the war and I have relatives even further back that fought on both sides of the revolutionary war.


----------



## JakeStarkey

(sigh) OK.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

JakeStarkey said:


> False analogy, Proletarian.


It's not an analogy. It's the exact same thing: the right to self determination and the right and power of the People to exercise it.

Of course, America never believed in any such right.


----------



## Againsheila

JakeStarkey said:


> Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man, if that is true, then the South should have lost because of certain defects included in our founding document.  Some, such as representation and freedom from religious intolerance, have been worked out peacefully.  But the issue of slavery had to be eliminated by warfare because of the South's inhumanity to mankind, its hatred of personal liberty.
> 
> And, Kevin, the Sons of the South nonsense is getting old.  The Confederates, like our Republicans in the last election, lost.  Choices have consequences.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, you are overlooking the fact that even after the emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves in the Confederate states there were still over 250,000 slaves held in the Union states, so where do you get off claiming the South was the inhumane one when it was the Union that required the 13th Amendment to free the Northern slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The North had emancipated its slaves long before.  The South and some of the border states would not emancipate after getting their collective csa butts kicked, so it required the 13th amendment.  Those bad states had to approve the amendment to get back into the Union.  Rightfully so.
> 
> The Sons of the Souths' mentalities are traitors, pure and simple.  No need to listen to them, and their children are being educated appropriately on this issue.  Not to worry.  The home and parochial school get it in college and university.  Good for them.
Click to expand...


<<<

Baloney, there were slaves in the north AFTER the civil war ended, they were the LAST to be freed.

University of Delaware Library Special Collections: Abraham Lincoln > Slavery and Emancipation

The Emancipation Proclamation



After the Union won the Battle of Antietam in September 1862, the president issued a decree declaring that he would free all slaves in the Confederacy unless the states surrendered and rejoined the Union. When they refused, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863.

The Proclamation had a limited scope:* it did not free slaves in slave states that stayed in the Union* nor in territories that had already been conquered by the Northern troops. It would require military victories to actually free the three million slaves in the Confederacy.

The Proclamation also permitted freed slaves to join the Union Army, something Lincoln had avoided before in order to pacify supporters in the border states. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had taken part in securing their own freedom.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, it wasn't, and you saying it was does not make it so.  You are entitled to wrong opinion, and that's cool.

One of the great things of the CW was the advancement of black rights, from slavery to citizenship.  An important step, for sure.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oh, stop the nonsense about northern states having slaves.  Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were not part of the North, P.


----------



## Againsheila

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, stop the nonsense about northern states having slaves.  Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were not part of the North, P.



They remained with the union and they fought on the side of the union, that's the north for those who are really really slow.  Would you like me to type slower so you can understand?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, stop the nonsense about northern states having slaves.  Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were not part of the North, P.


Did they secede and Join the Confederacy or form a third power?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Secessionist movements were quashed, and Union forces made sure the states did not go South, but to suggest they were part of the North makes reason stare.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Hey... if the Confederate States never left the Union, then the existence of West Virginia is illegal, as the Constitution says that no State can split into two States without the State legislator voting to allow it.

West Virginia can only exist if the Confederacy was an independent entity and the member states of the CSA left the Union, allowing W.V. to join the Union as a new State prior to the readmission of the other states. The legislature of Virginia did not agree to a split- it voted to secede and a smal branch decided to form a new state.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Not at all, P.  Go read the petititon of West Virginia for state hood.  It clearly explains the abomination of Virginia's corporate sedition, and WV's desire to remain a part of the United States as true believers in the Declaration and the Constitution, unlike those who attempted to pervert those documents.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Jake, if the majority voted to stay in the union, why did Virginia secede with only a small number of loyalists forming the WV?

Anyway, the point of the thread remains that to deny the right of the people to self determination is to spit on the FF and all they stood for and to surrender all liberty to the State.


----------



## Againsheila

JakeStarkey said:


> Not at all, P.  Go read the petititon of West Virginia for state hood.  It clearly explains the abomination of Virginia's corporate sedition, and WV's desire to remain a part of the United States as true believers in the Declaration and the Constitution, unlike those who attempted to pervert those documents.



True believers in the Declaration of Independence recognize that the Declaration gave the south not only the right, but the duty to secede.

Lincoln was elected without a single vote from a southern state.  Tariffs on the manufactured goods made overseas affected the south disproportionately and the south wasn't being represented in congress as it should have been, in fact, the south was being treated abominably by our government, they had every right to secede, at least according to the Declaration of Independence.

Now, as to whether or not we'd be a powerful country today had the south actually succeeded, is another thing entirely.  Truth is though, that we are losing our country to the elite few anyway so why even worry about it.  When an official of the Mexican government can say in San Diego "This has and will be Mexico again" to American citizens and our government does NOTHING...it's pretty clear we are once again NOT being represented by our government.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The OP has been flawed from the beginning, has clearly been refuted, and the supports of secession have increasingly adopted ever more wierd positions of denial.  You are succeeding in creating a pathological stubborness, I will admit.  Anyway, you have proved your opponents positions time after time.

I will leave you to it tonight.  Sleep well.


----------



## Citizen

There is nothing in our Constitution that prevents a free state from dissolving their alliance with the Federal government if it became  oppressive to them.  I would also like to point out that when some states voluntary joined the Union they specifically noted that they reserved the option to opt out of that union if it became oppressive toward them.

It seems apparent that the Declaration of Independence clearly states that Free and Independent States have not only the right, but the responsibility to separate themselves from an oppressive government.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.* Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object 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*.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. 

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right *ought to be Free and Independent States*; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; *and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do*. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silly stuff, citizen.  You are suggesting that the South was denied life, liberty, and happiness ~ they weren't.  You are suggesting they suffered outrageous suffering at the hands of the North ~ they lost an election.

The fact remains the leaders of the South were seditious: they defied constitutional electoral process and suffered the consequence.  Good riddance to rubbish.


----------



## Citizen

JakeStarkey said:


> Silly stuff, citizen.  You are suggesting that the South was denied life, liberty, and happiness ~ they weren't.  You are suggesting they suffered outrageous suffering at the hands of the North ~ they lost an election.
> 
> The fact remains the leaders of the South were seditious: they defied constitutional electoral process and suffered the consequence.  Good riddance to rubbish.



Although you may not find any problems with the fact that the North was forcing the South to pay for most of the Northern improvements, paid for by the federal government, via tariffs imposed upon the South, those that were compelled to pay tribute to the North felt that they were being denied their liberty and ability to pursue happiness.

The unjust taxation and expenditure of taxes by the Government of the United States, and the change of the government from a confederated republic to a national sectional despotism was clearly an infringment of unalienable Rights of the citizens of the South .

The North wanted high tariffs on imported goods to protect its own manufactured products, while the South wanted low tariffs on imports and exports since it exported cotton and tobacco to Europe and imported manufactured goods in exchange. High tariffs depressed the price for Southern exports and caused them to have to pay high prices for what they bought and got low prices for what they sold because of federal tariff policy which they were powerless to change. The South felt that they were being dominated by the mercantile interests of the North who profited from these high tariffs.

As examples, in 1840 the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. The South paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which has a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. 

The Morill tariff of March 1861 imposed the highest tariffs in US history, with over 50% duty on iron products and 25% on clothing; rates averaged 47%.

The South was paying tribute to the North, and the only way to stop it was to withdraw from the Union they had voluntary entered, with nothing included in the US Constitution to prevent such separation. 

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Virginia proposed a requirement for a two-thirds majority to enact laws regulating commerce and levying tariffs, which were the chief revenue of the federal government. Virginia withdrew its amendment at the Convention in the interest of adopting the Constitution, but ratification was with the understanding that it could be rescinded if the powers granted the federal government were used to oppress, and that Virginia could them withdraw from the Union.

The fact that the Southern states were being oppressed by the North is clearly an example of infringment of their unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  And remember that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The tariff was not excuse to secede.  To protect slavery in the minds of many was.  That old degraded model of Americanism was killed during the Civil War.  Good.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

If the war had been fought over slavery itself, there'd have been no slave states in the union.

Trigger =/= 'only cause'


----------



## Againsheila

JakeStarkey said:


> The tariff was not excuse to secede.  To protect slavery in the minds of many was.  That old degraded model of Americanism was killed during the Civil War.  Good.



South Carolina was the only state in the south that listed "slavery" as their reason for seceding...all other's listed "state's rights".

You completely ignore the fact that 4 slave holding states remained with the north and their slaves were not freed by the emancipation proclamation....

Only 5% of Americans held slaves and of those 5%, some were black.  To claim that slavery is THE reason for the war between the states is ignorance at best.

To believe that 95% of the people in the south would fight for slaves they didn't own is just plain naive.


----------



## paperview

Againsheila said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tariff was not excuse to secede.  To protect slavery in the minds of many was.  That old degraded model of Americanism was killed during the Civil War.  Good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Carolina was the only state in the south that listed "slavery" as their reason for seceding...all other's listed "state's rights".
> 
> You completely ignore the fact that 4 slave holding states remained with the north and their slaves were not freed by the emancipation proclamation....
> 
> Only 5% of Americans held slaves and of those 5%, some were black.  To claim that slavery is THE reason for the war between the states is ignorance at best.
> 
> To believe that 95% of the people in the south would fight for slaves they didn't own is just plain naive.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. 

Slavery is mentioned as the reason for secession 114 times. 


South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States

The Vice President of the Confederacy said Slavery was the *CORNERSTONE* of their new country.

And 25-30% of Southern families owned slaves.

Get a history book, spend some quality time reading and bone up before you continue to embarrass yourself.


----------



## Againsheila

paperview said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tariff was not excuse to secede.  To protect slavery in the minds of many was.  That old degraded model of Americanism was killed during the Civil War.  Good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Carolina was the only state in the south that listed "slavery" as their reason for seceding...all other's listed "state's rights".
> 
> You completely ignore the fact that 4 slave holding states remained with the north and their slaves were not freed by the emancipation proclamation....
> 
> Only 5% of Americans held slaves and of those 5%, some were black.  To claim that slavery is THE reason for the war between the states is ignorance at best.
> 
> To believe that 95% of the people in the south would fight for slaves they didn't own is just plain naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Slavery is mentioned as the reason for secession 114 times.
> 
> 
> South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
> Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
> Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> 
> The Vice President of the Confederacy said Slavery was the *CORNERSTONE* of their new country.
> 
> And 25-30% of Southern families owned slaves.
> 
> Get a history book, spend some quality time reading and bone up before you continue to embarrass yourself.
Click to expand...


I have a history book, but I will admit, your site is interesting and I'll spend some time reading there.  I never said slavery wasn't A reason for the war, just not THE reason.


----------



## Dante

Againsheila said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> South Carolina was the only state in the south that listed "slavery" as their reason for seceding...all other's listed "state's rights".
> 
> You completely ignore the fact that 4 slave holding states remained with the north and their slaves were not freed by the emancipation proclamation....
> 
> Only 5% of Americans held slaves and of those 5%, some were black.  To claim that slavery is THE reason for the war between the states is ignorance at best.
> 
> To believe that 95% of the people in the south would fight for slaves they didn't own is just plain naive.
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Slavery is mentioned as the reason for secession 114 times.
> 
> 
> South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
> Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
> Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> 
> The Vice President of the Confederacy said Slavery was the *CORNERSTONE* of their new country.
> 
> And 25-30% of Southern families owned slaves.
> 
> Get a history book, spend some quality time reading and bone up before you continue to embarrass yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a history book, but I will admit, your site is interesting and I'll spend some time reading there.  I never said slavery wasn't A reason for the war, just not THE reason.
Click to expand...


Slavery was THE reason for the war. Sure there were other reasons, but most of the nitwits who support the notion that slaveryw as a side issue ignore that those who went to war first went to war as property holders,,,slave holders.

I have a friend who is a historian from South Carolina. He's done researched and published things for the State of South Carolina. He's done reseach on Bishop Lynch, the Roman Catholic mouth peace for the rebels. His story is a complex one, but he defended slavery for the Confederacy while in Europe. Later he founded some of the first charities for emancipated slaves.

nuf said.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tariff was not excuse to secede.  To protect slavery in the minds of many was.  That old degraded model of Americanism was killed during the Civil War.  Good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Carolina was the only state in the south that listed "slavery" as their reason for seceding...all other's listed "state's rights".
> 
> You completely ignore the fact that 4 slave holding states remained with the north and their slaves were not freed by the emancipation proclamation....
> 
> Only 5% of Americans held slaves and of those 5%, some were black.  To claim that slavery is THE reason for the war between the states is ignorance at best.
> 
> To believe that 95% of the people in the south would fight for slaves they didn't own is just plain naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Slavery is mentioned as the reason for secession 114 times.
> 
> 
> South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
> Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
> Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> 
> The Vice President of the Confederacy said Slavery was the *CORNERSTONE* of their new country.
> 
> And 25-30% of Southern families owned slaves.
> 
> Get a history book, spend some quality time reading and bone up before you continue to embarrass yourself.
Click to expand...


And the President of the Confederacy said slavery was _not_ the reason for the war.


----------



## Againsheila

DevNell said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Slavery is mentioned as the reason for secession 114 times.
> 
> 
> South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
> Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
> Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> 
> The Vice President of the Confederacy said Slavery was the *CORNERSTONE* of their new country.
> 
> And 25-30% of Southern families owned slaves.
> 
> Get a history book, spend some quality time reading and bone up before you continue to embarrass yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a history book, but I will admit, your site is interesting and I'll spend some time reading there.  I never said slavery wasn't A reason for the war, just not THE reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was THE reason for the war. Sure there were other reasons, but most of the nitwits who support the notion that slaveryw as a side issue ignore that those who went to war first went to war as property holders,,,slave holders.
> 
> I have a friend who is a historian from South Carolina. He's done researched and published things for the State of South Carolina. He's done reseach on Bishop Lynch, the Roman Catholic mouth peace for the rebels. His story is a complex one, but he defended slavery for the Confederacy while in Europe. Later he founded some of the first charities for emancipated slaves.
> 
> nuf said.
Click to expand...


Again, how can it be "THE" reason for the war when 4 slaveholding states remained with the north and their slaves were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Post the link to the entire address of the CSA President, please, KK.  I would like to read it in its entirety.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Againsheila said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a history book, but I will admit, your site is interesting and I'll spend some time reading there.  I never said slavery wasn't A reason for the war, just not THE reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was THE reason for the war. Sure there were other reasons, but most of the nitwits who support the notion that slaveryw as a side issue ignore that those who went to war first went to war as property holders,,,slave holders.
> 
> I have a friend who is a historian from South Carolina. He's done researched and published things for the State of South Carolina. He's done reseach on Bishop Lynch, the Roman Catholic mouth peace for the rebels. His story is a complex one, but he defended slavery for the Confederacy while in Europe. Later he founded some of the first charities for emancipated slaves.
> 
> nuf said.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, how can it be "THE" reason for the war when 4 slaveholding states remained with the north and their slaves were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation?
Click to expand...


Because those states upheld (1) constitutional electoral process, (2) respect for federal property, and (3) no slavery in the territories.  The seceding states decried the first and second and demanded the third, all in the name of their master white race democracy based on slavery.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Post the link to the entire address of the CSA President, please, KK.  I would like to read it in its entirety.



No.  Rehashing this subject with you is very low on my list of priorities.  It would be a waste of my time and effort.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have given you every link for my evidence and fact throughout this discussion.  Now you refuse me the same courtesy?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> I have given you every link for my evidence and fact throughout this discussion.  Now you refuse me the same courtesy?



Clearly.


----------



## Againsheila

JakeStarkey said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was THE reason for the war. Sure there were other reasons, but most of the nitwits who support the notion that slaveryw as a side issue ignore that those who went to war first went to war as property holders,,,slave holders.
> 
> I have a friend who is a historian from South Carolina. He's done researched and published things for the State of South Carolina. He's done reseach on Bishop Lynch, the Roman Catholic mouth peace for the rebels. His story is a complex one, but he defended slavery for the Confederacy while in Europe. Later he founded some of the first charities for emancipated slaves.
> 
> nuf said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, how can it be "THE" reason for the war when 4 slaveholding states remained with the north and their slaves were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because those states upheld (1) constitutional electoral process, (2) respect for federal property, and (3) no slavery in the territories.  The seceding states decried the first and second and demanded the third, all in the name of their master white race democracy based on slavery.
Click to expand...


There were black slave holders.....one of them owned as many as 60 slaves.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Then you concede the point.  Thank you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Againsheila said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, how can it be "THE" reason for the war when 4 slaveholding states remained with the north and their slaves were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because those states upheld (1) constitutional electoral process, (2) respect for federal property, and (3) no slavery in the territories.  The seceding states decried the first and second and demanded the third, all in the name of their master white race democracy based on slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were black slave holders.....one of them owned as many as 60 slaves.
Click to expand...


Yes, there were black slave holders, which has nothing to do with this discussion.  You might like (I really think KevinKennedy would as well) to read _The Lost German Slave Girl: The Extraordinary True Story Of Sally Miller And Her Fight For Freedom in Old New Orleans_ by John Bailey.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Then you concede the point.  Thank you.





Yes, I concede to your superior intelligence.  Every fairy tale about Abraham Lincoln I've ever heard is obviously true.  I have seen the light, and apologize for my former ignorance.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Such mocking only mocks your position on Davis and slavery as the not the cause of the war.  Post the link if you have it.


----------



## paperview

Againsheila said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, how can it be "THE" reason for the war when 4 slaveholding states remained with the north and their slaves were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because those states upheld (1) constitutional electoral process, (2) respect for federal property, and (3) no slavery in the territories.  The seceding states decried the first and second and demanded the third, all in the name of their master white race democracy based on slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were black slave holders.....one of them owned as many as 60 slaves.
Click to expand...

Yes, there were a few.
Back then, all you had to have was one drop of _negro_ blood in you to be considered 'black.'


----------



## Againsheila

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post the link to the entire address of the CSA President, please, KK.  I would like to read it in its entirety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Rehashing this subject with you is very low on my list of priorities.  It would be a waste of my time and effort.
Click to expand...


Here you go?

Davis--Inaugural Address

The declared purpose of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn was "to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;" and when, in the judgment of the sovereign States now composing this Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box declared that so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable; of the time and occasion for its exercise, they, as sovereigns, were the final judges, each for itself. The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained, the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations.


----------



## Againsheila

paperview said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because those states upheld (1) constitutional electoral process, (2) respect for federal property, and (3) no slavery in the territories.  The seceding states decried the first and second and demanded the third, all in the name of their master white race democracy based on slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were black slave holders.....one of them owned as many as 60 slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there were a few.
> Back then, all you had to have was one drop of _negro_ blood in you to be considered 'black.'
Click to expand...


No, you had to be 1/32nd black or more.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Againsheila said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post the link to the entire address of the CSA President, please, KK.  I would like to read it in its entirety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Rehashing this subject with you is very low on my list of priorities.  It would be a waste of my time and effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go?
> 
> Davis--Inaugural Address
> 
> The declared purpose of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn was "to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;" and when, in the judgment of the sovereign States now composing this Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box declared that so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable; of the time and occasion for its exercise, they, as sovereigns, were the final judges, each for itself. The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained, the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations.
Click to expand...


I was not referring to Davis' Inaugural Address, which I have posted many times in this thread and has been largely ignored.


----------



## Dante

Againsheila said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a history book, but I will admit, your site is interesting and I'll spend some time reading there.  I never said slavery wasn't A reason for the war, just not THE reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was THE reason for the war. Sure there were other reasons, but most of the nitwits who support the notion that slaveryw as a side issue ignore that those who went to war first went to war as property holders,,,slave holders.
> 
> I have a friend who is a historian from South Carolina. He's done researched and published things for the State of South Carolina. He's done reseach on Bishop Lynch, the Roman Catholic mouth peace for the rebels. His story is a complex one, but he defended slavery for the Confederacy while in Europe. Later he founded some of the first charities for emancipated slaves.
> 
> nuf said.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, how can it be "THE" reason for the war when 4 slaveholding states remained with the north and their slaves were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation?
Click to expand...


Where and why individual states stood when war was breaking out is almost irrelevant to the questions you pose. 

You are taking things that happen and making correlations that lead you into false conclusions. 

The reason the 'rebels' declared cessation was because of slavery...property rights. Hiding behind the principle of property righst would be worthy of somebody like mani. The facts are if there were no slaves there would've been no rebellion.

No slaves = No rebellion


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thanks again, Sheila.

I wonder, if I read it right, why President Davis did not mention slavery at all when his own Vice President said was the "cornerstone" of southern civilization, necessary for the control and subjugation, and was the cause of the Civil War, even noting Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter; or when the state ordinances of secession said it was the reason; any other dozens of such declarations by prominent men and institutions in the south.

Could it be that President Davis was a bit dishonest, hmmm?  Every cause he mentioned, by the by, can be traced back to race and slavery.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I was not referring to Davis' Inaugural Address, which I have posted many times in this thread and has been largely ignored.



Anything JCD wrote after the war about this matter should be considered as possible attempt at revisionism of the record by Davis.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> Thanks again, Sheila.
> 
> I wonder, if I read it right, why President Davis did not mention slavery at all when his own Vice President said was the "cornerstone" of southern civilization, necessary for the control and subjugation, and was the cause of the Civil War, even noting Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter; or when the state ordinances of secession said it was the reason; any other dozens of such declarations by prominent men and institutions in the south.
> 
> Could it be that President Davis was a bit dishonest, hmmm?  Every cause he mentioned, by the by, can be traced back to race and slavery.


Yup. 

The Vice Presidents speech:

"This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. *Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."*

*Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.* 

*This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.*"
*
-Alexander Stephens.  Vice President of the Confederacy*


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Thanks again, Sheila.
> 
> I wonder, if I read it right, why President Davis did not mention slavery at all when his own Vice President said was the "cornerstone" of southern civilization, necessary for the control and subjugation, and was the cause of the Civil War, even noting Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter; or when the state ordinances of secession said it was the reason; any other dozens of such declarations by prominent men and institutions in the south.
> 
> Could it be that President Davis was a bit dishonest, hmmm?  Every cause he mentioned, by the by, can be traced back to race and slavery.



Or maybe Stephens was being dishonest?


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again, Sheila.
> 
> I wonder, if I read it right, why President Davis did not mention slavery at all when his own Vice President said was the "cornerstone" of southern civilization, necessary for the control and subjugation, and was the cause of the Civil War, even noting Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter; or when the state ordinances of secession said it was the reason; any other dozens of such declarations by prominent men and institutions in the south.
> 
> Could it be that President Davis was a bit dishonest, hmmm?  Every cause he mentioned, by the by, can be traced back to race and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe Stephens was being dishonest?
Click to expand...

Dude.  Slavery was mentioned 114 times as the reason in the secession documents.

I think you're going to have to do better than that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again, Sheila.
> 
> I wonder, if I read it right, why President Davis did not mention slavery at all when his own Vice President said was the "cornerstone" of southern civilization, necessary for the control and subjugation, and was the cause of the Civil War, even noting Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter; or when the state ordinances of secession said it was the reason; any other dozens of such declarations by prominent men and institutions in the south.
> 
> Could it be that President Davis was a bit dishonest, hmmm?  Every cause he mentioned, by the by, can be traced back to race and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe Stephens was being dishonest?
Click to expand...


Based on the secession ordinances and other leading persons' comments contemporaneously to that period, the reasonable-person standard would be to look very suspiciously of any post-1865 statements by JCD that excluded slavery as a reason for the Civil War.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again, Sheila.
> 
> I wonder, if I read it right, why President Davis did not mention slavery at all when his own Vice President said was the "cornerstone" of southern civilization, necessary for the control and subjugation, and was the cause of the Civil War, even noting Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter; or when the state ordinances of secession said it was the reason; any other dozens of such declarations by prominent men and institutions in the south.
> 
> Could it be that President Davis was a bit dishonest, hmmm?  Every cause he mentioned, by the by, can be traced back to race and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe Stephens was being dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude.  Slavery was mentioned 114 times as the reason in the secession documents.
> 
> I think you're going to have to do better than that.
Click to expand...


I have no intentions of doing better than that at this point.  I've made my arguments in this thread, and to continue to do so with the same people over and over again seems a little silly to me at this point.  At any rate, I appreciate your involvement in this discussion, I think it was a pretty good one personally.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I agree that this has been one of the much better threads on the board.  The conversation generally has been respectful and observant.  The evidences new to me have been very interesting.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

DevNell said:


> Slavery was THE reason for the war


How can slave states fight to end slavery and still have slaves?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Proletarian, the slave states fought the war, not to end slavery, but because the issue of slavery caused the war.  Very simple.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

DevNell said:


> The reason the 'rebels' declared cessation was because of slavery...property rights.




Actually it was because of unconstitutional and aggressive policies at the Northern-controlled federal level.

The union fought the war for one reason only: $


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

JakeStarkey said:


> Proletarian, the slave states fought the war, not to end slavery, but because the issue of slavery caused the war.  Very simple.


It was the actions by the Fed that led to the war.

Let's recap:

The Northern industrial interests had put in place a number of tariffs that were crippling the agricultural southern economy.

North and South had effectively been two very different entities for some time.

The last straw (the trigger) came with attempts to end slavery, which touched upon the numerous underlying issues, the destruction of the Southern economy and thew overstpeeing of Constitutional limits on power by the Fed being the two most greivous matters.

A number of States exercised their Constitutional right to secede from the union.

Under pressure from Northern businessmen who needed Southern cotton (yet who, being stupid Bourgeoisie, still were ready to destroy the economy that provided the cotton as they waged class warfare against the South)  Lincoln refused to remove Union troops from lands claimed by the CSA, restocking Fort Sumter and placing the Union army in position to strike.

Possibly fearing a union attack, the CSA attacked Fort Sumter. Noone was killed during the conflict.Having forced the CSA's hand as intended, Lincoln declared war of the CSA.

Some time into the war, Lincoln realized that he needed the best propaganda around. The decision was made to make this not a war over the morality of self-determination, but of slavery. Lincoln declared the slaves in the rebel states free. Slaves in loyalist states could go fuck themselves, because Lincoln never cared about the ******* except as political pawns(kinda like modern-day Democrats).

The CSA won many battles due to good tactics, but lost the war due to poor strategy and the disadvantage posed by any agricultural nation fighting against an industrial nation (the railroads and the standardization thereof in the North but not in the South proved critical). The States were readmitted, allowed into congress, kicked out on Congress top pass the 14th Amendment, then recognized yet again.

Ever since, the American people's right to self-determination is longer recognized, the States lost must of their autonomy, the Fed has secured its power, the Constitution is no longer enforced, and the Bourgeois have continued to send American children to die to defend their financial interests in Cuba, Argentina, Viet Nam, Korea, and a number of other nations.


----------



## Againsheila

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Rehashing this subject with you is very low on my list of priorities.  It would be a waste of my time and effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go?
> 
> Davis--Inaugural Address
> 
> The declared purpose of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn was "to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;" and when, in the judgment of the sovereign States now composing this Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box declared that so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable; of the time and occasion for its exercise, they, as sovereigns, were the final judges, each for itself. The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained, the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not referring to Davis' Inaugural Address, which I have posted many times in this thread and has been largely ignored.
Click to expand...


To what are you referring then?


----------



## Intense

There were years of abuse in relation to taxes and tariffs that benefited the industrial states and exploited the agricultural states that caused deep rooted animosity. Slavery was on it's way out, with or without the Civil war. Most countries in both continents, North and South America, ended slavery without war. True what happened here sped the process up. There were prewar anti-slavery movements in most states. There was invention, the cotton gin.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That cotton gin made slave-based agricultural both profitable and expansionist.  Every generation required new cotton and tobacco lands, moving ever south and west.  By 1860, 90% of all investment capital, direct and indirect, was tied up in cotton.  In no way was the South going to peacefully give up slavery.

Yes, every other nation in the Americas, with the single exception of Haiti, gave up slavery peacefully.  Yep, great company we be keepin', homeboy.


----------



## Againsheila

JakeStarkey said:


> That cotton gin made slave-based agricultural both profitable and expansionist.  Every generation required new cotton and tobacco lands, moving ever south and west.  By 1860, 90$ of all investment capital, direct and indirect, was tied up in cotton.  In no way was the South going to peacefully give up slavery.
> 
> Yes, every other nation in the Americas, with the single exception of Haiti, gave up slavery peacefully.  Yep, great company we be keepin', homeboy.



Many historians say that without the civil war, slavery would have ceased to exist within 40 years anyway.  

I don't like the way you insult anyone with whom you disagree.  I suspect you have a lot of pent up anger and it's seeping out into your everyday speech and affecting those around you, I just hope it isn't infecting those around you.  Give it up, the war was more than 100 years ago and slavery has been gone a lot time.  To keep your anger and pass it on generation after generation only poisons the future for us all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The anger and pent-up hostility seems to be yours, sheila, so I will chock it up to you projecting inner problems onto me.  That's OK: I can take it.    You and Intense are relying on scholarship twenty and more years in the past: slavery certainly was not on the way out.  The anger here seems to come from the revisionists who wish to blame the CW on anything but slavery, when, in fact, slavery was the root cause for every other symptom of it.

Thanks for your concern.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> The anger and pent-up hostility seems to be yours, sheila, so I will chock it up to you projecting inner problems onto me.  That's OK: I can take it.    You and Intense are relying on scholarship twenty and more years in the past: slavery certainly was not on the way out.  The anger here seems to come from the revisionists who wish to blame the CW on anything but slavery, when, in fact, slavery was the root cause for every other symptom of it.
> 
> Thanks for your concern.



My position on Slavery is that of Thoreau. I am not trying to play revisionist. There were anti-slavery movements throughout the land, even in the south. There were many that were against slavery for moral and ethical reasons. It is not fair to say what could or could not have been had things gone differently. Even how long the war lasted was a factor, even the treatment of the south after it ended. We do not live under the Federalism of Madison and Jefferson. Hamilton corrupted the Body and we have yet to recover.  The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions are proof of that. 
I do not divert the blame of the Civil War from Slavery, it was a part of it, a major factor. It is wrong of you to assume to know my position. The power plays of the federal government that benefited the north and screwed over the south went back as far as how we dealt with Revolutionary War Debt. Hamilton type schemes plagued both the Washington and Adams administrations. They Effected the role of the supreme Court under Madison. Yes slavery was more than the last straw, much more, so was Washington math, one for you, two for me.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OK, Intense, I believe that you believe.  That's cool.


----------



## paperview

Intense said:


> ...


Just noticed your avi.

Good photoshop.


----------



## Intense

paperview said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Just noticed your avi.
> 
> Good photoshop.
Click to expand...


I picked it up from an E-Mail. I don't know the source. 

I can't feel my pulse!!!


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> OK, Intense, I believe that you believe.  That's cool.



The root of my belief comes from Hamilton's own writings, not Other's interpretations. Study His positions in the Federalist Papers and in selling the Constitution to the skeptics, then compare them to His reversals after ratification, even bringing up perspectives avoided in earlier debate.

Federalist Papers
The Federalist - Contents


Judicial is the weakest of the Three Branches. Positive on Enumerated Powers.


Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791
Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791



Unlimited contingency Powers. Powers, By-Passing Enumerated Powers.





Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hamilton's part in  causing the Whiskey Rebellion. 

Mr. Oligarchy Statist Fuck that He was.



The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions sure nailed Him for what He was. 

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Againsheila

JakeStarkey said:


> The anger and pent-up hostility seems to be yours, sheila, so I will chock it up to you projecting inner problems onto me.  That's OK: I can take it.   *You and Intense are relying on scholarship twenty and more years in the past:* slavery certainly was not on the way out.  The anger here seems to come from the revisionists who wish to blame the CW on anything but slavery, when, in fact, slavery was the root cause for every other symptom of it.
> 
> Thanks for your concern.



So you are saying the reasons for the Civil War have changed in the last 20 years?


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, not at all.  The war was always caused by the inequity of slavery and the persecution of race.

From 1900 on a revision of the reason led to the defeat was inevitable (it was not), the Old South of Tara was destroyed (it was not), and that any reason other than slavery was the main cause of the war (they were not).

The last twenty years of historical research, discussion, writing, discovery of old documents (kudos to Paper View for posting the secession ordinances of the states), and a commitment to cultural honesty as gotten the story correctly told.  I am so proud that here in the Old South the old canards have been put aside, the Sons of the South rhetorical nonsense have been disproved, and the real history of the war has been taught in the high schools and colleges.

Lincoln seized the issue of slavery to put the South in an immoral position, then began the institution's prolonged execution with issuing the Emancipation and support of the 13th Amendment, which became law the December after his martyrdom.


----------



## Intense

Againsheila said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The anger and pent-up hostility seems to be yours, sheila, so I will chock it up to you projecting inner problems onto me.  That's OK: I can take it.   *You and Intense are relying on scholarship twenty and more years in the past:* slavery certainly was not on the way out.  The anger here seems to come from the revisionists who wish to blame the CW on anything but slavery, when, in fact, slavery was the root cause for every other symptom of it.
> 
> Thanks for your concern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying the reasons for the Civil War have changed in the last 20 years?
Click to expand...


Only the spin.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The only 'spin' is that of the Sons of the South cretinal nonsense.


----------



## Intense

Although most high school students are probably taught that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, very few are probably also taught that he wrote the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom and the Kentucky Resolutions, which were written in response to the original Patriot Act &#8211; the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson also wrote hundreds of letters on a wide variety of subjects. Because most of what he wrote has been published, Jefferson is one of the most quoted persons in history.

Perhaps the most famous quote from Jefferson is that oft-repeated one from his first inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1801: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations &#8211; entangling alliances with none."

This quote is part of Jefferson&#8217;s annunciation of what he deemed "the essential principles of our government." The quote in its context reads as follows:

About to enter, fellow citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper that you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations &#8211; entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people &#8211; a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of the revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority &#8211; the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia &#8211; our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trail by juries impartially selected &#8211; these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.

This often-cited statement by Jefferson ("Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations &#8211; entangling alliances with none") was not just empty rhetoric like that which bellows from the lips of all modern politicians &#8211; of both parties. The principles embodied in this succinct statement can be found throughout Jefferson&#8217;s writings.

Jeffersonian Principles by Laurence M. Vance


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> The only 'spin' is that of the Sons of the South cretinal nonsense.



There is always the threat of misinformation Jake. I'm not disputing the role of Slavery in Secession or the Civil War. There were many failings that alienated the South, from Washington, to Lincoln, who had a hard and tough responsibility, in the preservation of the Union. Treachery breeds bad will, separate from the issue of slavery.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thank you, Intense, for the response.  My contention is that all of the secondary causes were spawned by the ills generated by American Negro chattel slavery.  I don't know how many students know the influence of the Jeffersonian strain in American culture, probably no more than they know the influence of Hamilton.


----------



## Intense

Funny, most of my favorite teachers taught History. Now, what is available on the Web is astounding.

Some of my favorite and most trusted Links. 


Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics
Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics


A Chronology of US Historical Documents
The University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US Historical Documents


The Avalon Project
Avalon Project - Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy


Federation Of American Scientists
Federation of American Scientists


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thanks!  I don't know the last site you cited so I am excited in looking at it.


----------



## Intense

From The Confederate Constitution, Section 9. It was at the top of the list of the concerns addressed below.



Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. 

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy. 

(3) The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. 

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. 

(5) No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken. 

(6) No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses. 

(7) No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another. 

(8) No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. 

(9) Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish. 

(10) All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered. 

(11) No title of nobility shall be granted by the Confederate States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

(12) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(13) A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 

(14) No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 

(15) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. 

(16) No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 

(17) In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. 

(18) In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact so tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the Confederacy, than according to the rules of common law. 

(19) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

(20) Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. 

Sec. 10. (I) No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility. 

(2) No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports, or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the Confederate States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress. 

(3) No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, except on seagoing vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations; and any surplus revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury. Nor shall any State keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof.

Avalon Project - Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861


----------

