Happy Birthday, Jefferson Davis

[elvis]

You really can't fathom the idea of an individual state having the ability to choose it's own path, can you?

Lincoln understood it enough to try to lure the states back to the Union with that same promise.

As Colonial nation we were able to cede from GB but, somehow, the South wasn't granted the same ability to separate itself from the Union.

Fathom the idea? Yes. Is it a good idea. Absolutely not.

Couldn't bare to hear the FF's refer to us as "These united states"?????

I like baring certain things.

 

[elvis]

Likely though, it would look like North and South Korea with a prosperous South and a starving North.

That makes absolutely no sense. But then, very little you post does.

To be fair, I think Katz is comparing the north to south korea...

 

[elvis]

You really can't fathom the idea of an individual state having the ability to choose it's own path, can you?

Lincoln understood it enough to try to lure the states back to the Union with that same promise.

As Colonial nation we were able to cede from GB but, somehow, the South wasn't granted the same ability to separate itself from the Union.

Fathom the idea? Yes. Is it a good idea. Absolutely not.

Couldn't bare to hear the FF's refer to us as "These united states"?????

I don't like the idea of having 50 separate countries...

No.

 

[Unkotare]

Likely though, it would look like North and South Korea with a prosperous South and a starving North.

That makes absolutely no sense. But then, very little you post does.

To be fair, I think Katz is comparing the north to south korea...

Doesn't read like it, and the comparison would still make no sense.

 

[elvis]

That makes absolutely no sense. But then, very little you post does.

To be fair, I think Katz is comparing the north to south korea...

Doesn't read like it, and the comparison would still make no sense.

I agree it doesn't read like it.

 

[Sallow]

No, you should. There's absolutely nothing there that forbids a state from seceding. In fact, many of the Founders and Framers predicted that it would eventually happen.

Maybe I posted to much for you to absorb in one chunk..because you obviously didn't read it.

I will break it down for you..



This is a Prohibition set by the constitution on the powers of the state.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money;

This part of the clause prohibits (Remember that word?) states from entering into any groupings of states outside what the Constitution defines as the "United" States. Conferation should have been a good clue as to why FORMING A CONFEDERATION OF STATES was prohibited.

They also can't coin money..or do lots of other things.

Like form their own government on US territory..

It's in English..so I don't get why you didn't understand it.

They couldn't form a confederation while still a part of the Union, but once they seceded, which is not prohibited in the Constitution, they were no longer part of the Union and the Constitution no longer applied.

You guys are really stuck on "exact" words..on certain things. Yes..secession is prohibited by the Constitution.

There is, maybe, one way, it could legally be done..and that would be by an act of congress.

But that would be near to impossible.

 

[elvis]

Maybe I posted to much for you to absorb in one chunk..because you obviously didn't read it.

I will break it down for you..



This is a Prohibition set by the constitution on the powers of the state.



This part of the clause prohibits (Remember that word?) states from entering into any groupings of states outside what the Constitution defines as the "United" States. Conferation should have been a good clue as to why FORMING A CONFEDERATION OF STATES was prohibited.

They also can't coin money..or do lots of other things.

Like form their own government on US territory..

It's in English..so I don't get why you didn't understand it.

They couldn't form a confederation while still a part of the Union, but once they seceded, which is not prohibited in the Constitution, they were no longer part of the Union and the Constitution no longer applied.

You guys are really stuck on "exact" words..on certain things. Yes..secession is prohibited by the Constitution.

There is, maybe, one way, it could legally be done..and that would be by an act of congress.

But that would be near to impossible.

It's prohibited now. But it was not at the time of the civil war. I believe the constitution was amended to prohibit it.

 

[Sallow]

They couldn't form a confederation while still a part of the Union, but once they seceded, which is not prohibited in the Constitution, they were no longer part of the Union and the Constitution no longer applied.

You guys are really stuck on "exact" words..on certain things. Yes..secession is prohibited by the Constitution.

There is, maybe, one way, it could legally be done..and that would be by an act of congress.

But that would be near to impossible.

It's prohibited now. But it was not at the time of the civil war. I believe the constitution was amended to prohibit it.

The State Prohibitions were not amendments.

And this sort of thing was tried before several times..with the same result.

Check out the Whiskey Rebellion..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because LINCOLN fired on Ft. Sumter.

Of course.

If that's what I thought then yes, I'd be . Fortunately for me, it's not.

Well unfortunately for you, it's pretty much what you had SAID. But the firing on Ft. Sumter IS what started the Civil War.

So, while I appreciate your immediate withdrawal from that absurd claim you had made, you are still stuck looking quite silly.

I'm not backing away from anything I actually said, merely whatever nonsense it is that you're trying to claim I said.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If someone started a thread which said "happy birthday bin laden", the ire would be unreal, and rightfully so. Yet Jefferson Davis represents the destruction of the US even more than Osama did. Kevin Is a traitorous ungrateful little bastard.

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Maybe I posted to much for you to absorb in one chunk..because you obviously didn't read it.

I will break it down for you..



This is a Prohibition set by the constitution on the powers of the state.



This part of the clause prohibits (Remember that word?) states from entering into any groupings of states outside what the Constitution defines as the "United" States. Conferation should have been a good clue as to why FORMING A CONFEDERATION OF STATES was prohibited.

They also can't coin money..or do lots of other things.

Like form their own government on US territory..

It's in English..so I don't get why you didn't understand it.

They couldn't form a confederation while still a part of the Union, but once they seceded, which is not prohibited in the Constitution, they were no longer part of the Union and the Constitution no longer applied.

You guys are really stuck on "exact" words..on certain things. Yes..secession is prohibited by the Constitution.

There is, maybe, one way, it could legally be done..and that would be by an act of congress.

But that would be near to impossible.

Who's "you guys?"

 

[MuadDib]

I don't congratulate the colonists for practicing slavery. All I'm saying is that because both the Colonists and the British Empire - at that time - practiced slavery (and the fact that it was not a key driver in the decision to declare independence) I think it's a totally moot point, period. The Colonists also didn't allow women to vote, either, but again when discussing the American Revolution that is an irrelevant point because it was not what they were fighting for at the time.

And if you don't believe that slavery was a driver behind the Civil War - fine - but I do, and also believe that the North was the "side" that supported/was capable of abolishing it. Therefore I "side" with the north in this thread, and will state that I'm glad they won the battle (and not the South) because it resulted in the abrupt end to slavery.

You bring up some interesting points of information about Lincoln and his view towards abolitionism I will research on my own, however... so thank you.

I don't think it necessarily matters what they seceded over. Either the right to secession exists, or it doesn't.

I actually have no problem saying that slavery was an issue behind the south's decision to secede. Many of the states said it themselves. My position is that it's not the only issue that drove them to it.

If the unfair taxation was the only reason the Southern states left the Union, than I’d have no problem either (a) supporting their stance (the fight for fairness), or at least (b) approaching the Civil War from a neutral viewpoint. However, because upholding the institution of slavery was one of the core reasons the Southern States seceded, I approach the civil war with a view that the North held the higher moral ground with regards to this particular conflict.

The South didn’t want to lose their right to own slaves and left the Union as a result…. I just can’t support that stance to any degree.

These issues of taxation had been brewing between the North and South ever since the War of 1812. In fact, during that war, several Northern states threatened to secede because they disagreed with the war and wanted to negotiate a seperate peace with Great Britain.

I think it's undeniable that even if the Southern states had abolished slavery on their own by 1860, the Civil War would still have happened because abolition did nothing to address the issues of taxation, trade, and political differences between the two sections.

That said, if secession had not happened and if the radical abolitionists had backed off and stopped agitating, I believe that the slave states would have abolished it on their own in not much longer than it took to fight the war. It was the Age of Enlightenment. Attitudes were changing. Not to mention that England and France, the South's largest trading partners, were applying a lot of diplomatic pressure.

Agricultural slavery was also proving itself uneconomical. Industrial slavery had already done so. Adjusted for inflation, a slave would cost $60,000-$80,000 in today's money. That's not cheap. On top of that initial expense, you had to feed them, house them, clothe them, provide them with the basics of living and even medical care. And yes, they did provide medical care. You don't make that kind of financial investment in something that you need to make your business successful and then let them get sick or injured and die.

Many today mistakenly think that slavery was cheap or free labor when it was anything but cheap. It was cheaper just to hire workers, pay them a wage, and let them sort those costs of living out for themselves.

 

[MuadDib]

Maybe I posted to much for you to absorb in one chunk..because you obviously didn't read it.

I will break it down for you..



This is a Prohibition set by the constitution on the powers of the state.



This part of the clause prohibits (Remember that word?) states from entering into any groupings of states outside what the Constitution defines as the "United" States. Conferation should have been a good clue as to why FORMING A CONFEDERATION OF STATES was prohibited.

They also can't coin money..or do lots of other things.

Like form their own government on US territory..

It's in English..so I don't get why you didn't understand it.

They couldn't form a confederation while still a part of the Union, but once they seceded, which is not prohibited in the Constitution, they were no longer part of the Union and the Constitution no longer applied.

You guys are really stuck on "exact" words..on certain things. Yes..secession is prohibited by the Constitution.

There is, maybe, one way, it could legally be done..and that would be by an act of congress.

But that would be near to impossible.

I'll ask you again to show me the article, paragraph, clause, or amendment in the Constitution that prohibits secession.

You can't. There is none.

 

[hortysir]

I don't think it necessarily matters what they seceded over. Either the right to secession exists, or it doesn't.

I actually have no problem saying that slavery was an issue behind the south's decision to secede. Many of the states said it themselves. My position is that it's not the only issue that drove them to it.

If the unfair taxation was the only reason the Southern states left the Union, than I’d have no problem either (a) supporting their stance (the fight for fairness), or at least (b) approaching the Civil War from a neutral viewpoint. However, because upholding the institution of slavery was one of the core reasons the Southern States seceded, I approach the civil war with a view that the North held the higher moral ground with regards to this particular conflict.

The South didn’t want to lose their right to own slaves and left the Union as a result…. I just can’t support that stance to any degree.

These issues of taxation had been brewing between the North and South ever since the War of 1812. In fact, during that war, several Northern states threatened to secede because they disagreed with the war and wanted to negotiate a seperate peace with Great Britain.

I think it's undeniable that even if the Southern states had abolished slavery on their own by 1860, the Civil War would still have happened because abolition did nothing to address the issues of taxation, trade, and political differences between the two sections.

That said, if secession had not happened and if the radical abolitionists had backed off and stopped agitating, I believe that the slave states would have abolished it on their own in not much longer than it took to fight the war. It was the Age of Enlightenment. Attitudes were changing. Not to mention that England and France, the South's largest trading partners, were applying a lot of diplomatic pressure.

Agricultural slavery was also proving itself uneconomical. Industrial slavery had already done so. Adjusted for inflation, a slave would cost $60,000-$80,000 in today's money. That's not cheap. On top of that initial expense, you had to feed them, house them, clothe them, provide them with the basics of living and even medical care. And yes, they did provide medical care. You don't make that kind of financial investment in something that you need to make your business successful and then let them get sick or injured and die.

Many today mistakenly think that slavery was cheap or free labor when it was anything but cheap. It was cheaper just to hire workers, pay them a wage, and let them sort those costs of living out for themselves.

Fucking logic!!
Who invited you here?

 

[Katzndogz]

Likely though, it would look like North and South Korea with a prosperous South and a starving North.

That makes absolutely no sense. But then, very little you post does.

To be fair, I think Katz is comparing the north to south korea...

To be really fair, I was comparing the North to North Korea. Had the civil war not devastated the south, irreparably, the South would have been far more propserous than the North. The South after all, had more major ports than the North and was ready to grow a manufacturing base.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Because LINCOLN fired on Ft. Sumter.

Of course.

What is the differences between the Confederacy and al qaeda, seeing that both declared war on the United States?

The Confederacy didn't want to do anything more than leave.

and how many Americans died? how many were crippled and maimed? what are the consequences of actions?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Because LINCOLN fired on Ft. Sumter.

Of course.

What is the differences between the Confederacy and al qaeda, seeing that both declared war on the United States?

Confederacy came a lot closer to destroying America.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1) Anyone who thinks the Civil War was fought over slavery is very naive.

And people who think the Southern states were in the wrong; do not know the intentions of the Founding Fathers or the meaning of the Constitution.

1) Facts and South Carolina says differently

2) The intention of the Founding Fathers are secondary to the intention of the ratifier of the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers and the Framers (who btw are not the ratifiers) could not agree with each other or even themselves (as the main players changed positions on key point) on the 'meaning(s)' you portend to know about.

you are a fraud

 

[MuadDib]

Wwtjd

happy secession day

by thomas j. Dilorenzo

perhaps the best evidence of how american history was rewritten, soviet style, in the post-1865 era is the fact that most americans seem to be unaware that "independence day" was originally intended to be a celebration of the colonists' secession from the british empire. Indeed, the word secession is not even a part of the vocabulary of most americans, who more often than not confuse it with "succession." the revolutionary war was america's first war of secession.

America's most prominent secessionist, thomas jefferson, the author of the declaration, was very clear about what he was saying: Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever that consent is withdrawn, it is the right of the people to "alter or abolish" that government and "to institute a new government." the word "secession" was not a part of the american language at that time, so jefferson used the word "separation" instead to describe the intentions of the american colonial secessionists.

The declaration is also a states' rights document (not surprisingly, since jefferson was the intellectual inspiration for the american states' rights political tradition). This, too, is foreign to most americans. But read the final paragraph of the declaration which states:


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 do all other things which independent states may of right do (emphasis in original).

Each colony was considered to be a free and independent state, or nation, in and of itself. There was no such thing as "the united states of america" in the minds of the founders. The independent colonies were simply united for a particular cause: Seceding from the british empire. Each individual state was assumed to possess all the rights that any state possesses, even to wage war and conclude peace. Indeed, when king george iii finally signed a peace treaty he signed it with all the individual american states, named one by one, and not something called "the united states of america." the "united states" as a consolidated, monopolistic government is a fiction invented by lincoln and instituted as a matter of policy at gunpoint and at the expense of some 600,000 american lives during 1861—1865.

Jefferson defended the right of secession in his first inaugural address by declaring, "if there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." (in sharp contrast, in his first inaugural address, lincoln promised an "invasion" with massive "bloodshed" (his words) of any state that failed to collect the newly-doubled federal tariff rate by seceding from the union).


Jefferson made numerous statements in defense of the defining principal of the american revolution: The right of secession. In a january 29, 1804 letter to dr. Joseph priestly he wrote:

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 [i.e., secession] 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.

In an august 12, 1803 letter to john c. Breckinridge jefferson addressed the same issue, in light of the new england federalists' secession movement in response to his louisiana purchase. If there were a "separation" into two confederacies, he wrote, "god bless them both, & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

so on july 4 stoke up the grill, enjoy your barbecue, and drink a toast to mr. Jefferson and his fellow secessionists. (and beware of any straussian nonsense about how it was really lincoln, the greatest enemy of states' rights, including the right of secession, who taught us to "revere" the declaration of independence. Nothing could be further from the truth.)

july 4, 2006

thomas j. Dilorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at loyola college in maryland and the author of the real lincoln; lincoln unmasked: What you're not supposed to know about dishonest abe and how capitalism saved america. His latest book is hamilton's curse: How jefferson's archenemy betrayed the american revolution — and what it means for america today.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jefferson Davis was born June 3, 1808, and he was the first and only President of the Confederate States of America. He believed in peace, free trade, and the American idea of self-government.

"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis

On behalf of Grampa, thank you.