Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[gipper]

It is clear. Totalitarians LOVE and HONOR Dishonest Abe.

Totalitarians...birds of a feather flock together.

 

[Correll]

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

I already proved it's not a contract, fool.

The supreme court is an arm of the government. Allowing that arrangement to resolve disputes between the government and the people would be like having a game between the Patriots and the Seahawks and having the Patriot's coaching staff do all the officiating for the game.

No one has a problem when things go their way, especially not the government, and things almost always go its way.

Sorry, but you proved you are a moron

The Constitution was the contract of our nation and was signed by all states

You are not allowed to unilaterally void a contract

Show me where it said that those that entered the Union could not exit the Union.

On the flip side, show us where it states that those that entered the Union COULD exit the Union.

Right here.


"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."

 

[bripat9643]

QUOTE="Skylar: "Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position."


Great post.

"expressly understood"?

So, they did not put in any language to put their position into the Constitution.

And, then years later, an organ of the government ruled to increase their own power...


This is not convincing to me.

A contract that once entered, you cannot revoke under penalty of war, that point should be very clearly spelled out.

Article VI, Clause 2. :

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.

Clause 3 of Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [My emphasis]

State officers have to swear an oath (or affirmation) to support the federal Constitution. State sovereignty is subordinate to the federal government.

And in the words of James Madison himself:

“[T]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.

I like what Madison said. That was very, very clear. "In toto, and for ever".

If that was in the Constitution, then the ramifications would have been clear to those that signed it.

There is no such language in your excerpt from the Constitution.

I can see how such language COULD BE interpreted to support the idea that the states legislators, would be required to resist any session movement.

But, it is still implied, at best, and a matter of judgement as to whether it means that.

Apparently the Founding Fathers were like used car dealers who tell you to ignore the clause in your contract that says they can reposes your car if a single payment is a day late. "it's just a formality."

 

[bripat9643]

It is clear. Totalitarians LOVE and HONOR Dishonest Abe.

Totalitarians...birds of a feather flock together.

Both Hitler and Stalin admired Ole Abe. Where do you think they got the idea for concentration camps from?

 

[JQPublic1]

Rights are a creation of human beings, as are governments.

Then you disagree with the poster who said "They simply cannot justify slavery though for it is morally, ethically, and legally wrong and always has been?"

Rights are a creation of human beings, as are governments.

Then you disagree with the poster who said "They simply cannot justify slavery though for it is morally, ethically, and legally wrong and always has been?"

Liberal logic. Lol

A perpetual Union was what was established. It is therefore clear that leaving the Union was not part of the deal

Where does the Constitution say either of those?

So can a man force a woman to have sex with him because she once married him even though she wants a divorce? I know you wont' get this point, it's butt obvious, but you are a liberal and liberals never get points. The will of the rest of the States continues to be imposed on the people of a State without consent of the governed.

Your reply will not show you don't agree with what I just said, it will show you didn't grasp what I just said

After reading through all of this, it seems that the people most likely to defend the Confederacy are:

*Conservative
*Southern

I get that no one actually wants to support slavery, they just want to support the act of rebellion, because they feel that it's an American principle or something.

I guess myself, and the other moderates/liberals/anti-Confederate conservatives, don't look at it the same way.


I am VERY pro-equality, regardless of what's in or isn't in the Constitution. I don't look at the Confederacy as a rag tag group of rebels fighting for American values, I see a group of people that couldn't socially progress at the same rate as the other regions in the nation, and paid the price for their ignorance. I don't see anything to celebrate. If I want to celebrate American rebellion, I'll read about the Revolutionary War

So slaughtering 850,000 people is a proper punishment for not progressing sufficiently rapidly to satisfy you?

That's true idiocy right there.

If you support the American Revolution, then you should support the Confederacy. They are based on the same principles - exactly.

You aren't blaming all those deaths on one side are you? Knowing you, that is exactly what you are trying to do. But you didn't stop there... Saying that the Revolutionary War and the Civil War were based on the same principles is Clannish nonsense. The colonists rebelled and sparked the revolutionary War due to being subjected to the British version of slavery themselves. The Civil War was driven by the megalomaniacal Southern plantation owners who were politically out maneuvered by the brighter Northerners during the Industrial Revolution. The Southern boys were not enthusiastic about "letting go" of the agrarian traditions that made up the social fabric of Southern society. Jumping onto the Progressive's technological bandwagon was anathema to Southern gentility and they made sure their White underlings understood that. Chattel Slavery was doomed by automation but the "Conservative" plantation owners were addicted to profit made by slaves and resisted any threat to it: to include the ensuing bloodbath commonly known as the Civil War!

 

[Kondor3]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worthy opponents such as could be found exceedingly well represented in the Confederate military establishment.

MEH.

 

[rightwinger]

How many USMB liberals think blacks would be slaves today if there was no Civil War?

Right, slavery was being abolished everywhere in the western world during the 19th century --- WITHOUT WAR.

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was not Lincoln's original aim, and that's admitted by Lincoln himself.

There really is no way to know whether there would be slaves today or not in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. But it probably would have been.

The North did not fight the war to free the slaves- but the South seceded in order to protect their right to own slaves- that was the burning issue in the Presidential campaign leading up to Lincoln's election- and the election of Lincoln- known to be anti-slave- and suspected of being an abolitionist - was the final straw.

The Confederacy was established in order to protect legal slavery.

I think the Confederacy would have had to concede the issue of slavery by 1900. They would have grudgingly provided blacks with some legal status but not full rights and not the vote
It would be like Jim Crow on steroids

Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party. Either that or you'll lynch them. But they can't say they don't have a choice!

How on earth are blacks slaves of the Democratic Party?

Are you just rambling whatever nonsense pops into your head?

Um...I answered that question in the post you quoted, big guy...

Must be some kind of Strawman on your part........

Nice way for me to say incoherent babbling

 

[rightwinger]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

 

[-S-]

[Your claim was, in black and white, as clear as crystal:

KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."

Yes, and you just again proved me right

As for Bripat:

In response to the argument "why would anybody defend the immoral Confederate causes"

To which I and many others pointed out that the 'right to self government' was based around the 'right' to continue slavery, to which he never made an argument against slavery, just that the 'states had the right' to choose for themselves.

Your argument is exactly what I said, if he supports secession, that means he supports the reason they want to secede. No, it doesn't mean that. Amazing, you keep hounding me to prove your statement which you keep proving yourself

Incorrect. You claim was that I said that you and others who support the right to secede automatically supports slavery. It's up there^ in black and white. That's what "WE" means. There's no "WE" in any of your 'proof'.

You are wrong and your tap dance routine around the main point of the discourse is obvious for everyone to see.

Gibberish.

To the uneducated, yes.

Nope. It's gibberish.

I'm agreeing with you. It's definitely gibberish to the uneducated.

 

[Kondor3]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

No.

Home Rule, to rule one's own home (state).

Slavery was the flashpoint,, but the Home Rule principle was the core of the argument.

We can see the Home Rule concept manifesting time and again and again in the first 80 years or so of the life of the Republic.

If it wasn't slavery it would have been something else, on another day, but the split would have come, nonetheless.

It was a Growing Pain that our Republic was destined to endure, one way or another.

 

[Correll]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

Abe Lincoln had quite a bit of other ways to define it. Indeed, for quite a while he denied that he was looking to free the slaves.

 

[Syriusly]

[Your claim was, in black and white, as clear as crystal:

KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."

Yes, and you just again proved me right

As for Bripat:

In response to the argument "why would anybody defend the immoral Confederate causes"

To which I and many others pointed out that the 'right to self government' was based around the 'right' to continue slavery, to which he never made an argument against slavery, just that the 'states had the right' to choose for themselves.

Your argument is exactly what I said, if he supports secession, that means he supports the reason they want to secede. No, it doesn't mean that. Amazing, you keep hounding me to prove your statement which you keep proving yourself

Incorrect. You claim was that I said that you and others who support the right to secede automatically supports slavery. It's up there^ in black and white. That's what "WE" means. There's no "WE" in any of your 'proof'.

You are wrong and your tap dance routine around the main point of the discourse is obvious for everyone to see.

Gibberish.

To the uneducated, yes.

Nope. It's gibberish.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

Apparently, you don't understand that the federal government had already broken the contract by assuming powers not granted them, and have continued to do so since.

That "contract" established a judicial system to reslove those issues. The south had no problems with the courts when the Dred Scott case was decided or the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed

It was only when decisions went against them that they wanted to take their ball and go home

Has no bearing on a States right to succeed.

Well, I think the South went about it all wrong.

If you want to secede, you
hold a referendum (legal or not), then petition the central government. If negotiation fails then you consider arbitrary steps like setting up a counter government.

Having set up a counter government, you then respond peacefully through demonstrations and never take up arms, which is what Gandhi did in India with widespread success - as non violent protests are something a democratic government can't stop without protests from all of society.

Had the South remained in the House and the Senate, and pressured for secession it would have had a much greater chance at it, than with a civil war.

That only works for colonies of decaying empires, moron. It doesn't work with tyrants who are willing to commit mass murder to keep you from seceding.

Is it possible for Brit to post without using the word moron?

 

[-S-]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

It's the same principle as a franchise.

You can open a McDonald's in your town and manage it the way you see fit, but you can't just start selling pizzas and tacos when you feel like it. There are rules to follow, since you're under the umbrella of 'McDonalds'.

The South loved making people do things for them without paying them. The North realized (better late than never) that black people are people, and therefore protected by the Constitution. The South refused to adapt to the American law.

Morally, it's as simple as that. The south was wrong in their cause. The real debate is over whether they had the right to secede the way they did.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, and you just again proved me right

Your argument is exactly what I said, if he supports secession, that means he supports the reason they want to secede. No, it doesn't mean that. Amazing, you keep hounding me to prove your statement which you keep proving yourself

Incorrect. You claim was that I said that you and others who support the right to secede automatically supports slavery. It's up there^ in black and white. That's what "WE" means. There's no "WE" in any of your 'proof'.

You are wrong and your tap dance routine around the main point of the discourse is obvious for everyone to see.

Gibberish.

To the uneducated, yes.

Nope. It's gibberish.

I'm agreeing with you. It's definitely gibberish to the uneducated.

This must be your conception of wit.

 

[paperview]

QUOTE="Skylar: "Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position."


Great post.

"expressly understood"?

So, they did not put in any language to put their position into the Constitution.

And, then years later, an organ of the government ruled to increase their own power...


This is not convincing to me.

A contract that once entered, you cannot revoke under penalty of war, that point should be very clearly spelled out.

Article VI, Clause 2. :

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.

Clause 3 of Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [My emphasis]

State officers have to swear an oath (or affirmation) to support the federal Constitution. State sovereignty is subordinate to the federal government.

And in the words of James Madison himself:

“[T]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.

I like what Madison said. That was very, very clear. "In toto, and for ever".

If that was in the Constitution, then the ramifications would have been clear to those that signed it.

There is no such language in your excerpt from the Constitution.

I can see how such language COULD BE interpreted to support the idea that the states legislators, would be required to resist any session movement.

But, it is still implied, at best, and a matter of judgement as to whether it means that.

The quote from Madison was in direct reply to the question if a state could secede.

NY wanted that provision to be written in at the time of the Constitutional Ratification.

Answer: NO.

“[T]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." - James Madison, affirmed by Hamilton.


I really don't care if you're "unconvinced" -- the Civil War answered the question. Soundly.

 

[bripat9643]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

It's the same principle as a franchise.

You can open a McDonald's in your town and manage it the way you see fit, but you can't just start selling pizzas and tacos when you feel like it. There are rules to follow, since you're under the umbrella of 'McDonalds'.

The South loved making people do things for them without paying them. The North realized (better late than never) that black people are people, and therefore protected by the Constitution. The South refused to adapt to the American law.

Morally, it's as simple as that. The south was wrong in their cause. The real debate is over whether they had the right to secede the way they did.

It's already been prove at least a dozen times in this thread that Lincoln did not invade Virginia to free the slaves. In typical liberal fashion, you simply ignore the facts and say whatever supports the narrative.

 

[Correll]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

It's the same principle as a franchise.

You can open a McDonald's in your town and manage it the way you see fit, but you can't just start selling pizzas and tacos when you feel like it. There are rules to follow, since you're under the umbrella of 'McDonalds'.

The South loved making people do things for them without paying them. The North realized (better late than never) that black people are people, and therefore protected by the Constitution. The South refused to adapt to the American law.

Morally, it's as simple as that. The south was wrong in their cause. The real debate is over whether they had the right to secede the way they did.

You can however let your franchise lapse, take down the McDonalds sign and start selling pizzas and tacos.

 

[bripat9643]

QUOTE="Skylar: "Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position."


Great post.

"expressly understood"?

So, they did not put in any language to put their position into the Constitution.

And, then years later, an organ of the government ruled to increase their own power...


This is not convincing to me.

A contract that once entered, you cannot revoke under penalty of war, that point should be very clearly spelled out.

Article VI, Clause 2. :

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.

Clause 3 of Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [My emphasis]

State officers have to swear an oath (or affirmation) to support the federal Constitution. State sovereignty is subordinate to the federal government.

And in the words of James Madison himself:

“[T]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.

I like what Madison said. That was very, very clear. "In toto, and for ever".

If that was in the Constitution, then the ramifications would have been clear to those that signed it.

There is no such language in your excerpt from the Constitution.

I can see how such language COULD BE interpreted to support the idea that the states legislators, would be required to resist any session movement.

But, it is still implied, at best, and a matter of judgement as to whether it means that.

The quote from Madison was in direct reply to the question if a state could secede.

NY wanted that provision to be written in at the time of the Constitutional Ratification.

Answer: NO.

“[T]he Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." - James Madison, affirmed by Hamilton.


I really don't care if you're "unconvinced" -- the Civil War answered the question. Soundly.

If Madison's opinion had the force of law, then you might have a point. Unfortunately for your lame opinion, it doesn't.

Three states reserved the right to secede when they passed their ratification documents. If those are valid, then every state has a right to secede.

 

[-S-]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

It's the same principle as a franchise.

You can open a McDonald's in your town and manage it the way you see fit, but you can't just start selling pizzas and tacos when you feel like it. There are rules to follow, since you're under the umbrella of 'McDonalds'.

The South loved making people do things for them without paying them. The North realized (better late than never) that black people are people, and therefore protected by the Constitution. The South refused to adapt to the American law.

Morally, it's as simple as that. The south was wrong in their cause. The real debate is over whether they had the right to secede the way they did.

It's already been prove at least a dozen times in this thread that Lincoln did not invade Virginia to free the slaves. In typical liberal fashion, you simply ignore the facts and say whatever supports the narrative.

In typical conservative Dixiecrat fashion, you still think Lincoln started the war..

 

[paperview]

...No denying our past- it was an American thing for about 200 years. No- we were not the only slave owning country- but we were a slave owning country- and ultimately it was to preserve owning slaves that the Confederate States tried to secede from the Union.

Yes and No.

Slavery was, indeed, the proximal flash-point for the secession, but it was first and foremost a States Rights (Home Rule) squabble that got out of hand.

The South had been heading for secession since Revolutionary times, owing largely to their heavy emphasis on Home Rule as superior to Federal.

The millions who sacrificed and the hundreds of thousands who died for the Confederate cause were largely suffering and dying for Home Rule as superior to Federal Rule, and it is that willingness to defend home and hearth and the principle of Home Rule that inflames the hearts and passions of Southerners and which perpetuates the honoring of those principled folk - the vast majority of whom has nothing whatsoever to do with or benefiting from slavery or its collateral effects.

Home Rule as Superior to Federal Rule was the disease.

Slavery is just the long-standing rash that brought on that bloody four-year-long scratching contest.

If the folks in The South want to honor those who fought for the Confederate cause, then let 'em. It's part of our history and those who fought against the Union were, for the most part, every bit as principled and courageous and honorable and valiant in their own right, as good Union men - their counterparts.

It takes nothing away from the memory of the men of the Union nor does it diminish nor demean Black Folk, to honor the courage and tenacity of worth opponents.

MEH.

Home rule to enslave others

No other way to define it

Abe Lincoln had quite a bit of other ways to define it. Indeed, for quite a while he denied that he was looking to free the slaves.

Because he knew the Constitution did not allow him that option.