Neo-Confederate libertarians are not conservatives.

[paperview]

The fires were burning years before 1861, This is fact.

The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full 1850's decade...)

The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.

Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
Here is an article from ----> OCT 1856, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond editorial, entitled: LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE

...where future secessionist threaten and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored emancipation ) is castigated.

I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:

Here is the top line:

It begins:
"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans,
than it is during the present canvass.

The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.

....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond (the NY Times here quotes from the Southern paper) where Southerners state: "'Tis treason to cry "Peace!" "peace!" when there is no peace. There is, there can be, no peace, no lasting union between the south and Black Republicanism."

And they go on:
​

Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back

....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within,
will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people...

,...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."

Those were the Southern sentiments in 1856.


The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...

​

See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com

1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Need more?

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.

THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures w ill enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ; whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid

succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea. The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island.
​

They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

South Carolina seceded from the Union December 20th, 1860.

James Buchanan sent the Star of the West into seceded territory to re-supply Fort Sumpter on Confederacy lands in 1861. in March of 61, Lincoln took over office. The Fort bel;onged rightfully to SC, and the Union refused to surrender the territory. Which escalated after Davis sent commisioners to DC to negotiate diplomatically the release of Sumpter to its rightful owners. they were immediately rebuffed. Lincoln then sent another attempt at resupplying a fort that didn't rightfully belong tot he Union. Davis was left with no choice but to order the Surrender of the Fort from Anderson. He refused. The confederacy engaged in defending their rightful territory.

Lincoln then initiated war with the confederacy.

 

[paperview]

Need more?

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.

THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures w ill enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ; whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid

succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea. The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island.
​

They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

South Carolina seceded from the Union December 20th, 1860.

James Buchanan sent the Star of the West into seceded territory to re-supply Fort Sumpter on Confederacy lands in 1861. in March of 61, Lincoln took over office. The Fort bel;onged rightfully to SC, and the Union refused to surrender the territory. Which escalated after Davis sent commisioners to DC to negotiate diplomatically the release of Sumpter to its rightful owners. they were immediately rebuffed. Lincoln then sent another attempt at resupplying a fort that didn't rightfully belong tot he Union. Davis was left with no choice but to order the Surrender of the Fort from Anderson. He refused. The confederacy engaged in defending their rightful territory.

Lincoln then initiated war with the confederacy.

The South committed an Act of War with the firing on and seizing of Federal property.

And Buchanan was a pansy ass to not fulfill his duties when the Southtook claim to property that WAS NOT THEIRS.

South Carolina ceded all rights and claim to Sumter in 1836. Yes, 1836.

Here you go:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

And even if she hadn't, a state cannot just claim Federal property as it's own. Kentucky can't just decide to claim Fort Knox if it decided it wanted to secede. Not the way it works.

But never matter no mind. South Carolina DID cede the rights to Fort Sumter. It's right there in black and black and white.

And THEY started the war. Before Lincoln even stepped into office.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

January 3, 1861: Georgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED

Civil War Daily: January 3, 1861 - The Taking of Fort Pulaski, Georgia

Aware that Pulaski was not garrisoned as his state moved rapidly forward with political maneuverings that would likely lead to its secession from the Union, Governor Joseph E. Brown of Georgia ordered militia troops to seize the fort on January 3, 1861. Georgia was then still part of the United States and although Fort Pulaski was not then garrisoned by U.S. troops, Brown knew that situation could change at any minute.

A clerk from the Engineer Corps was stationed in Savannah at the time and immediately sent a telegram Captain W.H.C. Whiting, then at Fort Clinch in Florida, of the movement to take the fort. Whiting would later become a Confederate general, but was still serving in the U.S. Army when Fort Pulaski was seized. He proceeded to Savannah as soon as possible and made the following report to his superior officers in Washington on January 7, 1861:


...This morning I proceeded to Fort Pulaski, which I found occupied by Georgia troops, commanded by Colonel Lawton. I was received with great civility, and informed by him that he held possession of all the Government property for the present, by order of the governor of the State, and intended to preserve it from loss or damage. He requested a return of the public property, both Ordnance and Engineer., which I have given as existing January 1....

The Colonel Lawton mentioned by Captain Whiting was Colonel Alexander Lawton of the 1st Georgia Militia. Under orders from Governor Brown, who was at Savannah in person, he had led a force of 150 men from the Savannah Volunteer Guards, Oglethorpe Light Infantry and Savannah's famed Chatham Artillery aboard the steamboat Ida and steamed down to Fort Pulaski. As rain was falling, they moved into the fort without opposition from the ordnance sergeant and caretaker stationed there and raised the Georgia flag.

it was their rightful territory. They seceded days later.

January 4, 1861: Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.

Civil War Daily: January 4, 1861 - Seizure of the Mount Vernon Arsenal, Alabama

On December 20, 1860, Congressman David Clopton of Alabama had requested that the War Department provide him with the plans of the arsenal. This request remained in limbo for two weeks until Acting Secretary of War J. Holt refused to comply with the request, citing "interest of the service."

On the same day, having received intelligence from Washington that the U.S. Army was considering moving additional troops to the Mount Vernon Arsenal and forts at Mobile Bay, Governor A.B. Moore of Alabama ordered state militia forces to take possession of the posts. Alabama forces arrived at the gates of the arsenal at dawn on January 4, 1861, 150 years ago today. The following report was filed by Captain Jesse Reno, the U.S. Army officer commanding the arsenal, to Captain William Maynadier of the Ordnance Bureau in Washington, D.C.:


MOUNT VERNON ARSENAL, January 4, 1861.


SIR: I have the honor to inform you that this arsenal was taken possession of by four companies of volunteers from Mobile at daylight this morning. I did not make, nor could I have made, any resistance, as they had scaled the walls and taken possession before I knew anything about the movement.
The governor has demanded all the public property, and his men now have entire possession of the arsenal.
…As it was impossible for me to hold this place with my seventeen men, I trust that the Department will not hold me responsible for this unexpected catastrophe.

Again, in preparation of secession. It is their rightful territory. It's not an act of war. Again. These weren't staffed forts. they were staffed with upkeepers and nothing more. The southern states new that the north wasn't going to allow them to secede without a fight. So they made preparations for Northern Agrgression...which, as it turns out, didn't take long to follow.

 

[paperview]

The question of secession was settled at the Convention.

Yes. the direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:
"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot's Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:
But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."
​

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar | Yale Law School

 

[paperview]

Again, in preparation of secession. It is their rightful territory.

No, it is not. It belonged to the whole of the people of the United States.

The Civil War answered whether States could secede. White v Texas put in fine-point solid tip the question. They cannot. End of story.

It's not an act of war.

Yes it is.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, it's not. You're welcome to continue claiming so, but it wasn't an act of war to occupy forts on their own land. And these forts didn't belong to the "people of the US". They belonged to the federal government by union submission. Otherwise, the very people who took claim wouldn't have been rejected said claim.

Anyway, this is tediously boring. You're welcome to assert your central authority as the word of god himself, and others are free to disagree with that authority. Hamilton was a fuckin' dick, fyi.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Interestingly enough, the crown also laid claim to the colonies. With plenty of parchment utilized to describe the authority they held over the territory. in the end, they were pushed off the land.

Shoudl the colonies have been able to rightfully secede from the crowns authority?

I bet you'd answer "no", paperview.

 

[paperview]

1. A revolution and secession are two different things.
Learn the difference.

2. Had we lost the American Revolution, those revolting would have been hung as traitors.

3. The South Lost. Died of a Theory. Get over it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, semantically they are different. in practice, they should have been too. Instead Lincoln caused a war.

No shit that victors write the history. That does little to help put the puzzle of reality together. You'd be cheering for the crown right now had we lost the revolutionary war. Incidentally, war is always the same. Even if you want a game of semantics on what leads to it.

No shit. Welcome to every other moron that essentially resorts to "get over it". Abandon free will and libert for yourselfy. Fuckin' fascist.

 

[paperview]

The South wanted the war.

The South started the war.

The South is still living with the huimilty of that loss. A war they fought to preserve human bondage - all the while crying tyranny!

Yeah, suck it up and deal with it. It's over.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Your last words, fella. I could care less of your envy of the Crown.

 

[bripat9643]

The question of secession was settled at the Convention.

Yes. the direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:
"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot's Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:
But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."
​

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar | Yale Law School

I searched through the entire web site you referenced and I could find no letter from Madison to Hamilton at all on the site, let alone one that said the Union was perpetual and forever and that states couldn't secede.

Furthermore, I read the ratifying document approved at the Poughkeepsie convention ratifying convention and noted the following:

"WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common—wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; "​

Furthermore, I exchanged a few emails with Dr. Thomas diLorenzo, a professor of History and Economics at Loyola University Maryland who has written about a dozen books on the subjects of the constitutionality of secession and the causes of the Civil War and he says the claims of your good Prof. Akhil Amar are flat out lies, that New York actually approved the clause allowing secession. To quote Dr. diLoronzo:

"Rhode Island and Virginia did the same. Under the constitution, this right of secession is assumed to be possessed by all the states since no one state can have more rights than any others. This is no secret. Historians all know it. Your friend has discovered nothing, and he got it wrong to boot."​

So unless you can produce an actual historical document supporting your claims, we'll just assume they are flat out lies.

 

[bripat9643]

The South wanted the war.

The South started the war.

No it didn't. Lincoln wanted the war, and everything he did prior to Ft Sumter was intended to precipitate a war.

The South is still living with the huimilty of that loss. A war they fought to preserve human bondage - all the while crying tyranny!

Yeah, suck it up and deal with it. It's over.

The South was defeated, but the Yankee carpetbaggers certainly didn't cover themselves with glory. They made war on innocent people and then proceeded to loot, pillage and murder them. They burned entire cities to the ground, murdered freemen and black slaves alike, and raped tens of thousands of women. They murdered over 50,000 American civilians in cold blood. They wiped their ass on the Constitution and converted this country from a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects.

Congratulations, subject. You must be so proud!

 

[bripat9643]

In reading the Constitutional ratifying proclamation of the state of New York, I noted some proposed amendments that people would find especially worthy today:

That the Congress do not impose any Excise on any Article (except Ardent Spirits) of the Growth Production or Manufacture of the United States, or any of them.

That the Congress do not grant Monopolies or erect any Company with exclusive Advantages of Commerce.

That no standing Army or regular Troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives present, in each House.


That no Money be borrowed on the Credit of the United States without the Assent of two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives present in each House.

That the Congress shall not declare War Without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives present in each House.

That the Right of exclusive Legislation with respect to such places as may be purchased for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dockyards and other needful Buildings, shall not authorize the Congress to make any Law to prevent the Laws of the States respectively in which they may be, from extending to such places in ail civil and Criminal Matters except as to such Persons as shall be in the Service of the United States; nor to them witl respect to Crimes committed without such Places.

That the Compensation for the Senators and Representatives be ascertained by standing Laws; and that no alteration of the existing rate of Compensation shall operate for the Benefit of the Representatives, until after a subsequent Election shall have been had.

That no Person be eligible as a Senator for more than six years in any term of twelve years; and that the Legislatures of the respective States may recal their Senators or either of them, and ["to" stricken out] elect others in their stead, to serve the remainder of the time for which the Senators so recalled were appointed.

That no Person shall be eligible to the Office of President of the United States a third time.


​

 

[paperview]

The question of secession was settled at the Convention.

Yes. the direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:
"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot's Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:
But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."
​

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar | Yale Law School

I searched through the entire web site you referenced and I could find no letter from Madison to Hamilton at all on the site, let alone one that said the Union was perpetual and forever and that states couldn't secede.

Furthermore, I read the ratifying document approved at the Poughkeepsie convention ratifying convention and noted the following:

"WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common&#8212;wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; "​

Furthermore, I exchanged a few emails with Dr. Thomas diLorenzo, a professor of History and Economics at Loyola University Maryland who has written about a dozen books on the subjects of the constitutionality of secession and the causes of the Civil War and he says the claims of your good Prof. Akhil Amar are flat out lies, that New York actually approved the clause allowing secession. To quote Dr. diLoronzo:

<b>

"Rhode Island and Virginia did the same. Under the constitution, this right of secession is assumed to be possessed by all the states since no one state can have more rights than any others. This is no secret. Historians all know it. Your friend has discovered nothing, and he got it wrong to boot."​

</b>

So unless you can produce an actual historical document supporting your claims, we'll just assume they are flat out lies.

You didn't search too far. You think I made up that letter from Madison to Hamilton, you think other historians have?

The Works of Alexander Hamilton: Correspondence. 1769-1789 - Alexander Hamilton, John Church Hamilton - Google Books

Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States of America ... - United States. Dept. of State. Library Division - Google Books

Another site that provides links and background:

Conditional Ratification VII: "The terms of the Constitution import a perpetual compact between the different states"

(I prefer direct sources, but I am too tired to paste more to explain. The above captures it well.)

That you would take the word of the neo-confederate DiLorenzo does not surprise me. His degree is in economics, (not history) he has a long history with Hate Groups, and historians and Political Scientist have denounced DiLorenzo all over.

His Jaffa debate was brutal:

DiLorenzo debated Harry V. Jaffa on the merits of Abraham Lincoln's statesmanship before and during the civil war. Political scientists Michael M. Uhlmann and Thomas L. Krannawitter wrote that in the debate "DiLorenzo displayed new heights of ignorance about the most basic problems of constitutional government, as well as the basic history of America."[8]
Thomas DiLorenzo

(and if anyone cares to search USBM for my other posts regarding DiLorenzo, stretching back several years, feel free. They will see I am quite familiar with the white nationalist hack.)

Anyway, it's been shown you're a piss poor researcher, and the bigots you consider authoritative speak for themselves.

 

[paperview]

The South wanted the war.

The South started the war.

No it didn't. Lincoln wanted the war, and everything he did prior to Ft Sumter was intended to precipitate a war.

The South is still living with the huimilty of that loss. A war they fought to preserve human bondage - all the while crying tyranny!

Yeah, suck it up and deal with it. It's over.

The South was defeated, but the Yankee carpetbaggers certainly didn't cover themselves with glory. They made war on innocent people and then proceeded to loot, pillage and murder them. They burned entire cities to the ground, murdered freemen and black slaves alike, and raped tens of thousands of women. They murdered over 50,000 American civilians in cold blood. They wiped their ass on the Constitution and converted this country from a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects.

Congratulations, subject. You must be so proud!

Garbage. Garbage, Garbage.

 

[bripat9643]

The South wanted the war.

The South started the war.

No it didn't. Lincoln wanted the war, and everything he did prior to Ft Sumter was intended to precipitate a war.

The South is still living with the huimilty of that loss. A war they fought to preserve human bondage - all the while crying tyranny!

Yeah, suck it up and deal with it. It's over.

The South was defeated, but the Yankee carpetbaggers certainly didn't cover themselves with glory. They made war on innocent people and then proceeded to loot, pillage and murder them. They burned entire cities to the ground, murdered freemen and black slaves alike, and raped tens of thousands of women. They murdered over 50,000 American civilians in cold blood. They wiped their ass on the Constitution and converted this country from a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects.

Congratulations, subject. You must be so proud!

Garbage. Garbage, Garbage.

What part of my post isn't 100% true?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

1. A revolution and secession are two different things.
Learn the difference.

2. Had we lost the American Revolution, those revolting would have been hung as traitors.

3. The South Lost. Died of a Theory. Get over it.

What exactly is the difference?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

1. A revolution and secession are two different things.
Learn the difference.

2. Had we lost the American Revolution, those revolting would have been hung as traitors.

3. The South Lost. Died of a Theory. Get over it.

What exactly is the difference?

A revolution is an uprising, while secession is the exact opposite. The States were leaving the union, not instigating war with the north. As I pointed out earlier, these are two different things. And they should have been treated separately too. instead, bloody war is what we got. Interestingly, war is always the same, even if the reason for getting into it can vary.

Rothbard puts it best:

The road to Civil War must be divided into two parts:

1.the causes of the controversy over slavery leading to secession, and
2.the immediate causes of the war itself.

The basic root of the controversy over slavery to secession, in my opinion, was the aggressive, expansionist aims of the Southern "slavocracy." Very few Northerners proposed to abolish slavery in the Southern states by aggressive war; the objection – and certainly a proper one – was to the attempt of the Southern slavocracy to extend the slave system to the Western territories. The apologia that the Southerners feared that eventually they might be outnumbered and that federal abolition might ensue is no excuse; it is the age-old alibi for "preventive war." Not only did the expansionist aim of the slavocracy to protect slavery by federal fiat in the territories as "property" aim to foist the immoral system of slavery on Western territories; it even violated the principles of states' rights to which the South was supposedly devoted – and which would logically have led to a "popular sovereignty" doctrine.

Actually, with Texas in the Union, there was no hope of gaining substantial support for slavery in any of the territories except Kansas, and this had supposedly been settled by the Missouri Compromise. "Free-Soil" principles for the Western territories could therefore have been easily established without disruption of existing affairs, if not for the continual aggressive push and trouble making of the South.

On the other hand

Pro-southern domination of the Democratic Party in the 1850s, with Pierce and Buchanan, the opening up of the Kansas territory to slave expansion (or potential slave expansion) in 1854, led to the creation of the antislavery Republican Party. One tragedy here is that the surrender of the Democrat and Whig parties to the spirit of the Compromise of 1850 forced the free-soilers into a new party that was not only free soil, but showed dangerous signs (in Seward and others) of ultimately preparing for an abolitionist war against the South. Thus, Southern trouble making shifted Northern sentiment into potentially dangerous channels. Not only that: it also welded in the Republican Party a vehicle dedicated, multifold, to old Federalist-Whig principles: to high tariffs, to internal improvements and government subsidies, to paper money and government banking, etc. Libertarian principles were now split between the two parties.

The fantastic Dred Scott decision changed the political scene completely: for in it the Supreme Court had apparently outlawed free-soil principles, even including the Missouri Compromise. There was now only one course left to the lovers of freedom short of open rebellion against the Court, or Garrison's secession by the North from a Constitution that had indeed become a "compact with Hell"; and that escape hatch was Stephen Douglas's popular sovereignty doctrine, in its "Freeport" corollary: i.e., in quiet, local nullification of the Dred Scott decision.

At this critical juncture, the South continued on its suicidal course by breaking with Douglas, insistent on the full Dred Scott principle, and leading to the victory of their enemy Lincoln. Here again, secession was only "preventive," as Lincoln had given no indication of moving to repress slavery in the South.

It is here that we must split our analysis of the "causes of the Civil War"; for, while this analysis leads, in my view, to a "pro-Northern" position in the slavery-in-the-territories struggles of the 1850s, it leads, paradoxically, to a "pro-Southern" position in the Civil War itself. For secession need not, and should not, have been combated by the North; and so we must pin the blame on the North for aggressive war against the seceding South. The war was launched in the shift from the original Northern position (by Garrison included) to "let our erring sisters depart in peace" to the determination to crush the South to save that mythical abstraction known as the "Union" – and in this shift, we must put a large portion of the blame upon the maneuvering of Lincoln to induce the Southerners to fire the first shot on Fort Sumter – after which point, flag-waving could and did take over.