The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Charles Stucker]

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

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

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

 

[Equat]

No, you foolishly played along.

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

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

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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

 

[Charles Stucker]

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

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

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

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

 

[Equat]

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

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

 

[Equat]

I insist on claiming that the south was clearly willing to allow Fort Sumter to run out of supplies and be peacefully abandoned by the Union troops before Lincoln forced their hand. I insist on claiming that in response to this evidence it is clear that Lincoln had every intention of escalating the conflict to violence by sending ships to resupply Fort Sumter. What I have never insisted on is that Fort Sumter was owned by South Carolina. It was Union property in the borders of the Confederacy, and they weren't willing to allow that arrangement to continue. They tried peaceful means, but Lincoln forced them to act aggressively. To suggest that Lincoln did not orchestrate this series of events to unfold in exactly the manner it did is sheer ignorance.

So, according to your reasoning, do all foreign countries have the right to attack US foreign military installations because the US resupplies them?

 

[Equat]

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

KK: We agree on something!

 

[Charles Stucker]

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

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

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

 

[Equat]

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

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

 

[Equat]

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

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

I have no idea what you're saying here.

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

 

[bodecea]

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

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

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

Why are they still here?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

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

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

 

[Equat]

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

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

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

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

 

[Charles Stucker]

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

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

 

[Charles Stucker]

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

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