The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Annie]

I'm speaking only for myself. I've never been a big 'states' righter, as that seemed to me the way of slavery. This would be confirmed for me by arguments over time, regarding constricting the rights of blacks and other minorities to vote and achieve equality.

I'd never go for that.

However, things are changing rapidly, more rapidly than most of us can keep up with. I still disagree with those previous claims, but now am ready to join with those that believe we need to wrest power from the fed. I won't stand for curtailing rights, but will stand for expanding what others wish to extinguish.

States' rights wasn't just about slavery or racism, however. For example, states' rights and nullification were used by northern states to not comply with the Constitution or Fugitive Slave Act in returning escaped slaves to the south.

Do not try to lecture me. I know more about the Civil War causes than you can hope to. You are one of the reasons that there are so many that would help, but don't want to be connected with present day slime.

 

[Equat]

I'm speaking only for myself. I've never been a big 'states' righter, as that seemed to me the way of slavery. This would be confirmed for me by arguments over time, regarding constricting the rights of blacks and other minorities to vote and achieve equality.

I'd never go for that.

However, things are changing rapidly, more rapidly than most of us can keep up with. I still disagree with those previous claims, but now am ready to join with those that believe we need to wrest power from the fed. I won't stand for curtailing rights, but will stand for expanding what others wish to extinguish.

States' rights wasn't just about slavery or racism, however. For example, states' rights and nullification were used by northern states to not comply with the Constitution or Fugitive Slave Act in returning escaped slaves to the south.

Right on, but free states also didn't war against the US. As you read the Confederates' they opposed Constitutional rights in their reasons for secession and war:
• 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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm speaking only for myself. I've never been a big 'states' righter, as that seemed to me the way of slavery. This would be confirmed for me by arguments over time, regarding constricting the rights of blacks and other minorities to vote and achieve equality.

I'd never go for that.

However, things are changing rapidly, more rapidly than most of us can keep up with. I still disagree with those previous claims, but now am ready to join with those that believe we need to wrest power from the fed. I won't stand for curtailing rights, but will stand for expanding what others wish to extinguish.

States' rights wasn't just about slavery or racism, however. For example, states' rights and nullification were used by northern states to not comply with the Constitution or Fugitive Slave Act in returning escaped slaves to the south.

Do not try to lecture me. I know more about the Civil War causes than you can hope to. You are one of the reasons that there are so many that would help, but don't want to be connected with present day slime.

What's with the venom?

 

[paperview]

You keep bringing up that link, but it only links to four states. Did every single Confederate state that slavery was a reason they were seceding? You can't link to only four of the states and say they speak for the whole. In his inaugural address the President of the Confederacy did not mention the issue of slavery so much as one time.

Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address

If slavery was the "singular and central issue," as you claim, you'd think it would at least merit a mention in the President of that confederacy's inaugural address.

The reasons that I mention the four states is because only they provided a Declaration. The others didn't. I ask you, where is the other state's Declaration of secession? If none, then how can I mention something that doesn't exist?

Absence of reasons for secession in a president's innagural address doesn't mean anything when the president was elected after secession and the Declaration of Causes of Secession predates the president. Did Washington rehash the reasons for the revolution in his innaugural address? Davis didn't need to rehash.

But you're trying to say that the Declarations from four states speak for the whole. That's ridiculous.

He specifically mentions tariffs, however. Why mention what is, in your opinion, a side issue but not the central issue? It doesn't make sense.

Any reading of the many papers and speeches and pamphlets and appeals and resolutions of the time show where the states stood Kevin.

Here's Louisiana: (I can find some of these for other states, too tired tonight though

"Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity...

The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages....

That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual."

Geo. Williamson
Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
​

 

[paperview]

You keep bringing up that link, but it only links to four states. Did every single Confederate state that slavery was a reason they were seceding? You can't link to only four of the states and say they speak for the whole. In his inaugural address the President of the Confederacy did not mention the issue of slavery so much as one time.

Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address

If slavery was the "singular and central issue," as you claim, you'd think it would at least merit a mention in the President of that confederacy's inaugural address.

"This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

-Alexander Stephens. Vice President of the Confederacy

 

[Equat]

You keep bringing up that link, but it only links to four states. Did every single Confederate state that slavery was a reason they were seceding? You can't link to only four of the states and say they speak for the whole. In his inaugural address the President of the Confederacy did not mention the issue of slavery so much as one time.

Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address

If slavery was the "singular and central issue," as you claim, you'd think it would at least merit a mention in the President of that confederacy's inaugural address.

"This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

-Alexander Stephens. Vice President of the Confederacy

Substantive evidence! Can KK read? He won't answer questions when they pose a threat to his position. The Confederate VP you quoted above reflects the Confederate sentiments that have remained in the former Confederate states through the defacto slavery period till the 60s civil rights movement and to the present day. Since the daughters of the Confederacy decided that DENIAL of racist SLAVERY was their primary goal, they've ignored all the other evidence. Somehow their god must have changed his mind about the subject of racist slavery.

Denial of the evils of racist slavery is the sole purpose of neo-Confederates. The monument they left at the Texas capital reads "We therefore pledge ourselves to preserve ... and teach the truths of history (one of the most important of which is that the war between the states was not a rebellion nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery)," - http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=92 (a source of many other incriminating Confederate documents)

http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/15/long-legged-yankee-lies/ also quotes neo-Confederates and the UDC in showing their purpose to skew history:
1. Reject a book that speaks of the Constitution other than [as] a compact between Sovereign states.
2. Reject a text-book that . . . does not clearly outline the interferences with the rights guaranteed to the South by the Constitution, and which caused secession.
3. Reject a book that says the South fought to hold her slaves.
4. Reject a book that speaks of the slaveholders of the South as cruel and unjust to his slaves.
5. Reject a text-book that glorifies Abraham Lincoln and vilifies Jefferson Davis.
6. Reject a text-book that omits to tell of the South’s heroes and their deeds. (p. 72)
Here are corrections to common mistakes found in textbooks:

1. Southern men were anxious for the slaves to be free. They were studying earnestly the problem of freedom, when Northern fanatical Abolitionists took matters into their own hands.
2. “More slaveholders and sons of slaveholders fought for the Union than for the Confederacy (this fit awkwardly with assertions elsewhere that the Yankees got immigrants and blacks to do most of their fighting – McPherson comment).
3. Gen. Lee freed his slaves before the war began and Gen. Ulysses S. Grand did not free his until the war ended.
4. The war did not begin with the firing on Fort Sumter. It began when Lincoln ordered 2,400 men and 285 guns to the defense of Sumter.”
5. Union forces outnumbered Confederate forces five to one, not surprising when the Union population was 31 million while the Confederate population was only 5 million whites and 4 million slaves.” (p. 73)
And there you have it. I wonder if Rutherford and the rest of the gang had any idea of just how successful they were in shaping an interpretation that continues to prove to be attractive throughout this country. Consider the following two posts (here and here) if you have any doubts.[/I]

Here's a link to a copied letter at http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/ObamaLetterNR.pdf ) to the President expressing reasons for not honoring the UDC memorial. The reasons quote the UDC in their attempt to covertly veil and spread their racism.

 

[Equat]

States' rights wasn't just about slavery or racism, however. For example, states' rights and nullification were used by northern states to not comply with the Constitution or Fugitive Slave Act in returning escaped slaves to the south.

Do not try to lecture me. I know more about the Civil War causes than you can hope to. You are one of the reasons that there are so many that would help, but don't want to be connected with present day slime.

What's with the venom?

The Confederacy and their reasons for secession are "What's with the venom?"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do not try to lecture me. I know more about the Civil War causes than you can hope to. You are one of the reasons that there are so many that would help, but don't want to be connected with present day slime.

What's with the venom?

The Confederacy and their reasons for secession are "What's with the venom?"

Which has nothing to do with me.

 

[Equat]

The Confederates didn't remove racist slavery from their reasons for seceding. Why should we remove this singular and central issue?

Because it is not an issue in the modern question of secession.
Yet again what the would be Tyrants ignore is that Popular self Determination is a central theme to the modern US Democracy. We have pushed this theme on other countries (for example communist Russia) and yet it is not allowed for our own population based on the Moronic principle that since someone once voted for something generations ago, their descendants are forever barred from voting differently.

Issues respecting modern secession are not the topic of this discussion/dispute.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

This thread is about secession and limits on federal power,. This is not a slavery thread. Focus, equat.

 

[Toronado3800]

I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.

Right or wrong? I dunno.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.

Right or wrong? I dunno.

Obviously. The debate here is whether the "Union" is justified in pursuing violence to force a state and it's people to remain in a Union they no longer feel effectively represents them or protects their liberty.

 

[Equat]

I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.

Right or wrong? I dunno.

Obviously. The debate here is whether the "Union" is justified in pursuing violence to force a state and it's people to remain in a Union they no longer feel effectively represents them or protects their liberty.

In 1856, your hero "Robert E. Lee" addressed this issue. Do you disagree with him (a man who keeps his word?)

I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honour for its preservation…. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for 'perpetual Union,' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession: anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution.... If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none.
Robert E. Lee - Wikiquote Letter to his wife, Mary Anne Lee (1856-12-27)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.

Right or wrong? I dunno.

Obviously. The debate here is whether the "Union" is justified in pursuing violence to force a state and it's people to remain in a Union they no longer feel effectively represents them or protects their liberty.

In 1856, your hero "Robert E. Lee" addressed this issue. Do you disagree with him (a man who keeps his word?)

I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honour for its preservation…. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for 'perpetual Union,' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession: anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution.... If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none.
Robert E. Lee - Wikiquote Letter to his wife, Mary Anne Lee (1856-12-27)

Why do you believe Robert E. Lee is my personal hero? I've certainly never mentioned anything of the sort.

At any rate, what does this prove? That Robert E. Lee opposed secession? So what? Jefferson Davis opposed secession as well, but both believed their first loyalty lay to their country (state) and not the federal government.

Here is what Lee had to say on the subject after the war.

I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.

The Acton-Lee Correspondence

 

[Equat]

I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.

Right or wrong? I dunno.

Precedents with the US may be observed it its force exercised against the will of the people with the Indians, Mexico, Canada, Spain, et. al. Even if the Confederates were to have had (and they did not) the right to secede, their losing their war lost them whatever rights they had to begin with. After they lost they were at the mercy of the USA as Japan and Germany were at the end of WWII.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.

Right or wrong? I dunno.

Precedents with the US may be observed it its force exercised against the will of the people with the Indians, Mexico, Canada, Spain, et. al. Even if the Confederates were to have had (and they did not) the right to secede, their losing their war lost them whatever rights they had to begin with. After they lost they were at the mercy of the USA as Japan and Germany were at the end of WWII.

Losing a war does not take away ones rights. If you were to get assaulted for speaking your mind would you then say you had lost your right to freedom of speech?

 

[Equat]

KK: To answer your questions, my quote "prove" that Lee disagreed with your position that the Confederacy had the right to secede.

If Lee (indicted by a Federal court in post-war VA) were loyal, then why didn't he keep his word and "suffer with" his "people" and "draw" his "sword on none"?

You said Lee was loyal to his "country (state) and not the federal government." Loyal to "anarchy ... and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution..."?

 

[Equat]

I think there is a precedent which would lead me to believe if a state votes to leave the union the union will go get it back, violently if necessary.

Right or wrong? I dunno.

Precedents with the US may be observed it its force exercised against the will of the people with the Indians, Mexico, Canada, Spain, et. al. Even if the Confederates were to have had (and they did not) the right to secede, their losing their war lost them whatever rights they had to begin with. After they lost they were at the mercy of the USA as Japan and Germany were at the end of WWII.

Losing a war does not take away ones rights. If you were to get assaulted for speaking your mind would you then say you had lost your right to freedom of speech?

Tell that to the Indians, Mexicans, Canadians, Spaniards, Panamanians, Japanese, Germans, et. al.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KK: To answer your questions, my quote "prove" that Lee disagreed with your position that the Confederacy had the right to secede.

If Lee (indicted by a Federal court in post-war VA) were loyal, then why didn't he keep his word and "suffer with" his "people" and "draw" his "sword on none"?

You said Lee was loyal to his "country (state) and not the federal government." Loyal to "anarchy ... and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution..."?

No where did Lee state that secession was illegal.

He said he would draw his sword on none save for self defense. Lincoln sending his army to force the southern states back into the Union is cause for self defense.

Anarchy is the absence of government. Are you attempting to imply that the government of Virginia was abolished when Virginia seceded from the Union? Or that the Confederate States of America was not a functioning federal government?

 

[Equat]

KK: To answer your questions, my quote "prove" that Lee disagreed with your position that the Confederacy had the right to secede.

If Lee (indicted by a Federal court in post-war VA) were loyal, then why didn't he keep his word and "suffer with" his "people" and "draw" his "sword on none"?

You said Lee was loyal to his "country (state) and not the federal government." Loyal to "anarchy ... and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution..."?

No where did Lee state that secession was illegal.

He said he would draw his sword on none save for self defense. Lincoln sending his army to force the southern states back into the Union is cause for self defense.

Anarchy is the absence of government. Are you attempting to imply that the government of Virginia was abolished when Virginia seceded from the Union? Or that the Confederate States of America was not a functioning federal government?

Where did Lee provide the exception for self-defense? How could he "suffer" with his "people" from peaceful secession? Lincoln sent troops to SC, not to the "independent" (as you falsely claim) "country" of VA. How was Lee defending himself?

Lee used the word "anarchy". I am merely quoting your hero whom you are now defending and excusing.