The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Equat]

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.

I suggest you read your own quote over again.

"I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none."

Lincoln's intent was to force the states back into the Union against their will, all of the states. Lee was defending his country, Virginia, from the U.S.

And you once again falsely claim that Robert E. Lee is my hero, despite my having already corrected you once.

I meant to ask "Where did Lee indicate that "in defense" meant the defense of S.C. who attacked the US? If such could be defined as "defense" then so could all alliances and acts of aggression or any attack on a foreign military installation. Note that the DOD is a euphamism for its former more accurate name: Department of War.

You still refuse to address Lee's view respecting the manner in which he disagreed with your positon as to the righteousness of secession and its provisions of the founding fathers. Instead, you obfuscate the issue by focusing on defening Lee's honor from breaking his word to "share the miseries of" his "people". Admittedly, I did ask about Lee. However, his integrity wasn' the focus of my questions. His position - which you ignore - respecting the righteousness of secession is the central focus of my address to you.

 

[Equat]

No, it really doesn't. Our rights are natural and can't be taken away by anyone or anything. They can be violated, but they can't be taken away.

Semantics Kevin. If you are sitting in some dungy prison, or hanging on the end of rope, 'bout ready to have the hangman let go of the rope as you are tried for treason, you can scream to bloody maryjoseph&jesus ::but I still have rights!::

Ain't going to do you one bit of good if you think you still have your rights, they are just being violated. Who you gonna bring your violations to? No one.

You're still gonna snap at the neck with the word "Treason" etched in your marble biography.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I will say that the difference is vast between rights being violated and not having those rights in the first place. The difference is right and wrong. If my rights are being violated then I am, at the least, justified in my actions, however, if I don't have those rights in the first place then I am wrong.

Treasonous people loose rights. So do prisoners. Their rights and their claim to their "rights" are diminished in proportion to their hypocrisy and their violations to society. As Sadaam Hussein's rights (e.g. to life) was diminished by his atrocities, so was the Confederacy's (and the post neo-Confederacy which deprived blacks of civil rights) rights. Are you suggesting that the Confederacy be tried in Federal court in order to preserve its rights? The Confederacy didn't want such a trial because they knew that they'd be found guilt for their crimes.

 

[paperview]

I'll bite w/o looking it up. Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states? That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.

That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.

If it was that simple Kevin, and you believe your theory to be correct, why is it in 220 years we've never had a successful secession?

 

[Equat]

I'll bite w/o looking it up. Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states? That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.

That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.

If it was that simple Kevin, and you believe your theory to be correct, why is it in 220 years we've never had a successful secession?

Agreed. Additionally, what would the purpose of the US Supreme Court be if the states were completely sovereign?

After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied implied powers.[2] - Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Implied powers" are powers not given to the government directly through the Constitution, but are implied.

" 'Implied powers" are those powers authorized by a legal document(from the Constitution) which, while not stated, are deemed to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the measure against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.[2] Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the " 'general welfare clause" and the " 'necessary and proper" clause gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.

Even Hamilton's adversary, Thomas Jefferson, used the principle to justify his Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816.

In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress which are not explicitly given by the constitution itself but necessary and proper to execute the powers which are. - Implied powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's the point, Kevin, whether you are racist or not. I agree with Paper View that you are not racist upon further reflection. However, you have no legal right to secession, absolutely none. Your theory has not been, nor can be substantively supported. It's nothing more than pipe dreams. But you would certainly not be the first to throw it all away on a pipe dream.

You keep saying that, but so far I haven't seen you even attempt to back up your point.

I don't have to prove anything until you can offer probative commentary. Equat and Paper View destroyed everything you put out there. Pipe dreams, Kevin, pipe dreams.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'll bite w/o looking it up. Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states? That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.

That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.

That is merely your interpretation, Kevin, and you will find no substantive and final support from the federal courts. Your opinion does not count as law.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KK, you have offered nothing even remotely probative for secessionism, thus leaving the distasteful inference that your motives must be darker than you suggest. I do hope I am wrong, and you do not share some of the others' foulness when it comes to matters of color and race.

No. If you can't provide any evidence that I'm racist other than your opinion that I've not offered anything of substance to the issue of secession, then I suggest you not make any such foolish claims in the future. If you can't engage in an intelligent discussion then please try to avoid them.

Jake Starkey, like many discerning Americans, probably recognizes that Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists hide. What is the basis of your position? Is it one of social loyalty to a disloyal Confederacy, a legal one, a moral one, or what?

You've previously claimed "right"[eousness] is the basis of your argument. Right to what? I'm not a lawyer. However, I know lawyers who hold both a pro and an anti-secessionist position based on their respective legal views. Lee, prior to becoming a treasonous traitor stated that he believed that secession was contrary to our founding fathers and his ancestors by birth and marriage (e.g. President Washington). I do not believe that a legal discussion of the issue of secession is necessarily racist. The issue of secession is currently quite relevant and applicable in the state in which I live. Notwithstanding, I know that much of what underlies the moral/legal issue is and has historically been racist.

Part of the social disease behind racism is the minimization and denial of the victims. The Confederate overtly and primarily seceded based on racist slavery according to its Declaration of Secession (Declaration of Causes of Secession). You have minimized and obfuscated this fact and have minimized my representation of the Confederacy as being racists simply based on four states' declaration without providing the others' non-existent declarations. You parroting the mantra that slavery was merely a reason - not the primary and central one - without addressing neither this Declaration, nor the plethora of evidence provide by Jake Starkey, Paperview, Polk, et. al. Such evidence includes, " …the constitution, was … wrong... upon … equality of races.... Our [Confederacy]… is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; 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 …world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." -Alexander Stephens. Vice President of the Confederacy, also echoed by neo-Confederates

Your denial is typically demonstrated in your rebuttals which refuse to address the questions which threaten your straw man’s position. Thus, also demonstrates dishonesty and disingenuousness by ignoring the facts.

You uphold the moral right to the Confederate's secession which is amoral and flagrantly hypocritical based on it assertion that the rights and value of whites are greater than those of blacks et. al. Thus, you raise the questions as to your motives (e.g. racism) for this discussion. Your minimization of the plight of the oppressed blacks vis-a-vis the magnification of the consequential judgment (minimal in comparison to the blacks) demonstrates your racists’ values: whites are more important than blacks. Racism is inherent to America's foundation. We wouldn't be the nation that we are without the pretentiously Christian amoral evil of racism which defines our present society and apologetics (veiled or not) for this evil.
Racism and slavery are inseparable to the Confederacy.

Judgment of racism is not necessarily ad hominem when unfleecing wolves. If you genuinely addressed (rather than ignore and obfuscate) counter-evidence, then you would would demonstrate genuiness, lack of hypocirisy, integrity, and sincerity repecting your position. Thus, you'd be on a much higher ground.

You keep saying I'm ignoring things you're saying, or avoiding them, but so far I believe I've addressed everything you've said. You claim that I avoided some questions you've asked, but I gave you the opportunity to repost those questions and you chose not to.

However, I believe it is you that is ignoring evidence. I've never denied the impact slavery had on some of the states decision to secede. But you keep posting up those Declaration's of Secession and claiming wrongly that they apply to the entire Confederacy, and that they're the only possible reason. You keep posting up a speech by the Confederate Vice-President regarding slavery, but ignore the Confederacy's actual President when he mentions only tariffs and the right to self-government. You also ignore the fact that many of the states remained in the Union until after Fort Sumter and Lincoln's insistence on war to force the other states back into the Union.

If I have missed some all important questions you seek my answer to, then I once again ask that you repost them in a clear manner and I will do my best to answer them adequately.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I suggest you read your own quote over again.

"I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none."

Lincoln's intent was to force the states back into the Union against their will, all of the states. Lee was defending his country, Virginia, from the U.S.

And you once again falsely claim that Robert E. Lee is my hero, despite my having already corrected you once.

I meant to ask "Where did Lee indicate that "in defense" meant the defense of S.C. who attacked the US? If such could be defined as "defense" then so could all alliances and acts of aggression or any attack on a foreign military installation. Note that the DOD is a euphamism for its former more accurate name: Department of War.

You still refuse to address Lee's view respecting the manner in which he disagreed with your positon as to the righteousness of secession and its provisions of the founding fathers. Instead, you obfuscate the issue by focusing on defening Lee's honor from breaking his word to "share the miseries of" his "people". Admittedly, I did ask about Lee. However, his integrity wasn' the focus of my questions. His position - which you ignore - respecting the righteousness of secession is the central focus of my address to you.

Lee realized that Lincoln set up the Confederacy at Fort Sumter and that his intention all along was to invade the south. He knew that the states had the right to self-government, as both made clear by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and would not stand by as his country was forced to assimilate back into a tyrannical government against the will of its people.

I did address Lee's view respecting secession. I believe this is part of your problem. It's not that I'm refusing to address your points, you're simply refusing to accept my answer. I already acknowledged that Lee was opposed to secession, as were many prominent Confederates such as Confederate President Jefferson Davis. However, I also provided a quote from Lee where he also addresses his opposition to secession, but makes clear that his first duty was to his country, Virginia, and not the federal government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Semantics Kevin. If you are sitting in some dungy prison, or hanging on the end of rope, 'bout ready to have the hangman let go of the rope as you are tried for treason, you can scream to bloody maryjoseph&jesus ::but I still have rights!::

Ain't going to do you one bit of good if you think you still have your rights, they are just being violated. Who you gonna bring your violations to? No one.

You're still gonna snap at the neck with the word "Treason" etched in your marble biography.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I will say that the difference is vast between rights being violated and not having those rights in the first place. The difference is right and wrong. If my rights are being violated then I am, at the least, justified in my actions, however, if I don't have those rights in the first place then I am wrong.

Treasonous people loose rights. So do prisoners. Their rights and their claim to their "rights" are diminished in proportion to their hypocrisy and their violations to society. As Sadaam Hussein's rights (e.g. to life) was diminished by his atrocities, so was the Confederacy's (and the post neo-Confederacy which deprived blacks of civil rights) rights. Are you suggesting that the Confederacy be tried in Federal court in order to preserve its rights? The Confederacy didn't want such a trial because they knew that they'd be found guilt for their crimes.

Treason is defined by the Constitution of the United States as follows:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." - Article 3, Section 3

Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, not the federal government. Who is it that levied war against the states? Abraham Lincoln.

I am suggesting that the Confederacy committed no crime that the United States was not also guilty of, and to say that the U.S. had the right to punish them for those alleged crimes is sheer hypocrisy. And the crimes of the U.S. during the Civil War are greater still than the Confederacy, in my opinion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll bite w/o looking it up. Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states? That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.

That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.

If it was that simple Kevin, and you believe your theory to be correct, why is it in 220 years we've never had a successful secession?

Governments are mainly concerned with growing and keeping their power, not the rights of the people.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.

If it was that simple Kevin, and you believe your theory to be correct, why is it in 220 years we've never had a successful secession?

Agreed. Additionally, what would the purpose of the US Supreme Court be if the states were completely sovereign?

After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied implied powers.[2] - Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Implied powers" are powers not given to the government directly through the Constitution, but are implied.

" 'Implied powers" are those powers authorized by a legal document(from the Constitution) which, while not stated, are deemed to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the measure against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.[2] Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the " 'general welfare clause" and the " 'necessary and proper" clause gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.

Even Hamilton's adversary, Thomas Jefferson, used the principle to justify his Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816.

In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress which are not explicitly given by the constitution itself but necessary and proper to execute the powers which are. - Implied powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let us note that Alexander Hamilton did not believe in these "implied powers" until after the Constitution was ratified by the states, and maintained a strict interpretation of the Constitution was correct in the Federalist Papers and before ratification. Hamilton was a liar in other words.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's the point, Kevin, whether you are racist or not. I agree with Paper View that you are not racist upon further reflection. However, you have no legal right to secession, absolutely none. Your theory has not been, nor can be substantively supported. It's nothing more than pipe dreams. But you would certainly not be the first to throw it all away on a pipe dream.

You keep saying that, but so far I haven't seen you even attempt to back up your point.

I don't have to prove anything until you can offer probative commentary. Equat and Paper View destroyed everything you put out there. Pipe dreams, Kevin, pipe dreams.

Yes, Equat and Paperview have been willing to discuss the issue. You've been more concerned with stating your opinion and then declaring victory.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll bite w/o looking it up. Isn't there a part of the Constitution where all powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states? That COULD be read as giving states the right to self determination.

That would be the 10th Amendment, and yes that's where the states get the legal authorization to secede.

That is merely your interpretation, Kevin, and you will find no substantive and final support from the federal courts. Your opinion does not count as law.

I am well aware of what my opinion does or does not count for. However, this is a discussion forum, and I believe the purpose of it is to discuss things.

 

[paperview]

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I will say that the difference is vast between rights being violated and not having those rights in the first place. The difference is right and wrong. If my rights are being violated then I am, at the least, justified in my actions, however, if I don't have those rights in the first place then I am wrong.

Treasonous people loose rights. So do prisoners. Their rights and their claim to their "rights" are diminished in proportion to their hypocrisy and their violations to society. As Sadaam Hussein's rights (e.g. to life) was diminished by his atrocities, so was the Confederacy's (and the post neo-Confederacy which deprived blacks of civil rights) rights. Are you suggesting that the Confederacy be tried in Federal court in order to preserve its rights? The Confederacy didn't want such a trial because they knew that they'd be found guilt for their crimes.

Treason is defined by the Constitution of the United States as follows:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." - Article 3, Section 3

Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, not the federal government. Who is it that levied war against the states? Abraham Lincoln.

I am suggesting that the Confederacy committed no crime that the United States was not also guilty of, and to say that the U.S. had the right to punish them for those alleged crimes is sheer hypocrisy. And the crimes of the U.S. during the Civil War are greater still than the Confederacy, in my opinion.

"Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, not the federal government."

You seriously think that levying war against the federal government is not treason?

Really?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Treasonous people loose rights. So do prisoners. Their rights and their claim to their "rights" are diminished in proportion to their hypocrisy and their violations to society. As Sadaam Hussein's rights (e.g. to life) was diminished by his atrocities, so was the Confederacy's (and the post neo-Confederacy which deprived blacks of civil rights) rights. Are you suggesting that the Confederacy be tried in Federal court in order to preserve its rights? The Confederacy didn't want such a trial because they knew that they'd be found guilt for their crimes.

Treason is defined by the Constitution of the United States as follows:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." - Article 3, Section 3

Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, not the federal government. Who is it that levied war against the states? Abraham Lincoln.

I am suggesting that the Confederacy committed no crime that the United States was not also guilty of, and to say that the U.S. had the right to punish them for those alleged crimes is sheer hypocrisy. And the crimes of the U.S. during the Civil War are greater still than the Confederacy, in my opinion.

"Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, not the federal government."

You seriously think that levying war against the federal government is not treason?

Really?

The constitutional definition of treason is quite clear, levying war against the states. It doesn't mention the federal government whatsoever. So no, I do not believe it is treasonous to levy war against the federal government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You keep saying that, but so far I haven't seen you even attempt to back up your point.

I don't have to prove anything until you can offer probative commentary. Equat and Paper View destroyed everything you put out there. Pipe dreams, Kevin, pipe dreams.

Yes, Equat and Paperview have been willing to discuss the issue. You've been more concerned with stating your opinion and then declaring victory.

Two months ago I competently dismantled your slavery argument. Paper View and Equat destroyed your pro-secession argument. We have proved our arguments. You have not, such as your silly argument about it not being treason when levying war against the U.S.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't have to prove anything until you can offer probative commentary. Equat and Paper View destroyed everything you put out there. Pipe dreams, Kevin, pipe dreams.

Yes, Equat and Paperview have been willing to discuss the issue. You've been more concerned with stating your opinion and then declaring victory.

Two months ago I competently dismantled your slavery argument. Paper View and Equat destroyed your pro-secession argument. We have proved our arguments. You have not, such as your silly argument about it not being treason when levying war against the U.S.

You claim you dismantled my argument, but that's all you've done is make claims.

 

[paperview]

Treason is defined by the Constitution of the United States as follows:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." - Article 3, Section 3

Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, not the federal government. Who is it that levied war against the states? Abraham Lincoln.

I am suggesting that the Confederacy committed no crime that the United States was not also guilty of, and to say that the U.S. had the right to punish them for those alleged crimes is sheer hypocrisy. And the crimes of the U.S. during the Civil War are greater still than the Confederacy, in my opinion.

"Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, not the federal government."

You seriously think that levying war against the federal government is not treason?

Really?

The constitutional definition of treason is quite clear, levying war against the states. It doesn't mention the federal government whatsoever. So no, I do not believe it is treasonous to levy war against the federal government.

Wow.

That's all I can say.

Wow.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Note that treason is defined as levying war against the states, not the federal government."

You seriously think that levying war against the federal government is not treason?

Really?

The constitutional definition of treason is quite clear, levying war against the states. It doesn't mention the federal government whatsoever. So no, I do not believe it is treasonous to levy war against the federal government.

Wow.

That's all I can say.

Wow.

It's not really that difficult to understand. The states are sovereign to the federal government, and may therefore reject the federal government in any way they see fit. The framers of the Constitution obviously believed this, or they would not have put the definition of treason that they did in the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

KevinKennedy is a loon. A nicely behaved loon, I must say. He does not swear or curse or really get angry, so I give him credit.

Immoral stubborness, however, does competently describe his character weakness. He is wrong, but he simply cannot admit it. That is why he will inevitably fail at what he does because he cannot learn from his mistakes and from those incidents when others are right.