Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The reason why your SCOTUS has never and never will intertwine such case is that there is no law established concerning secession in order for them to render an opinion. You have said it yourself.Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S. suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. OrgHmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.
If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.
I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view. Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). Publishers Weekly: This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.
The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
In other words: The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S. suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. OrgHmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.
If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.
I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view. Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). Publishers Weekly: This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.
Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
In other words: The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S. suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. OrgIf you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.
I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view. Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). Publishers Weekly: This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.
Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
In other words: The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
or illegal..it isn't mentioned in the constitution, is it?
The states formed the government, not the other way around.
..and when citizens decide to withdraw from this government again the supreme court won't have jurisdiction or power.
The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
Why is it such a detestable idea to you that people should be free to democratically withdraw and form their own government that suits them better?
Why are you against democracy and respecting the choice of the people even if you disagree with them?
You're obviously not a southerner, so what's it to you? We're all backward, inbred rednecks anyway, right?
The reason why your SCOTUS has never and never will intertwine such case is that there is no law established concerning secession in order for them to render an opinion. You have said it yourself.Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S. suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. OrgIf you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.
I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view. Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). Publishers Weekly: This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.
The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
In other words: The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
You posted excerpts of newspaper editorials, Chuckles, editorials written by people far away from the action. That in no way refutes the actual secession documents.I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion? Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same. No one invaded Charleston.The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...
Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"
Okay, and? It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.
"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas. That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire..... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861
"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861
"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion. Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston...... North American Review (Boston October 1862)
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."So? The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North...... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860
"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861
"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "No one made the traitors open fire. Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861
"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.
"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale? They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not. They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
LMAO...Nice try but no one is fooled.
I give the actual quotes, date and publication by people actually involved in the situation...and your best response is "So?"..or outright denial of proven, established facts...
Those people's words aren't open to your revisionist reinterpretation. You have no standing to deny any of them or parse words or attempt semantic distortions. You refuse to address them honestly and instead try to use them as props and excuses to demean or diminish the truth.
I doubt any honest people who have read this were fooled or impressed by your misrepresentations and attempts to deceive.
Those words and articles are HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS of events...You, on the other hand, offer NOTHING other than "nuh uh"..or "they deserved it"..
I made my points and supported them.
It's clear that your only purpose here is to display your anti southern bias and prejudices....so this discussion is over due to gross, overt dishonesty on your part.
So you can get right out with that.South Carolinian law: The ceding of Fort Sumter to the federal government said: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.
There. They said it, black and white, no subtlety involved. The choice was between abolition or a dissolution of the Union. Not taxes or a dissolution of the Union, not tariffs or a dissolution of the Union, but abolition of slavery. I do not see what part of that is hard to grasp.Mississippi Secession Convention said:A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
You posted excerpts of newspaper editorials, Chuckles, editorials written by people far away from the action. That in no way refutes the actual secession documents.I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion? Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same. No one invaded Charleston.The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...
Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"
Okay, and? It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.
"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas. That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire..... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861
"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861
"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion. Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston...... North American Review (Boston October 1862)
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."So? The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North...... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860
"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861
"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "No one made the traitors open fire. Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861
"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.
"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale? They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not. They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
LMAO...Nice try but no one is fooled.
I give the actual quotes, date and publication by people actually involved in the situation...and your best response is "So?"..or outright denial of proven, established facts...
Those people's words aren't open to your revisionist reinterpretation. You have no standing to deny any of them or parse words or attempt semantic distortions. You refuse to address them honestly and instead try to use them as props and excuses to demean or diminish the truth.
I doubt any honest people who have read this were fooled or impressed by your misrepresentations and attempts to deceive.
Those words and articles are HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS of events...You, on the other hand, offer NOTHING other than "nuh uh"..or "they deserved it"..
I made my points and supported them.
It's clear that your only purpose here is to display your anti southern bias and prejudices....so this discussion is over due to gross, overt dishonesty on your part.
First, there was no invasion of Charleston. Major Anderson was garrisoning a federal fort under the undisputed ownership of the United States. Proof:
So you can get right out with that.South Carolinian law: The ceding of Fort Sumter to the federal government said: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.
Second, Colonel Baldwin's account of Lincoln asking what would become of his tariff. That is hearsay. There is no corroborating evidence, no account of Lincoln ever saying anything of the kind to anyone else, and not even any contemporary reference. The account was published in the Southern Historical Society Papers in 1876, at a time when that Society was busily attempting to whitewash the secessions after comprehensively losing public opinion on the issue of slavery. I can readily prove that as well if you wish.
Third, I stand by what I said about the reliability of British editorials. The British Empire greatly wanted to continue colonizing the Western Hemisphere, which the United States prevented them from doing; it was in their direct imperial interest for the Slave Power to win. Note that their tune changed after the Emancipation Proclamation; once the Union stood to eradicate slavery it became politically impossible for Britain to support the Confederacy.
Fourth, you posted short, unsourced excerpts from a bunch of Northern newspaper editorials claiming that the secessions were about this or that thing apart from slavery. Unfortunately for your case, that is a much lower order of evidence than the testimony of the people who did the deed. I already cited that extensively in the OP, but since you refuse to go back and read it, here we go:
There. They said it, black and white, no subtlety involved. The choice was between abolition or a dissolution of the Union. Not taxes or a dissolution of the Union, not tariffs or a dissolution of the Union, but abolition of slavery. I do not see what part of that is hard to grasp.Mississippi Secession Convention said:A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Fifth, finally and perhaps most pathetically, you attempted to blame Lincoln for the shelling of Fort Sumter. To quote the man himself, "That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and says 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you shall be a murderer!'" This is basic ethics, Skippy; you are responsible for what you do, not other people.
Coffee. Is it illegal now?whitehall, are you drinking?
Are you blind or just illiterate? I cited South Carolina's own law regarding the ownership of Fort Sumter and the secession declaration of Mississippi, and the rest is common knowledge or easily discernible from reading your own sources. But fine, I'll hold your hand.You posted excerpts of newspaper editorials, Chuckles, editorials written by people far away from the action. That in no way refutes the actual secession documents.
First, there was no invasion of Charleston. Major Anderson was garrisoning a federal fort under the undisputed ownership of the United States. Proof:
So you can get right out with that.South Carolinian law: The ceding of Fort Sumter to the federal government said: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.
Second, Colonel Baldwin's account of Lincoln asking what would become of his tariff. That is hearsay. There is no corroborating evidence, no account of Lincoln ever saying anything of the kind to anyone else, and not even any contemporary reference. The account was published in the Southern Historical Society Papers in 1876, at a time when that Society was busily attempting to whitewash the secessions after comprehensively losing public opinion on the issue of slavery. I can readily prove that as well if you wish.
Third, I stand by what I said about the reliability of British editorials. The British Empire greatly wanted to continue colonizing the Western Hemisphere, which the United States prevented them from doing; it was in their direct imperial interest for the Slave Power to win. Note that their tune changed after the Emancipation Proclamation; once the Union stood to eradicate slavery it became politically impossible for Britain to support the Confederacy.
Fourth, you posted short, unsourced excerpts from a bunch of Northern newspaper editorials claiming that the secessions were about this or that thing apart from slavery. Unfortunately for your case, that is a much lower order of evidence than the testimony of the people who did the deed. I already cited that extensively in the OP, but since you refuse to go back and read it, here we go:
There. They said it, black and white, no subtlety involved. The choice was between abolition or a dissolution of the Union. Not taxes or a dissolution of the Union, not tariffs or a dissolution of the Union, but abolition of slavery. I do not see what part of that is hard to grasp.Mississippi Secession Convention said:A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Fifth, finally and perhaps most pathetically, you attempted to blame Lincoln for the shelling of Fort Sumter. To quote the man himself, "That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and says 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you shall be a murderer!'" This is basic ethics, Skippy; you are responsible for what you do, not other people.
LMAO..good one..every single point I made...every single cited document are all incorrect and not valid...and you...LMAO..who cite not one single source....while making wild, unsupported proclamations, equivocations and reinterpretations believe you hold a special understanding of the situation...an even better understanding than the actual people involved at the time, in fact. LMFAO..not one single piece of supporting evidence...Comical.
Man..you're funny!
"Go forth, and whitewash our history!" Unfortunately for him, Alexander Stephens was not cooperating:Jubal Early said:There is one thing which is very certain : we cannot escape the ordeal of history. Before its bar we must appear, either as criminals — rebels and traitors seeking to throw off the authority of a legitimate government to which we were bound by the ties of allegiance — or as patriots defending our rights and vindicating the true principles of the government founded by our fathers. In the former character our enemies are seeking to present us, not only by their historical records, but by their literature and by the whole scope and tendency of their legislation and governmental policy. Shall we permit the indictment to go forth to the world and to posterity without a vindication of our motives and our conduct? Are we willing that our enemies shall be the historians of our cause and our struggle? No! a thousand times no! The men who by their deeds caused so many of the battle-fields of the South to blaze with a glory unsurpassed in the annals of the world, cannot be so recreant to the principles for which they fought, the traditions of the past, and the memory of their comrades "dead upon the field of honor," as to abandon the tribunal of history to those before whose immense numbers and physical power alone they were finally compelled to yield from mere exhaustion. Nor can we trust our vindication to the pens of the non-combatants on our own side, who, if not workers of mischief in their spheres, were of no material assistance to us in the terrible conflict. It is a high and solemn duty which those who were part and parcel of it owe to their dead comrades, to themselves, and to posterity, to vindicate the lionor and glory of our cause in the history of the struggle made in its defence.
Alexander Stephens said:As for my Savanna speech, about which so much has been said and in regard to which I am represented as setting forth "slavery" as the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy, it is proper for me to state that that speech was extemporaneous, the reporter's notes, which were very imperfect, were hastily corrected by me; and were published without further revision and with several glaring errors. The substance of what I said on slavery was, that on the points under the old Constitution out of which so much discussion, agitation, and strife between the States had arisen, no future contention could arise, as these had been put to rest by clear language. I did not say, nor do I think the reporter represented me as saying, that there was the slightest change in the new Constitution from the old regarding the status of the African race amongst us. (Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)
I admitted that the fathers, both of the North and the South, who framed the old Constitution, while recognizing existing slavery and guaranteeing its continuance under the Constitution so long as the States should severally see fit to tolerate it in their respective limits, were perhaps all opposed to the principle. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, all looked for its early extinction throughout the United States. But on the subject of slavery - so called - (which was with us, or should be, nothing but the proper subordination of the inferior African race to the superior white) great and radical changes had taken place in the realm of thought; many eminent latter-day statesmen, philosophers, and philanthropists held different views from the fathers.
The patriotism of the fathers was not questioned, nor their ability and wisdom, but it devolved on the public men and statesmen of each generation to grapple with and solve the problems of their own times.
The relation of the black to the white race, or the proper status of the coloured population amongst us, was a question now of vastly more importance than when the old Constitution was formed. The order of subordination was nature's great law; philosophy taught that order as the normal condition of the African amongst European races. Upon this recognized principle of a proper subordination, let it be called slavery or what not, our State institutions were formed and rested. The new Confederation was entered into with this distinct understanding. This principle of the subordination of the inferior to the superior was the "corner-stone" on which it was formed. I used this metaphor merely to illustrate the firm convictions of the framers of the new Constitution that this relation of the black to the white race, which existed in 1787, was not wrong in itself, either morally or politically; that it was in conformity to nature and best for both races. I alluded not to the principles of the new Government on this subject, but to public sentiment in regard to these principles. The status of the African race in the new Constitution was left just where it was in the old; I affirmed and meant to affirm nothing else in this Savannah speech.
My own opinion of slavery, as often expressed, was that if the institution was not the best, or could not be made the best, for both races, looking to the advancement and progress of both, physically and morally, it ought to be abolished. It was far from being what it might and ought to have been. Education was denied. This was wrong. I ever condemned the wrong. Marriage was not recognized. This was a wrong that I condemned. Many things connected with it did not meet my approval but excited my disgust, abhorrence, and detestation. The same I may say of things connected with the best institutions in the best communities in which my lot has been cast. Great improvements were, however, going on in the condition of blacks in the South. Their general physical condition not only as to necessaries but as to comforts was better in my own neighbourhood in 1860, than was that of the whites when I can first recollect, say 1820. Much greater would have been made, I verily believe, but for outside agitation. I have but small doubt that education would have been allowed long ago in Georgia, except for outside pressure which stopped internal reform.
You posted these before and you already have my answer. But since your memory is evidently impaired, I'll answer again.Rogue 9
How about these quotes, ace? will you concede that they are accurate or do you think you can "correct" me about them, too?
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
A. Lincoln
in Congress 1848
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
A. Lincoln
March 4, 1861
A Presidential election is quite transient, it's extremely difficult to argue that Lincoln had subjected the Slave Power to a long train of anything before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power didn't show anything even resembling patient sufferance. You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.Declaration of Independence said:Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
The secessions started on December 20th, 1860 with South Carolina, months before Lincoln's inauguration. He didn't force the South into anything.Try thinking outside the box you made in the 5th grade. Lincoln is 85% legend. He should have kept the Union together before he forced the South into secession, not after he authorized a war that killed most of the teenage men on both sid. Lincoln is credited with being the consummate politician because a series of fawning drooling sycophantic authors in the last century cherry picked a few quips and called him a genius. Lincoln didn't keep the Union together, he failed to hold the Nation together. He is responsible for the incredible carnage of the Civil War.
Discombobulated,Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S. suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org
I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view. Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). Publishers Weekly: This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.
Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
In other words: The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
or illegal..it isn't mentioned in the constitution, is it?
The states formed the government, not the other way around.
..and when citizens decide to withdraw from this government again the supreme court won't have jurisdiction or power.
The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
Why is it such a detestable idea to you that people should be free to democratically withdraw and form their own government that suits them better?
Why are you against democracy and respecting the choice of the people even if you disagree with them?
You're obviously not a southerner, so what's it to you? We're all backward, inbred rednecks anyway, right?
If you can't get all parties concerned to agree to a formalized legal process then you have exactly nothing.
whitehall snow, you know nothing.
Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.
All the South had to do was
(1) Keep slavery in the old South
(2) Respect federal property
(3) Follow constitutional, electoral process
Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.
The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.
Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.
Rogue9 never offers source for his gratuitous assertions. He is simply a Pseudo intellectual with nothing beyond his simple indoctrination to add to the subject.You posted excerpts of newspaper editorials, Chuckles, editorials written by people far away from the action. That in no way refutes the actual secession documents.I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion? Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same. No one invaded Charleston.The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...
Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"
Okay, and? It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.
"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas. That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire..... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861
"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861
"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion. Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston...... North American Review (Boston October 1862)
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."So? The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North...... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860
"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861
"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "No one made the traitors open fire. Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861
"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.
"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale? They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not. They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
LMAO...Nice try but no one is fooled.
I give the actual quotes, date and publication by people actually involved in the situation...and your best response is "So?"..or outright denial of proven, established facts...
Those people's words aren't open to your revisionist reinterpretation. You have no standing to deny any of them or parse words or attempt semantic distortions. You refuse to address them honestly and instead try to use them as props and excuses to demean or diminish the truth.
I doubt any honest people who have read this were fooled or impressed by your misrepresentations and attempts to deceive.
Those words and articles are HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS of events...You, on the other hand, offer NOTHING other than "nuh uh"..or "they deserved it"..
I made my points and supported them.
It's clear that your only purpose here is to display your anti southern bias and prejudices....so this discussion is over due to gross, overt dishonesty on your part.
First, there was no invasion of Charleston. Major Anderson was garrisoning a federal fort under the undisputed ownership of the United States. Proof:
So you can get right out with that.South Carolinian law: The ceding of Fort Sumter to the federal government said: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.
Second, Colonel Baldwin's account of Lincoln asking what would become of his tariff. That is hearsay. There is no corroborating evidence, no account of Lincoln ever saying anything of the kind to anyone else, and not even any contemporary reference. The account was published in the Southern Historical Society Papers in 1876, at a time when that Society was busily attempting to whitewash the secessions after comprehensively losing public opinion on the issue of slavery. I can readily prove that as well if you wish.
Third, I stand by what I said about the reliability of British editorials. The British Empire greatly wanted to continue colonizing the Western Hemisphere, which the United States prevented them from doing; it was in their direct imperial interest for the Slave Power to win. Note that their tune changed after the Emancipation Proclamation; once the Union stood to eradicate slavery it became politically impossible for Britain to support the Confederacy.
Fourth, you posted short, unsourced excerpts from a bunch of Northern newspaper editorials claiming that the secessions were about this or that thing apart from slavery. Unfortunately for your case, that is a much lower order of evidence than the testimony of the people who did the deed. I already cited that extensively in the OP, but since you refuse to go back and read it, here we go:
There. They said it, black and white, no subtlety involved. The choice was between abolition or a dissolution of the Union. Not taxes or a dissolution of the Union, not tariffs or a dissolution of the Union, but abolition of slavery. I do not see what part of that is hard to grasp.Mississippi Secession Convention said:A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Fifth, finally and perhaps most pathetically, you attempted to blame Lincoln for the shelling of Fort Sumter. To quote the man himself, "That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and says 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you shall be a murderer!'" This is basic ethics, Skippy; you are responsible for what you do, not other people.
LMAO..good one..every single point I made...every single cited document are all incorrect and not valid...and you...LMAO..who cite not one single source....while making wild, unsupported proclamations, equivocations and reinterpretations believe you hold a special understanding of the situation...an even better understanding than the actual people involved at the time, in fact. LMFAO..not one single piece of supporting evidence...Comical.
Man..you're funny!
Another genius addition from The Yankee cheerleader, JAKESTARKEY. Jake, your boys have been defeated with the truth and facts at every turn. They are lightweights in this debate. You simply deny the facts that have been presented, the two idiots that you cheer on have offered nothing, they cite nothing, AND WE STILL AWAIT THEIR POSTING OF THE LAW, Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or Amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful or illegal. THEY HAVE LESS THAN 24 HOURS TO MEET THE DEADLINE. THEY CANNOT, THEREFORE THEY LOSE.Rogue 9 and paperview have it right.
Their opponents are bunch of mental fuck ups. Tis the way it is.
The Secession of the Southern States was a legal and lawful avenue taken. IF YOU HAVE PROOF OTHERWISE, POST IT OR GO AWAY. YOU CAME WITH NOTHING, AND YOU WILL LEAVE DEFEATED WITH NOTHING.The pasta dish rogatelli continues to roast itself - after only 120 times of being told there is a difference between secession and revolution, does the unlearned macaroni need to be tutored 100 more times to get it through its skull?
JAKESTARKEY, THE UNION WAS IN NO DANGER OF FALLING APART, LINCOLN DESTROYED THE UNION, BY DESTROYING THE FEDERAL SYSTEM WITHIN. THE UNION WOULD HAVE EXISTED WITHOUT THE SOUTHERN STATES, AS IT ONLY TAKES TWO TO BE UNITED IN A UNION. ARE YOU ADMITTING THAT THE SOUTHERN STATES WERE SUBSIDISING THE NORTHERN STATES, AND THAT THEY COULD NOT HAVE EXISTED WITHOUT OUR REVENUE AND PARTICIPATION?whitehall snow, you know nothing.
Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.
All the South had to do was
(1) Keep slavery in the old South
(2) Respect federal property
(3) Follow constitutional, electoral process
Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.
The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.
Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.
