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.
It's what they went to war for, bub -- One in three southern families owned slaves.
It was the lifeblood of their economy.
It's WHY they fought. Why they died.
Why they seceded.
Nothing you say will change that.
Do you know how old and tired that quote by the Lost Causer gets -- trotted out when their backs are against the wall ?
It shows how stupid the South was to secede -- and fire on Union ships, and seize forts and arsenals, long before Lincoln ever set foot into office.
"I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.It's what they went to war for, bub -- One in three southern families owned slaves.
It was the lifeblood of their economy.
It's WHY they fought. Why they died.
Why they seceded.
Nothing you say will change that.
how about what Lincoln said:
On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune that included the following passage: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
"I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.It's what they went to war for, bub -- One in three southern families owned slaves.
It was the lifeblood of their economy.
It's WHY they fought. Why they died.
Why they seceded.
Nothing you say will change that.
how about what Lincoln said:
On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune that included the following passage: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
And? So? Therefore?
No, it really didn't. You missed her point entirely, as usual; it was stupid because Lincoln was no threat to their institution unless they did the very thing that they did. To indulge in quoting Euripides, "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." (As in crazy. In case that's lost on you too.)Do you know how old and tired that quote by the Lost Causer gets -- trotted out when their backs are against the wall ?
It shows how stupid the South was to secede -- and fire on Union ships, and seize forts and arsenals, long before Lincoln ever set foot into office.
the American Revolution looked just as stupid but thats not the point, liberalism is.
No, it really didn't. You missed her point entirely, as usual; it was stupid because Lincoln was no threat to their institution unless they did the very thing that they did. To indulge in quoting Euripides, "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." (As in crazy. In case that's lost on you too.)Do you know how old and tired that quote by the Lost Causer gets -- trotted out when their backs are against the wall ?
It shows how stupid the South was to secede -- and fire on Union ships, and seize forts and arsenals, long before Lincoln ever set foot into office.
the American Revolution looked just as stupid but thats not the point, liberalism is.
So you're disagreeing with yourself now? If you're anti-tyranny, you would think opposing an aristocratic social order is the correct thing to do. I'm glad you agree with me.No, it really didn't. You missed her point entirely, as usual; it was stupid because Lincoln was no threat to their institution unless they did the very thing that they did. To indulge in quoting Euripides, "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." (As in crazy. In case that's lost on you too.)Do you know how old and tired that quote by the Lost Causer gets -- trotted out when their backs are against the wall ?
It shows how stupid the South was to secede -- and fire on Union ships, and seize forts and arsenals, long before Lincoln ever set foot into office.
the American Revolution looked just as stupid but thats not the point, liberalism is.
Lincoln was 100% a threat to their aristocratic lifestyle. He was 100% opposed to their power and the way it prevented the little guy from rising up. THey stole land from his father in the course of consolidating there ever growing plantations. That was where Lincoln's hatred of the slave power came from.
So you're disagreeing with yourself now? If you're anti-tyranny, you would think opposing an aristocratic social order is the correct thing to do. I'm glad you agree with me.
Wow. Your thinking is so fucked up. Overall. Geeze.So you're disagreeing with yourself now? If you're anti-tyranny, you would think opposing an aristocratic social order is the correct thing to do. I'm glad you agree with me.
yes it is correct to oppose, obviously, but not with a war that kills 800,000 many of whom had been slaves.
Do you understand now?
Yes, I do know what my subject is. The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up. As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?
and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?
I understand that war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The Slave Power had to go. If there was a side in the conflict representing tyranny, it was the South.So you're disagreeing with yourself now? If you're anti-tyranny, you would think opposing an aristocratic social order is the correct thing to do. I'm glad you agree with me.
yes it is correct to oppose, obviously, but not with a war that kills 800,000 many of whom had been slaves.
Do you understand now?
No, it really didn't. You missed her point entirely, as usual; it was stupid because Lincoln was no threat to their institution unless they did the very thing that they did. To indulge in quoting Euripides, "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." (As in crazy. In case that's lost on you too.)Do you know how old and tired that quote by the Lost Causer gets -- trotted out when their backs are against the wall ?
It shows how stupid the South was to secede -- and fire on Union ships, and seize forts and arsenals, long before Lincoln ever set foot into office.
the American Revolution looked just as stupid but thats not the point, liberalism is.
Lincoln was 100% a threat to their aristocratic lifestyle. He was 100% opposed to their power and the way it prevented the little guy from rising up. THey stole land from his father in the course of consolidating there ever growing plantations. That was where Lincoln's hatred of the slave power came from. IN many ways it was similar to todays liberals and their hatred or corporate America.
Do you uderstand now?
Rogue9,James, you never did answer the question.
The answer to that question is instructive, but I'm curious to see your opinion.If the Articles government was working so well, why was a convention called to alter it?
Also, to address this:
Charming. Tell me, did George Washington also submit to "the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC," whatever UCC is supposed to mean in this context? From his Last Will and Testament:One last thing...
Rogue9, You state that YOUR passport shows you as a U.S. citizen; this is because YOU submitted to the fictional jurisdiction established under UCC, I would not expect any ignorant such as you who has clearly shewn himself to have no understanding of his own U.S. CONstitution to understand how to obtain a passport wherein you are a flesh and blood American citizen. I have witnessed this having been accomplished by the Late Douglas McPherson, who had more intelligence in his little toe, than you have in your feeble brain.That isn't exactly new language, sir.George Washington said:I, George Washington of Mount Vernon, a citizen of the United States and lately President of the same, do make, ordain and declare this instrument, which is written with my own hand and every page thereof subscribed with my name, to be my last Will and Testament, revoking all others.
I apologize for letting this get so out of hand; I was occupied all day and into the evening on Wednesday and I'm only just now catching up with the several pages of posts that appeared in the interval.
There wasn't anything to submit to. Lincoln's government hadn't even done anything, up to and including taken office!The Slave Power had been wielding the federal government like a club for nearly eighty years. .
yes and then the Republicans took over, the South did not want to submit, much like our founders did not want to submit, and the war started. Do you understand?
Anyway, while I'm on the subject of Washington and his views on citizenship, I might as well go into it further. He had quite a bit to say about the nature of the Union, after all.
First, this letter to Reverend William Gordon.
It now rests with the Confederated Powers, by the line of conduct they mean to adopt, to make this Country great, happy, and respectable; or to sink it into littleness; worse perhaps, into Anarchy and Confusion; for certain I am, that unless adequate Powers are given to Congress for the general purposes of the Federal Union that we shall soon moulder into dust and become contemptable in the Eyes of Europe, if we are not made the sport of their Politicks; to suppose that the general concern of this Country can be directed by thirteen heads, or one head without competent powers, is a solecism, the bad effects of which every Man who has had the practical knowledge to judge from, that I have, is fully convinced of; tho' none perhaps has felt them in so forcible, and distressing a degree. The People at large, and at a distance from the theatre of Action, who only know that the Machine was kept in motion, and that they are at last arrived at the first object of their Wishes are satisfied with the event, without investigating the causes of the slow progress to it, or of the Expences which have accrued and which they now seem unwilling to pay; great part of which has arisen from that want of energy in the Federal Constitution which I am complaining of, and which I wish to see given to it by a Convention of the People, instead of hearing it remarked that as we have worked through an arduous Contest with the Powers Congress already have (but which, by the by, have been gradually diminishing) why should they be invested with more?
To say nothing of the invisible workings of Providence, which has conducted us through difficulties where no human foresight could point the way; it will appear evident to a close Examiner, that there has been a concatenation of causes to produce this Event; which in all probability at no time, or under any Circumstances, will combine again. We deceive ourselves therefore by this mode of reasoning, and what would be much worse, we may bring ruin upon ourselves by attempting to carry it into practice.
We are known by no other character among Nations than as the United States; Massachusetts or Virginia is no better defined, nor any more thought of by Foreign Powers than the County of Worcester in Massachusetts is by Virginia, or Glouster County in Virginia is by Massachusetts (respectable as they are); and yet these Counties, with as much propriety might oppose themselves to the Laws of the State in wch. they are, as an Individual State can oppose itself to the Federal Government, by which it is, or ought to be bound. Each of these Counties has, no doubt, its local polity and Interests. these should be attended to, and brought before their respective legislatures with all the force their importance merits; but when they come in contact with the general Interest of the State; when superior considerations preponderate in favor of the whole, their Voices should be heard no more; so should it be with individual States when compared to the Union. Otherwise I think it may properly be asked for what purpose do we farcically pretend to be United? Why do Congress spend Months together in deliberating upon, debating, and digesting plans, which are made as palatable, and as wholesome to the Constitution of this Country as the nature of things will admit of, when some States will pay no attention to them, and others regard them but partially; by which means all those evils which proceed from delay, are felt by the whole; while the compliant States are not only suffering by these neglects, but in many instances are injured most capitally by their own exertions; which are wasted for want of the United effort. A hundd. thousand men coming one after another cannot move a Ton weight; but the united strength of 50 would transport it with ease. so has it been with great part of the expence which has been incurred this War. In a Word, I think the blood and treasure which has been spent in it has been lavished to little purpose, unless we can be better Cemented; and that is not to be effected while so little attention is paid to the recommendations of the Sovereign Power.
To me it would seem not more absurd, to hear a traveller, who was setting out on a long journey, declare he would take no Money in his pocket to defray the Expences of it but rather depend upon chance and charity lest he should misapply it, than are the expressions of so much fear of the powers and means of Congress. For Heavens sake who are Congress? are they not the Creatures of the People, amenable to them for their Conduct, and dependant from day to day on their breath? Where then can be the danger of giving them such Powers as are adequate to the great ends of Government, and to all the general purposes of the Confederation (I repeat the word genl, because I am no advocate for their having to do with the particular policy of any State, further than it concerns the Union at large). What may be the consequences if they have not these Powers I am at no loss to guess; and deprecate the worst; for sure I am, we shall, in a little time, become as contemptable in the great Scale of Politicks as we now have it in our power to be respectable; and that, when the band of Union gets once broken, every thing ruinous to our future prospects is to be apprehended; the best that can come of it, in my humble opinion is, that we shall sink into obscurity, unless our Civil broils should keep us in remembrance and fill the page of history with the direful consequences of them.
I omit quote tags because at this point I suspect that certain people in the thread aren't actually opening them to read the contents. At any rate, he could hardly be more clear; the states have no more right to nullify or contravene the acts of the federal government than counties do to override their states (and in point of fact, state preemption of local laws on certain subjects has become very popular of late), and the federal government is, quote, "the Sovereign Power."
Or how about this 1787 letter to David Stuart, accompanying copies of the Federalist Papers and urging their distribution:
I have seen no publication yet that ought, in my judgment, to shake the proposed Constitution in the mind of an impartial and candid public. In fine, I have hardly seen one that is not addressed to the passions of the people, and obviously calculated to alarm their fears. Every attempt to amend the Constitution at this time is in my opinion idle and vain. If there are characters, who prefer disunion, or separate confederacies, to the general government, which is offered to them, their opposition may, for aught I know, proceed from principle; but as nothing, according to my conception of the matter, is more to be deprecated than a disunion of these distinct confederacies, as far as my voice can go it shall be offered in favor of the latter. That there are some writers, and others perhaps who may not have written, that wish to see this Union divided into several confederacies, is pretty evident. As an antidote to these opinions, and in order to investigate the ground of objections to the Constitution which is submitted, the Federalist, under the signature of PUBLIUS, is written. The numbers which have been published, I send you. If there is a printer in Richmond who is really well disposed to support the new Constitution, he would do well to give them a place in his paper. They are, I think I may venture to say, written by able men; and before they are finished will, or I am mistaken, place matters in a true point of light. Although I am acquainted with the writers, who have a hand in this work, I am not at liberty to mention names, nor would I have it known that they are sent by me to you for promulgation.
Again, pretty clear: The United States are exactly that.
Or how about this letter to John Jay in 1786:
Your sentiments, that our affairs are drawing rapidly to a crisis, accord with my own. What the event will be, is also beyond the reach of my foresight. We have errors to correct; we have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power. I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged some where a power, which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the State Governments extends over the several States.
To be fearful of investing Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness. Could Congress exert them for the detriment of the public, without injuring themselves in an equal or greater proportion? Are not their interests inseparably connected with those of their constituents? By the rotation of appointment, must they not mingle frequently with the mass of Citizens? Is it not rather to be apprehended, if they were possessed of the powers before described, that the individual members would be induced to use them, on many occasions, very timidly and inefficaciously for fear of losing their popularity and future election? We must take human nature as we find it: perfection falls not to the share of mortals. Many are of opinion that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition, in applications to the States, when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience. Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility where thirteen sovereign independent disunited States are in the habit of discussing and refusing compliance with them at their option. Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word throughout the land. If you tell the Legislatures they have violated the Treaty of Peace, and invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy, they will laugh in your face. What then is to be done? Things cannot go on in the same train forever. It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people, being disgusted with the circumstances, will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever. We are apt to run from one extreme into another. To anticipate and prevent disastrous contingencies, would be the part of wisdom and patriotism.
What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing. I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of Government without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single step. But how irrevocable and tremendous! what a triumph for our enemies to verify their predictions! what a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious! Would to God that wise measures may be taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to apprehend.
The "Treaty of Peace" he referred to is the 1783 Treaty of Paris which ended the Revolutionary War; though the terms of the treaty forbid retaliation against British loyalists and demand honoring of debts on both sides, several states, notably Virginia, confiscated property from them as a matter of course and passed laws forbidding the payment of British debts. The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
Thus was the concern of the Nationalists such as George Washington .....There wasn't anything to submit to. Lincoln's government hadn't even done anything, up to and including taken office!The Slave Power had been wielding the federal government like a club for nearly eighty years. .
yes and then the Republicans took over, the South did not want to submit, much like our founders did not want to submit, and the war started. Do you understand?
Anyway, while I'm on the subject of Washington and his views on citizenship, I might as well go into it further. He had quite a bit to say about the nature of the Union, after all.
First, this letter to Reverend William Gordon.
It now rests with the Confederated Powers, by the line of conduct they mean to adopt, to make this Country great, happy, and respectable; or to sink it into littleness; worse perhaps, into Anarchy and Confusion; for certain I am, that unless adequate Powers are given to Congress for the general purposes of the Federal Union that we shall soon moulder into dust and become contemptable in the Eyes of Europe, if we are not made the sport of their Politicks; to suppose that the general concern of this Country can be directed by thirteen heads, or one head without competent powers, is a solecism, the bad effects of which every Man who has had the practical knowledge to judge from, that I have, is fully convinced of; tho' none perhaps has felt them in so forcible, and distressing a degree. The People at large, and at a distance from the theatre of Action, who only know that the Machine was kept in motion, and that they are at last arrived at the first object of their Wishes are satisfied with the event, without investigating the causes of the slow progress to it, or of the Expences which have accrued and which they now seem unwilling to pay; great part of which has arisen from that want of energy in the Federal Constitution which I am complaining of, and which I wish to see given to it by a Convention of the People, instead of hearing it remarked that as we have worked through an arduous Contest with the Powers Congress already have (but which, by the by, have been gradually diminishing) why should they be invested with more?
To say nothing of the invisible workings of Providence, which has conducted us through difficulties where no human foresight could point the way; it will appear evident to a close Examiner, that there has been a concatenation of causes to produce this Event; which in all probability at no time, or under any Circumstances, will combine again. We deceive ourselves therefore by this mode of reasoning, and what would be much worse, we may bring ruin upon ourselves by attempting to carry it into practice.
We are known by no other character among Nations than as the United States; Massachusetts or Virginia is no better defined, nor any more thought of by Foreign Powers than the County of Worcester in Massachusetts is by Virginia, or Glouster County in Virginia is by Massachusetts (respectable as they are); and yet these Counties, with as much propriety might oppose themselves to the Laws of the State in wch. they are, as an Individual State can oppose itself to the Federal Government, by which it is, or ought to be bound. Each of these Counties has, no doubt, its local polity and Interests. these should be attended to, and brought before their respective legislatures with all the force their importance merits; but when they come in contact with the general Interest of the State; when superior considerations preponderate in favor of the whole, their Voices should be heard no more; so should it be with individual States when compared to the Union. Otherwise I think it may properly be asked for what purpose do we farcically pretend to be United? Why do Congress spend Months together in deliberating upon, debating, and digesting plans, which are made as palatable, and as wholesome to the Constitution of this Country as the nature of things will admit of, when some States will pay no attention to them, and others regard them but partially; by which means all those evils which proceed from delay, are felt by the whole; while the compliant States are not only suffering by these neglects, but in many instances are injured most capitally by their own exertions; which are wasted for want of the United effort. A hundd. thousand men coming one after another cannot move a Ton weight; but the united strength of 50 would transport it with ease. so has it been with great part of the expence which has been incurred this War. In a Word, I think the blood and treasure which has been spent in it has been lavished to little purpose, unless we can be better Cemented; and that is not to be effected while so little attention is paid to the recommendations of the Sovereign Power.
To me it would seem not more absurd, to hear a traveller, who was setting out on a long journey, declare he would take no Money in his pocket to defray the Expences of it but rather depend upon chance and charity lest he should misapply it, than are the expressions of so much fear of the powers and means of Congress. For Heavens sake who are Congress? are they not the Creatures of the People, amenable to them for their Conduct, and dependant from day to day on their breath? Where then can be the danger of giving them such Powers as are adequate to the great ends of Government, and to all the general purposes of the Confederation (I repeat the word genl, because I am no advocate for their having to do with the particular policy of any State, further than it concerns the Union at large). What may be the consequences if they have not these Powers I am at no loss to guess; and deprecate the worst; for sure I am, we shall, in a little time, become as contemptable in the great Scale of Politicks as we now have it in our power to be respectable; and that, when the band of Union gets once broken, every thing ruinous to our future prospects is to be apprehended; the best that can come of it, in my humble opinion is, that we shall sink into obscurity, unless our Civil broils should keep us in remembrance and fill the page of history with the direful consequences of them.
I omit quote tags because at this point I suspect that certain people in the thread aren't actually opening them to read the contents. At any rate, he could hardly be more clear; the states have no more right to nullify or contravene the acts of the federal government than counties do to override their states (and in point of fact, state preemption of local laws on certain subjects has become very popular of late), and the federal government is, quote, "the Sovereign Power."
Or how about this 1787 letter to David Stuart, accompanying copies of the Federalist Papers and urging their distribution:
I have seen no publication yet that ought, in my judgment, to shake the proposed Constitution in the mind of an impartial and candid public. In fine, I have hardly seen one that is not addressed to the passions of the people, and obviously calculated to alarm their fears. Every attempt to amend the Constitution at this time is in my opinion idle and vain. If there are characters, who prefer disunion, or separate confederacies, to the general government, which is offered to them, their opposition may, for aught I know, proceed from principle; but as nothing, according to my conception of the matter, is more to be deprecated than a disunion of these distinct confederacies, as far as my voice can go it shall be offered in favor of the latter. That there are some writers, and others perhaps who may not have written, that wish to see this Union divided into several confederacies, is pretty evident. As an antidote to these opinions, and in order to investigate the ground of objections to the Constitution which is submitted, the Federalist, under the signature of PUBLIUS, is written. The numbers which have been published, I send you. If there is a printer in Richmond who is really well disposed to support the new Constitution, he would do well to give them a place in his paper. They are, I think I may venture to say, written by able men; and before they are finished will, or I am mistaken, place matters in a true point of light. Although I am acquainted with the writers, who have a hand in this work, I am not at liberty to mention names, nor would I have it known that they are sent by me to you for promulgation.
Again, pretty clear: The United States are exactly that.
Or how about this letter to John Jay in 1786:
Your sentiments, that our affairs are drawing rapidly to a crisis, accord with my own. What the event will be, is also beyond the reach of my foresight. We have errors to correct; we have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power. I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged some where a power, which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the State Governments extends over the several States.
To be fearful of investing Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness. Could Congress exert them for the detriment of the public, without injuring themselves in an equal or greater proportion? Are not their interests inseparably connected with those of their constituents? By the rotation of appointment, must they not mingle frequently with the mass of Citizens? Is it not rather to be apprehended, if they were possessed of the powers before described, that the individual members would be induced to use them, on many occasions, very timidly and inefficaciously for fear of losing their popularity and future election? We must take human nature as we find it: perfection falls not to the share of mortals. Many are of opinion that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition, in applications to the States, when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience. Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility where thirteen sovereign independent disunited States are in the habit of discussing and refusing compliance with them at their option. Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word throughout the land. If you tell the Legislatures they have violated the Treaty of Peace, and invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy, they will laugh in your face. What then is to be done? Things cannot go on in the same train forever. It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people, being disgusted with the circumstances, will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever. We are apt to run from one extreme into another. To anticipate and prevent disastrous contingencies, would be the part of wisdom and patriotism.
What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing. I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of Government without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single step. But how irrevocable and tremendous! what a triumph for our enemies to verify their predictions! what a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious! Would to God that wise measures may be taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to apprehend.
The "Treaty of Peace" he referred to is the 1783 Treaty of Paris which ended the Revolutionary War; though the terms of the treaty forbid retaliation against British loyalists and demand honoring of debts on both sides, several states, notably Virginia, confiscated property from them as a matter of course and passed laws forbidding the payment of British debts. The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
What Washington may have intended, differs from what the States had enumerated in the Constitution before they would ratify it, that being the tenth amendment and the protection of their SOVEREIGN POWERS, one of which was to exit the union if they no longer felt it served their best interest.Yes, I do know what my subject is. The point is to establish that the men who wrote the Constitution (George Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention the year after writing that) did not intend for the Union to be broken up. As you may or may not have noticed, the subject of the thread kind of got changed back on page 3.The inability of the Articles Congress to enforce the terms of the treaty was grounds for a lot of foreign tension in the years immediately after the war.
do you have any idea what your subject is?? This is supposed to be about Civil War causes. Do you have any idea what caused the civil war?
Oh paperview hop down of your moral stump!You could live if you were one of the four million slaves living in the total population of the 9 million south? Nearly half the population?Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live with the Confederation of the south.
For how long?
Some states were majority slave population. It wasn't dying out.
The entire black race -- including free blacks -- were not even citizens when the Civil War started, and you "could live with that?"
Again paperview "fuck" the Native American Indian, rape exterminate (KILL THEM ALL) right? Again hop down of your moral stump, YOU DONT BELONG THERE!!!!!Yeah, fuck the 4 million who were property - treated as property to be bought as sold as farm animals, eh?Here is a big WHAT IF: What if The Union had let the south secede from the Union? How many lives would that have spared? And, slavery would have ended in 20 or 30 years because morally it was wrong, but because of other causes, cheap labor and machines do it better. I could live with the Confederation of the south.
probably about 800,000 lives would have been spared at a time when population was only 30 million as I recall. Not to mention blacks would have been better off too when you consider how many died from disease and starvation after war and how war hardened attitudes against them.
Put on auction blocks and sold and had their families torn apart, raped by their slavemasters, who the fuck cared for them anyhow, eh?
