War Of Northern Aggression

[Flopper]

Here is my take on the civil war.

No matter what anyone says it was over the institution of slavery. It can be wrapped in state's rights but it was the right to hold slaves and expand slavery into the new territories that was the reason for the war.

Evidence is that when the abolitionist Lincoln was elected the south left the Union. They declared themselves another country. Slavery was well established in this new country's founding ideals.

Then this new country attacks the Union without provocation thus starting a shooting war that did not have to happen.

If arrogance and bravado wins wars then the south would have one. Unfortunately they lacked the manpower and the ability to wage a protracted war. When Lee lost the war for them at Gettysburg the south was finished.

So just like many nations before it the south lost and their territories take over by the victory. There is always a price for waging war.

The South was lucky and a benevolent Lincoln made sure they were welcomed back into the Union without much of a penalty that they did not already suffer. That is before a back shooting coward lost causer ended the life of the ONE man who would have assured that the south would be treated fairly. What happened to the south can only be blamed on themselves.

I agree.

After Lincoln's election, South Carolina seceded in Jan 1861 and other states followed South Carolina's lead.

Buchanan, who was Lincoln's predecessor refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states, southern state troops seized them. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops repulsed a supply ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort. The ship was forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.

In April 1861, when President Lincoln planned to send supplies to Fort Sumter, he alerted the state in advance, in an attempt to avoid hostilities. South Carolina, however, feared a trick; the union commander of the fort, Robert Anderson, was asked to surrender immediately. Anderson offered to surrender, but only after he had exhausted his supplies. His offer was rejected, and on April 12, the Civil War began with shots fired on the fort. Fort Sumter eventually was surrendered to South Carolina.

 

[Steven_R]

Something I think that tends to get left out was that Lincoln was not acting unilaterally. The Northern states did not think the Southern ones could just leave. Congress authorized the war, funded the war, established the draft and taxes to pay for the war, and pushed for the war. Had Lincoln just said he wasn't going to keep the Union together by hook or by crook, he probably would have been removed from office.

 

[Avatar4321]

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

Most historians agree that the start of the Civil War can be traced to April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., when Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.

Most historians are Lincoln sycophants on the government payroll. They get paid to say that the federal government is justified in invading sovereign states.

The Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to put down rebellions

 

[Avatar4321]

Most historians are Lincoln sycophants on the government payroll. They get paid to say that the federal government is justified in invading sovereign states.

There is no provision for individual States to secede from the union. The people of the South have been paying for the mistake made by the Southern Elite ever since. Hell their way of life might have been preserved until the 20th century if they hadn't been so stupid.

Is there a provision in the constitution preventing states from seceding? Doesn't the constitution enumerate the powers given to the federal government with all other powers going to the states and the people?

I'm not supporting slavery, so don't go there. But why shouldn't a state have a right to secede if a super majority of its citizens vote to do so.

Because when a state joins the union it's entering into a social covenant. It's an agreement between the States. That's what our Union is. One cannot unilaterally withdrawal from a covenant. Secession would only be possible if all the states agreed to allow the petitioning State to secede. You can't unilaterally enter the covenant either. Parties have to agree with the admission.

It's just like any other contractual obligation. A person cannot unilaterally withdrawal from the contract without an escape clause. Otherwise, you need all parties to agree to the nullification of the agreement.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is no provision for individual States to secede from the union. The people of the South have been paying for the mistake made by the Southern Elite ever since. Hell their way of life might have been preserved until the 20th century if they hadn't been so stupid.

Is there a provision in the constitution preventing states from seceding? Doesn't the constitution enumerate the powers given to the federal government with all other powers going to the states and the people?

I'm not supporting slavery, so don't go there. But why shouldn't a state have a right to secede if a super majority of its citizens vote to do so.

I think it would take an amendment to allow an individual State(s) to leave the Union, imo.

I dont think amendment would be necessary. Just approval from the other states.

 

[hjmick]

Must be a slow news day...

No, OP author is just a dullard...

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually, you are correct. You must overlook my ignorance of some of these things. High School was, for me, one big party and I didn't learn much. Most of the history I know, is what I learned when I was going to college to be a nurse, and from the internet. It was through the internet that I came to read W E B Dubois, an intellectual black who wrote about the horrors of former slaves being emancipated, not knowing how to care for themselves, and their suffering and dying because Lincoln's government did nothing to help them and in some cases sent them back to the plantations.

Forgive me, but how was Lincolns government supposed to do anything for them? Especially when he was dead by the time most of them were freed.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is no provision for individual States to secede from the union. The people of the South have been paying for the mistake made by the Southern Elite ever since. Hell their way of life might have been preserved until the 20th century if they hadn't been so stupid.

Is there a provision in the constitution preventing states from seceding? Doesn't the constitution enumerate the powers given to the federal government with all other powers going to the states and the people?

I'm not supporting slavery, so don't go there. But why shouldn't a state have a right to secede if a super majority of its citizens vote to do so.

It would have been a waste of ink, to address secession in the constitution. It doesn't matter whether a state has the right to succeed or not, attempting to settle the issues required for secession would end in civil war. Even if Congress did agree to a peaceful secession, it would open up a whole can of worms. Conservatives claim that we'll all be better off without "BIG GOVERNMENT", but what would happen to all of the federal property in the seceding states?

The national parks, monuments, historic sites, federal buildings, post offices, military installations, prisons, veterans hospitals, and other property comprises millions of acres of prime real estate, as well as buildings and furnishings. Do you think the federal government would just let that property go? Shouldn't the states have to pay the U.S. government for it? Where would they get that much money?

The states would lose all of their federal funds for welfare, food assistance, housing, utilities, education, and other public benefits programs. College loans and grants, small business aid, farm subsidies, disaster assistance, FHA and VA mortgages, food and drug inspection, FDIC insurance on consumers' bank deposits, first responder grants, conservation services, interstate highways, environmental protections, civil and workers' rights, and all of the other federal benefits would vanish immediately.

The bottom line is statehood is a one way street. The South learned that the hard way, 150 years ago.

Quite frankly, the Federal Government shouldn't own all that property to begin with

 

[BobPlumb]

There is no provision for individual States to secede from the union. The people of the South have been paying for the mistake made by the Southern Elite ever since. Hell their way of life might have been preserved until the 20th century if they hadn't been so stupid.

Is there a provision in the constitution preventing states from seceding? Doesn't the constitution enumerate the powers given to the federal government with all other powers going to the states and the people?

I'm not supporting slavery, so don't go there. But why shouldn't a state have a right to secede if a super majority of its citizens vote to do so.

First of all, In do not advocate
Because when a state joins the union it's entering into a social covenant. It's an agreement between the States. That's what our Union is. One cannot unilaterally withdrawal from a covenant. Secession would only be possible if all the states agreed to allow the petitioning State to secede. You can't unilaterally enter the covenant either. Parties have to agree with the admission.

It's just like any other contractual obligation. A person cannot unilaterally withdrawal from the contract without an escape clause. Otherwise, you need all parties to agree to the nullification of the agreement.

One can unilaterally withdraw from a covenant if the covenant has already been broken.

 

[Avatar4321]

If the South wanted a war of aggression against the North, Davis would've sent Confederate troops into Washington DC to hang Abraham Lincoln from a convenient lamp post after routing the Union army at Manassas. The Union capitol lay unprotected and ripe for the taking 20 miles from the Confederacy.

The states comprising the Confederacy wanted to leave the union peacefully.

There is no doubt about it.

As for your redneck comment, I will consider the source and refrain from commenting on it.

Who shot first? Simple.

Simple logic for simple minds.

It's the simple explanations that are usually the true ones.

 

[Avatar4321]

One can unilaterally withdraw from a covenant if the covenant has already been broken.

Not when you are the one who broke it

 

[MHunterB]

"One can unilaterally withdraw from a covenant if the covenant has already been broken. "

And it states that *where* in the American Constitution?

 

[bripat9643]

Who shot first? Simple.

Simple logic for simple minds.

It's the simple explanations that are usually the true ones.

Propaganda consists entirely of simple explanations: simple and usually wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

One can unilaterally withdraw from a covenant if the covenant has already been broken.

Not when you are the one who broke it

The constitution isn't a "covenant." There's nothing sacred about it. It's a contract, and you can always break a contract.

 

[bripat9643]

Is there a provision in the constitution preventing states from seceding? Doesn't the constitution enumerate the powers given to the federal government with all other powers going to the states and the people?

I'm not supporting slavery, so don't go there. But why shouldn't a state have a right to secede if a super majority of its citizens vote to do so.

I think it would take an amendment to allow an individual State(s) to leave the Union, imo.

I dont think amendment would be necessary. Just approval from the other states.

Why should a state need permission to leave? Did you require permission to leave home?

 

[National Socialist]

CSA is Occupied territory to this day.