Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Slavery's Impact on the Cotton States Secession

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Massena View Post


    I disagree, treason was sucesfull but as usual, it did not go by treason.



    Treason

    Article 3 section 3 of the constitution says

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    This is what Abraham Lincoln did in the American civil war, he waged war against the southern states.

    “To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised... a complying state at war with a non complying state. Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another? Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself- a government that can exists only by the sword”.
    -Alexander Hamilton Northern federalist

    “Before the war a union a collection of states... after the war we began to speak of a nation”
    -Ken Burns



    But southerns would also say the south was not leaving the original American republic, but establishing it. That is why before the war the south often thought the north should succeed.

    "All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."
    Gen. Robert E. Lee Quoted in The enduring Relevance of Robert E Lee



    Also being called a traitor is not automatically a bad thing, our nations greatest heroes IMO were traitors. The declaration of Independence was a secession document of sovereign states choosing separation from England's tyrannical government. From Great Britans point of view, they were the loyalist and Americans the traitors. The difference is the north won the war. Had America lost its war for independence, they would have taught the founders as traitors and rebels in textbooks in America. During the revolution “loyalist” like Benedict Arnold were the traitors. John Brown is celebrated in the north yet he formed his own constitution, left the union and created a nation “the republic of liberated slaves”


    “If the declaration justified the secession of 3 million colonists in 1776 then why did it not justify the secession of 5 million southerns from the union in 1861”
    Horce Greeley


    “Rebellion if successful, is sacred, if not, is treason”
    Proverb

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
      It appears to me that we may call those who entered the Insurrection of 1861: State Patriots. Their primary allegiance is to their State, with only secondary allegiance to the Federal Republic, if at all for some. They see the Union as a "compact of states" which banned together for a handful of mutual interest reasons. Somewhat like anarchists see only compacts of associations of interested groups as constitutional; and the outside organized government they would see as potentially oppressive and unworthy. The State Patriots believe their State may simply withdraw from the Compact upon any feelings of threats or abuse heaped upon their offended State. See the Yancey statement above cited and that is why he saw no Federal violent response was lawful; because these fire-eaters convinced themselves it was their States right to simple secede from the Compact. There is no political procedure to file an application to secede/withdraw from the Union because once in it there is no leaving it. A State can not leave it because the ruling power brokers of that State feel threaten by future developments or future changes in interpretations of the Constitution in its amendment process. The States can only collectively revolt against the Federal Republic if the said Republic had become despotic and massively oppressive with disdain for the Constitution and rule of law. Those conditions did not exist in 1861 to justify an Insurrection of the Deep Southern States. Fear is not justification.

      So Yancy was in agreement with the founders of our union and the writers of the declaration and the creators of the Constitution. If you understood the pre civil war union [not your fault we are not taught it] than you would realize the federal did not have to do a thing wrong to leave the compact. But even so that was not the case, the republicans disregarded the constitution and union and replaced it with a democracy and centralized nation see post 69-70 that are aimed at you.Also

      https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...eave-the-union
      https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...eave-the-union
      https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...ates-secession



      Secession

      “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, a 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 territory 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.”
      -Abraham Lincoln The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States House of Representatives 1848


      “The tree of liberty must refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
      -Thomas Jefferson

      “The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.-the one for liberty in the union of the States, the other for liberty in the independence of the States.”
      -John B Gordon Confederate General Reminiscences of the Civil War



      The right to self govern is maybe the most fundamental American right there is. It is what led to the revolution. America prior to 1860 maintained a confederation of sovereign states. These states were self governing and independent. The right to succession has been a fundamental right of sovereign states in American history. It has been more common of northern states in America prior to 1860, to discuss or threatened succession. Lincoln turned history on its head and declared the nation created the states and states had no right to leave the union. He also declared the entire people [not the states simple democracy] created the union.

      “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” -Declaration of Independence

      The declaration of Independence says “These colonies are, and ought to be free and independent States.” The deceleration is itself a succession document. When the revolution ended the king of England made a peace treaty with each and every state, not with one American nation. Under the articles of confederation article 1 section 2. “Each state retains its sovereignty freedom and Independence.” This is at odds with Lincolns view. Madison said “The truth is, that the great principle of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation.” but even so, some will say the peoples of the states gave up sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution.

      "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and
      the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right. -Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America


      The first draft of the preamble to the constitution read “we the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode island etc.. when they realized not all states might adopt it, they left out the states to ratify as they chose to. The constitution was than ratified by the states, not the American people.

      The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
      - ARTICEL 7 U.S Constitution

      During the Virginia ratification Patrick Henry [anti federalist] warned “we the people” instead of “we the states” would lead to a consolidated national government. Federalist Governor Edmund Randolf [and later federalist Madison and Pendelton] assured him “we the people was to be understood as “we the people of each ratifying state.” and saw his objection as trivial since it would be assumed the people of the states were those referred to.

      “It will be a federal and not a national act... the act of the people, as forming so many independent states, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is the result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the union, nor from the majority of states.”
      -James Madison


      John Randolph of Roanoke said in a speech in congress in 1823 “gentlemen may say what they please of the preamble of the Constitution, but this Constitution is not the work of the amalgamated population of then existing confederacy, but the offspring of the states.” The self governing sovereign people of the individual states appointed representative from each state to ratify the constitution it was not a majority vote nor the Philadelphia convention that ratified the Constitution.

      “We thew people does not constitute a people separate from the states, for the same reason that the peoples of the representative states do not exist independent of the national community.”
      --Marshall L Derosa the Confederate Constitution of 1861 University of Missouri Press 1991



      “The power to coerce a State into obedience to the federal authority, was distinctly proposed in the convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, to be a part of the Constitution, and it was as distincly rejected. Such a power was totally inconsistent with the whole theory of the Constitution, which was — that the Constitution was a compact between the States.”
      -Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861



      The states existed prior to and created the constitution out of their own free will. In federalist #39 James Madison “The father of the constitution” said the constitution was ratified by the people “Not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent states to which they respectively belong” “states were considered a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only bound by its own voluntary act.” Virginia, New York and Rhode Island reserved the right to succeed from the union before ratifying the constitution.

      “The laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.”
      -New York’s ratifying convention


      They also declared the right for other states, the others assumed this was the case. In the constitution “united states” is always in plural, not the way we use it today as to refer to one nation. When the constitution was formed, the states had to seceded from the articles of confederation to do so. Federally founded West Point taught the right to secession in its textbook “a view of the constitution of the united states of america by William Rawle.”

      "It depends on the state itself...weather it will continue a member of the union. To deny this right would be inconstant with the principles on witch all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people are in all cases a right to determined how they will be governed...the states then may wholly withdraw from the union."

      The constitution nowhere outlaws secession. The constitution established where the federal government has been delegated authority. The rest is reserved to the states. Secession than is a state issue. Nothing is authorized to the states in the constitution [secession or otherwise] since the purpose of the constitution is federal powers.

      “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”
      -10th amendment U.S Constitution


      Thomas Jefferson

      “Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself...each party has equal right to judge for itself”
      -Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson


      “Sever ourselves from the union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness”
      -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1799


      “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”
      –Letter from President Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestly, Jan. 29, 1804



      Jefferson predicted the western states would form a confederacy in 17 86 after the jay-Gardoquit treaty. He said “the moment they resolve to do this the point is settled” “Forced connection is neither our interest nor within our power.” Jefferson wished to “confederate with those alone witch are for peace and agriculture opposed to unlimited commerce and war [federalists]

      Hartford convention

      At the convention the New England states debated whether they should leave the union. No one questioned the legality, simply if it should be done. In 1801 Thomas Jefferson as president said “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed.” Jefferson said alittel rebellion is “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” When as president the New England federalist were considering succession Jefferson said “If any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation...let us separate”

      Other Founders

      “But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the centre”
      -John Quincy Adams Northern federalist 1839


      Northern federalist Daniel Webster said in 1851 that if the north would not comply with the fugitive slave law, “The south would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side” There was talk of civil war in 1800 but Jefferson won election, had he not, we might have split long before.

      “The thirteen states are thirteen sovereign bodies”
      -Oliver Ellsworth

      “The states are nations”
      -Daniel Webster Commentaries on the Constitution

      “If the union was formed by the accession of states then the union may be dissolved by the secession of states”
      -Daniel Webster U.S senate Feb 15 1833

      “The attributes of sovereignty are now enjoyed by every state in the union”
      -Alexander Hamilton

      “The first thing I have at heart is American liberty, the second thing is American union
      -Patrick Henry

      “The Union, next to our liberties most dear.”
      -John C. Calhoun

      “Had Buchanan in 1860 sent armed forces to prevent the nullification of the fugitive slave law, as Andrew Jackson thretned to do so in 1833, there would have been a secession of fifteen northern states instead of thirteen southern states. Had the democrats won in 1860 the northern states would have been the seceding states not the southern.”
      -George Lunt of Massachusetts Origin of the Late war

      “It is in the power of the states to extinguish this government at a blow”
      -John Randolph of Roanoke 1823



      By 1860 clearly the southern states saw secession as legal but so did most in the north and many leading newspapers. West Virginia during the civil war seceded from the confederacy and the state of Virginia. f

      “the leading and most influncial papers of the union believe that any state of the union has a right to secede”
      -Davenport Iowa Democrat and news 11/17/60

      “opposing secession changes the nature of government “from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism were one part of the people are slaves”
      - New York Journal of commerce 1/12/61


      “The great principles embodied by Jefferson in the declaration is... that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” Therefore if the southern states wish to secede, “they have a clear right to do so”
      -New York tribune 2/5/61


      Secession is “the very germ of liberty...the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state”
      -Kenosha Wisconsin Democrat 1/11/61



      If for any cause the Government...should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
      What then is the South to do? Suffer the compact which brought them into the Union to be violated with impunity, and without means of redress; submit to incursions into their territory and trespass upon their property by northern abolitionists?...Who expects, who desires the South to submit to all this?
      -Dubuque Iowa Herald 1860




      Treason

      Article 3 section 3 of the constitution says

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

      This is what Abraham Lincoln did in the American civil war, he waged war against the southern states.

      “To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised... a complying state at war with a non complying state. Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another? Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself- a government that can exists only by the sword”.
      -Alexander Hamilton Northern federalist

      “Before the war a union a collection of states... after the war we began to speak of a nation”
      -Ken Burns



      But southerns would also say the south was not leaving the original American republic, but establishing it. That is why before the war the south often thought the north should succeed.

      "All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."
      Gen. Robert E. Lee Quoted in The enduring Relevance of Robert E Lee



      Also being called a traitor is not automatically a bad thing, our nations greatest heroes IMO were traitors. The declaration of Independence was a secession document of sovereign states choosing separation from England's tyrannical government. From Great Britans point of view, they were the loyalist and Americans the traitors. The difference is the north won the war. Had America lost its war for independence, they would have taught the founders as traitors and rebels in textbooks in America. During the revolution “loyalist” like Benedict Arnold were the traitors. John Brown is celebrated in the north yet he formed his own constitution, left the union and created a nation “the republic of liberated slaves”


      “If the declaration justified the secession of 3 million colonists in 1776 then why did it not justify the secession of 5 million southerns from the union in 1861”
      Horce Greeley


      “Rebellion if successful, is sacred, if not, is treason”
      Proverb

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Sic Semper Tyran View Post

        sorry for delay i was banned.
        We've all been in that boat once or twice . . . .


        Originally posted by Sic Semper Tyran View Post
        I was referring to the fact that before the civil war the Constitution was viewed as delegated powers by the states to the federal and it contained what the federal could and could not do. So it did not have any authority to claim secession was legal, that was reserved to each state to decide.
        Actually, the Constitution, as originally ratified or since amended, does not mention secession one way or the other. It stands to reason, however, that if secession were a constitutionally viable option, then such would be effected through a process similar to that in which a prospective state were granted admittance into the Union, ie through application to the US Congress. The question here is, at any time, did any of the Southern states submit a motion to Congress requesting the reversal of their previous admittance to the Union? To the best of my knowledge, between Nov 1860 and Apr 1861, no Southern Congressman submitted a motion, either to a specific committee or to either chamber, requesting a reversal of previously granted statehood. It would be analogous to a husband saying to his wife "I divorce you" once, and without benefit of the wife's input, the divorce is effected straight away. Tempting though it may be, you just can't kick your wife to the curb. For any new state seeking admittance to the Union, both the Union and the prospective state had to come to certain accommodations, make certain concessions, in order to admit the new state. That being the case, secession -- or on the opposite end of the spectrum, expulsion -- can not legally nor logically be effected without all parties in involved at least being heard in public debate. The Southern states were granted statehood on such a basis, with benefits and obligations imposed on all parties, in the effort "to create a more perfect Union." Therefore the reverse must also be true: that in order to improve one state's standing via secession, then all the states and the Federal Gov't must also be heard -- and the place for that hearing is in the US Congress.

        So I'll ask again, why didn't the Southern states apply for secession via the very institution through which they applied for membership in the Union in the first place?
        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

        Comment


        • #94
          You are unwilling to look at the Constitution and the united states union from antebellum america 1861. Instead you are taking the post war republican national centralized nation view of out "nation" "america." Thus you will never come to a just conclusion.



          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

          We've all been in that boat once or twice . . . .
          Lol.



          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
          Actually, the Constitution, as originally ratified or since amended, does not mention secession one way or the other.
          I agree.


          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
          10th amendment


          See how we understand the Constitution was radically changed by the civil war. From the founders till Lincoln, the Constitution was delegated powers in certain specific areas. The rest was to the states, so secession was left to the states and an unailibel right before the civil war. I have posted more than enough on this so I wont once more here. Post 69-70 to you should show this is so. So as simple as I can...


          “For the Constitution of the union....can never assume any powers, that is not expressly granted by that instrument, not exercise a power, in any manner than is there prescribed. This is indeed, a short, clear, and concise exposition of the principles of a limited government, founded upon a compact between sovereign and independent states.”
          -St George Tucker 1803



          “The dominate view of the federal government. as a limited, delegated agent of the sovereign people of the several states, and not the judge of the extant of its own powers, was buried by the outcome of the civil war”
          -Clyde Wilson From Union to Empire



          The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.”
          -James Madison Federalist Papers #45



          We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected,…in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that 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; and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them and at their will: that, therefore, no right, of any denomination, can be canceled, abridged, restrained or modified. In such a system “rights” are given by government— and what a master gives to his slaves, at the master‟s discretion, can be taken away. The ultimate reality is that in any system in which the central government is the sole arbiter of rights, the people are in fact mere subjects whose purpose is to hear and obey .”
          -Virginia‟s ratification



          “no legislative act, therefore contrary to the constitution, can be valid”
          -Alexander Hamilton federalist #78


          “Congress cannot assume any other powers than those expressly given them. Powers of congress are all defined and clearly laid down. So for they may go, but no further”
          -Samuel Johnston North Carolina convention


          “Every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the united states of America, or or of the government thereof remains to the people of the several states, or to the representatives state governments”
          -New York ratification convention



          “In saving the union, I have destroyed the Republic.”
          -Abraham Lincoln


          “Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."
          -Shelby Foote author of “The Civil War: A Narrative.”


          The war “Destroyed voluntary union of the founders and made all Americans servants rather than masters of their own government... transformed the American government from a constitutional republic to a consolidated empire”
          -Thomas Dilorenzo author of The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked


          “The civil war called forth a new constitutional order...the principles of this legal regime are so radically different from our original constitution drafted in 1787, that they deserve to be reorganized as a second American constitution”
          -George R Fletcher Columbia University Law Professor


          "Abraham Lincoln personified every trait that opposed to the republic founders under the Constitution of 1787."
          -Jerry Brewer Dismantling the Republic 2017


          “The civil war was that the right to govern is paramount over the right to live, that man is made for government, rather than that government is made for man, and that for men to claim the right of self government is to deserve and incure the death penalty”
          -Charles L.C minor The real Lincoln 1928



          “The real revolution in that country was not what is called the revolution, but is a consequence of the civil war.”
          -T S Eliot 1949

          “Overthrow the present form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead...national banks, bankrupt laws, a vast and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct taxation, enormous expenditure, gigantic and stupendous peculation . . . No more state lines, no more state governments, but a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism.” “instead of crushing out the rebellion,” the “effort has been to crush out the spirit of liberty” in the Northern states.
          - Clement L. Vallandigham D-Ohio spoke of the reason for Lincolns war 1863



          “[After the war] the old decentralized federal republic became a new national polity that taxed the people directly, created an internal revenue bureau to collect these taxes, expanded the jurisdiction of federal courts, established a national currency and a national banking structure. The United States went to war in 1861 to preserve the Union; it emerged from war in 1865 having created a nation. Before 1861 the two words "United States" were generally used as a plural noun: "The United States are a republic." After 1865 the United States became a singular noun. The loose union of states became a nation”
          -James M. McPherson






          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
          It stands to reason, however, that if secession were a constitutionally viable option, then such would be effected through a process similar to that in which a prospective state were granted admittance into the Union, ie through application to the US Congress. The question here is, at any time, did any of the Southern states submit a motion to Congress requesting the reversal of their previous admittance to the Union? To the best of my knowledge, between Nov 1860 and Apr 1861, no Southern Congressman submitted a motion, either to a specific committee or to either chamber, requesting a reversal of previously granted statehood. I

          “By contrast, now all “the land of the free and the home of the brave” bends the knee to Washington D.C no matter how outrageous or oppressive its orders.”
          -James Rutledge Roesch From Founding Fathers to Fire Eaters The Constitutional Doctrine of States Rights in the old South Shotwell publishing



          "What we call liberty our founders called bondage...we have not freed the slaves we have extended the plantation, know, we are all slaves"
          -Peter Marshall JR The Great War Debate




          Of course not for the reasons i have given. Why would you ask a central government for a "right" that is out of there jurisdiction? you go throw who has that right, the states, that is what they all did. They did not and could not go throw congress/federal as there was no constitutional process since it was reserved by the states. Belive it or not one day in america we believed in the declaration and liberty, we did not have to ask master [federal] if it was ok to exercise out god given rights.


          “opposing secession changes the nature of government “from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism were one part of the people are slaves”
          - New York Journal of commerce 1/12/61


          “The great principles embodied by Jefferson in the declaration is... that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” Therefore if the southern states wish to secede, “they have a clear right to do so”
          -New York tribune 2/5/61


          Secession is “the very germ of liberty...the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state”
          -Kenosha Wisconsin Democrat 1/11/61



          If for any cause the Government...should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
          What then is the South to do? Suffer the compact which brought them into the Union to be violated with impunity, and without means of redress; submit to incursions into their territory and trespass upon their property by northern abolitionists?...Who expects, who desires the South to submit to all this?
          -Dubuque Iowa Herald 1860



          The US government has grown into a monstrous tyrannical body that would not even by reorganized by its founders”
          -Lochlainn Seabrook The Constitution Of The Confederate States Of America Explained





          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
          t would be analogous to a husband saying to his wife "I divorce you" once, and without benefit of the wife's input, the divorce is effected straight away. Tempting though it may be, you just can't kick your wife to the curb.

          The civil war would be the wife saying i am leaving the husband who is mistreating me and so he beats her, gives her a black eye and forces her to stay.



          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
          For any new state seeking admittance to the Union, both the Union and the prospective state had to come to certain accommodations, make certain concessions, in order to admit the new state. That being the case, secession -- or on the opposite end of the spectrum, expulsion -- can not legally nor logically be effected without all parties in involved at least being heard in public debate.

          he Southern states were granted statehood on such a basis, with benefits and obligations imposed on all parties, in the effort "to create a more perfect Union." Therefore the reverse must also be true: that in order to improve one state's standing via secession, then all the states and the Federal Gov't must also be heard -- and the place for that hearing is in the US Congress.

          So I'll ask again, why didn't the Southern states apply for secession via the very institution through which they applied for membership in the Union in the first place?

          unless of course those states were sovereign and the compact a union like what happened in the united states see post 69-70. Federally founded West Point taught the right to secession in its textbook “a view of the constitution of the united states of america by William Rawle.”

          "It depends on the state itself...weather it will continue a member of the union. To deny this right would be inconstant with the principles on witch all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people are in all cases a right to determined how they will be governed...the states then may wholly withdraw from the union."

          The constitution nowhere outlaws secession. The constitution established where the federal government has been delegated authority. The rest is reserved to the states. Secession than is a state issue. Nothing is authorized to the states in the constitution [secession or otherwise] since the purpose of the constitution is federal powers.

          “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”
          -10th amendment U.S Constitution





          “The Constitution of the united states is to be considered as a compact or confederation between free independent, and sovereign states.”
          -Abel Parker Upshu


          "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people.
          -Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America



          The dominate view of the federal government. as a limited, delegated agent of the sovereign people of the several states, and not the judge of the extant of its own powers, was buried by the outcome of the civil war”
          -Clyde Wilson From Union to Empire



          We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected,…in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that 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; and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them and at their will: that, therefore, no right, of any denomination, can be canceled, abridged, restrained or modified. In such a system “rights” are given by government— and what a master gives to his slaves, at the master‟s discretion, can be taken away. The ultimate reality is that in any system in which the central government is the sole arbiter of rights, the people are in fact mere subjects whose purpose is to hear and obey .”
          -Virginia‟s ratification



          The attributes of sovereignty are now enjoyed by every state in the union”
          -Alexander Hamilton


          “The thirteen states are thirteen sovereign bodies”
          -Oliver Ellsworth


          “A compact between separate communities”
          -James cooper New yorker 1833



          “Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself...each party has equal right to judge for itself”
          -Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson


          "That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
          -Virginia Resolutions 1800 Written by James Madison



          The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.-the one for liberty in the union of the States, the other for liberty in the independence of the States.”
          -John B Gordon Confederate General Reminiscences of the Civil War






          Comment


          • #95
            From book WILLIAM LOWNDES YANCEY: THE COMING OF THE CIVIL WAR by ERIC H. WALTHER

            Page 260;

            "Yancey reminded the crowd that governments only existed legitimately to protect the lives, liberties, and property of their people. He insisted that either a Lincoln or a Douglas presidency would threaten these rights because both candidates claimed that a single majority could make all laws, either in Washington or in the territories. But this was not the American constitutional system, he warned. The Constitution provided minorities with rights and protections from majorities. Majorities, by virtue of the power, required little constitutional protection. Minorities, he claimed, were the real friends of the Constitution, because that document "is their shield and their protection against the unchecked and unlicensed will of the majority." If fundamental rights, including slave property, shifted from a constitutional right to a political contest, "varied by chicanery used in the elections and the free use of whiskey," it would leave white southerners' "dearest rights of property floating in a barrel of whiskey."



            Then Yancey played the race card. He called the "Black Republicans" the "negro party", or mixed negro and white party, making it a mulatto party, while the Breckinridge party was essentially the white man's party." He vowed that southerners opposed racial mixing, "and are opposed to elevating the negro to the level of a white man, and do not want the negro introduced into either their blood, liberty, or rights." He then asserted - as Stephen Douglas had for years - that the party of Lincoln desired "to elevate the negro by depressing the white man to his level." White southerners could yield to the North on tariffs and other issues, but not on slavery, "the tool of our industry, the source of our prosperity," Yancey ended his tirade by swearing, "We stand upon the dark platform of southern slavery, and all we ask is to be allowed to keep it to ourselves. Let us do that, and we will not let the negro insult you by coming here and marrying your daughters." The crowd roared its approval."

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
              From book WILLIAM LOWNDES YANCEY: THE COMING OF THE CIVIL WAR by ERIC H. WALTHER

              Page 260;

              "Yancey reminded the crowd that governments only existed legitimately to protect the lives, liberties, and property of their people. He insisted that either a Lincoln or a Douglas presidency would threaten these rights because both candidates claimed that a single majority could make all laws, either in Washington or in the territories. But this was not the American constitutional system, he warned. The Constitution provided minorities with rights and protections from majorities. Majorities, by virtue of the power, required little constitutional protection. Minorities, he claimed, were the real friends of the Constitution, because that document "is their shield and their protection against the unchecked and unlicensed will of the majority." If fundamental rights, including slave property, shifted from a constitutional right to a political contest, "varied by chicanery used in the elections and the free use of whiskey," it would leave white southerners' "dearest rights of property floating in a barrel of whiskey."


              While i would much rather read the original speech than have it filtered I must say Amen. How correct he was when he said it and how prophetic. Much of what I have said is in this statement and fits great within my op. The attack on slavery was also an attack on the constitution and union. Once the first rights were taken [slavery] so would all others and we would turn into a tyrannical democracy like we have become.


              Announce a revolution in the government and to substitute an aggregate popular majority for the written constitution without which no single state would have voted its adoption not forming in truth a federal union but a consolidated despotism that worst of despotisms that of an unrestricted sectional and hostile majority, we do not intend to be misunderstood, we do not controvert the right of a majority to govern within the grant of powers in the Constitution.
              -Florida Declaration of causes of secession



              Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control. They learned to listen with impatience to the suggestion of any constitutional impediment to the exercise of their will, and so utterly have the principles of the Constitution been corrupted in the Northern mind that, in the inaugural address delivered by President Lincoln in March last, he asserts as an axiom, which he plainly deems to be undeniable, of constitutional authority, that the theory of the Constitution requires that in all cases the majority shall govern; and in another memorable instance the same Chief Magistrate did not hesitate to liken the relations between a State and the United States to those which exist between a county and the State in which it is situated and by which it was created.”
              -Jefferson Davis Message to Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution)



              “The experiment instituted by our revolutionary fathers, of a voluntary Union of sovereign States for purposes specified in a solemn compact, had been perverted by those who, feeling power and forgetting right, were determined to respect no law but their own will. The Government had ceased to answer the ends for which it was ordained and established. To save ourselves from a revolution which, in its silent but rapid progress, was about to place us under the despotism of numbers...The tyranny of an unbridled majority, the most odious and least responsible form of despotism, has denied us both the right and the remedy. Therefore we are in arms to renew such sacrifices as our fathers made to the holy cause of constitutional liberty ”
              -Jefferson Davis Inaugural Richmond 1862




              The line of division is now the preservation of the states rightly as reserved in the Constitution, or by ...to a merge into a consolidated government.”
              -Thomas Jefferson



              “It has often been said that we were fighting for the perpetuation of slavery. This was not so. We were simply fighting for our right to keep slaves if we wanted to. We were fighting for state rights- rights to be allowed to make our own laws for our particular states”
              -Joseph F Burke Confederate colonial



              “We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government.”
              – James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress, 489



              “If they begin with declaring one law of one state unconstitutional, where were they to stop? They might, they would go on until the state governments, stripped of all authority....mere skeletons of governments....a great consolidated empire established upon their runes....in such a contest the states must fall, and when they did fall, there was an end of all republican government in the country.”
              -John Randolph of Roanake in congress 1807 quoted in From Founding Fathers to Fire Eaters




              “When all government domestic and forighn in little as in great things shall be drawn to Washington as the source of all power. It will render powerless the checks provided of one government [states] on another, and will become as vegal and oppressive as the government which we have separated”
              -Thomas Jefferson



              “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society. “
              – John Adams, Novanglus Letters, 1774


              “If a government can take some, it may take all.”
              -John Taylor of Caroline


              “Power when undefined, soon becomes unlimited.”
              -St George Tucker


              “slavery was not the cause, but the occasion of strife...Rights of the states were the bulwarks of the liberties of the people but that emancipation by federal aggression would lead to the destruction of all other rights”
              -R.L Dabney A Defense Of Virginia And The South 1867


              “The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. “The General Welfare,” is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this “General Welfare” requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.”
              -Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States Convention of South Carolina 1860

              “The people of the North have endeavored to destroy its limitations. To make it sectional in its operations, and subservient to their sectional interests, and to make the government of the United States itself a consolidated government, has been the aim of their steady and unintermitted efforts. …..All encroachments by Congress on the Constitution of the United States, they have uniformly upheld; until at last the Constitution, by their interpretation, is virtually abolished, and now consists only in three words — “the general welfare,” of which they are the judges and dispensers....With the Constitution overthrown, and the government of the United States in the hands of a hostile section, not only liberty, but self-preservation, demanded their separation from it.....In seceding therefore, from the United States, the Confederate States have only exercised a right inherent in all Sovereignties. In their judgment, the agreement they had made with the Northern States had been grossly violated. Its whole purpose was overthrown. Instead of an agency of very limited power, having for its object the defence of the States against the aggressions of foreign nations, it has been converted into a government of unlimited internal powers. Unless the people of the Confederate States were prepared to surrender forever their liberties, there was but one course left for them to pursue — they must escape from the domination of such a government...“The people of the North have steadily upheld the policy of setting aside the Constitution, and of thus rendering the government of the United States omnipotent in its legislation. They have endeavored to drain the treasury, to carry on internal improvements, and at the same time by its exhaustion, to afford a pretext for higher tariff duties to replenish it! They pushed their oppressions, by the tariff, to such an extent in 1828, that the whole South protested against it; and when one of the Southern States resisted it, and a compromise was effected by which the taxes were to be reduced and limited, they overthrew the compromise, and renewed the oppressions..... With these various means of sectional aggrandizement — protective tariffs — appropriations from the treasury — the exclusive settlement of our territories — and anti-slavery agitations — they have at last succeeded in uniting the North against the South. To escape their ruthless mastery, the Southern States were compelled to secede from the Union with them”
              -Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861




              Under the latitudinarian construction of the Constitution which prevails at the North, the general idea is maintained that the will of the majority is supreme; and as to Constitutional checks or restraints, they have no just conception of them..to keep the federal government within its proper sphere of delegated powers, that the Confederate States, each for itself, resumed those powers and looked out for new safeguards for their rights and domestic tranquility. These are found not in abandoning the Constitution, but in adhering only to those who will faithfully sustain it...They [the north] do not seem to understand the nature or workings of a federative system. They have but slender conceptions of limited powers. Their ideas run into consolidation...Whilst I was in Congress I knew of but few men there from the North who ever made a Constitutional argument on any question. They seemed to consider themselves as clothed with unlimited power...They looked upon it simply as a government of majoritiesThey did not seem to understand that it was a government that bound majorities by constitutional restraints. ”
              -Speech of the Hon. Alexander H. Stephens to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861






              Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post

              Then Yancey played the race card. He called the "Black Republicans" the "negro party", or mixed negro and white party, making it a mulatto party, while the Breckinridge party was essentially the white man's party." He vowed that southerners opposed racial mixing, "and are opposed to elevating the negro to the level of a white man, and do not want the negro introduced into either their blood, liberty, or rights." He then asserted - as Stephen Douglas had for years - that the party of Lincoln desired "to elevate the negro by depressing the white man to his level." White southerners could yield to the North on tariffs and other issues, but not on slavery, "the tool of our industry, the source of our prosperity," Yancey ended his tirade by swearing, "We stand upon the dark platform of southern slavery, and all we ask is to be allowed to keep it to ourselves. Let us do that, and we will not let the negro insult you by coming here and marrying your daughters." The crowd roared its approval."

              Qouting perhaps the most pro slavery man in the south and a fire eater who had little to no impact on the csa constitution or its politics. I just want to say the term black republicans was first used by the NY herald. I would disagree with Yancy here, the democrats [with there hated slaves by the north] were the mixed party that wanted states to decide on slavery that had the possibility of expanding slavery, while the free soil/republican/whites only segregationist wanted the west for whites only and outlawed blacks coming to there states.

              As for racial mixing it is true this was a great northern fear [and blacks as well] and especially Lincolns fear. but in fact the south had a large mulatto section of free mulattoes and free blacks. This was not a desire of northern republicans. If anything they wanted them shipped to Africa.

              Politicians did indeed warned the republicans would make political tools of slaves and put them in change of the whites, this is what we call reconstruction today. Future thread in the works.


              Sounds like he could be elected by republicans if he was for internal improvements centralized government, democracy and other big government programs.

              Comment


              • #97
                Now you are calling Yancey a Prophet for have simply uttered what millions were saying that Slavery was not safe from modernity and likely will soon die out. Your level of what it takes to be a Prophet is terribly low for babbling something so oblivious. What is very disturbing is your claim (same claim as the slaveholder insurrectionists of 1861) that sacred principle of one man/one vote which leads to a democratic majority poses an unacceptable threat to the American Republic which is based on democracy. You claim to be so tenderly focused upon the protection of the rights of minorities, yet you are clearly uninterested in a real minority most suffering: the negro slaves. Your interest is clearly not the poor white southerners who were marginalized and kept outside of the economic/social/political loop of this southern oligarchy of wealthy planters that you are so proud of. Your focus is, clearly and solely, upon that self-created conglomeration of agricultural capitalists engaged in immoral human slavery. The most powerful of which are the World's most wealthy and influential interest in that time period. Yet you claim to be an upholder of all Southerners liberties and rights, but for whom (only the white elites just cited).

                Modernity was destroying American slavery and its dying was not "an attack on the constitution and union". Did not the Constitution and the Union survive after the death of your beloved slavery in 1865? American southern slavery was granted certain restricted and specific safeguard (three fifth ratio), so that those powerful elites would support the Constitution and Union and not become traitors by way of swing support to the British Monarchy; who was expected to appeal to the southern slaveholder elites with promises of protection of slavery in the South. Therefore, your weak argument that slavery/constitution/union is interconnected due to some wrongly implied notion of white man liberty and rights is mythology and propaganda.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Wait there more cleaning up to do here!

                  In the same above postings after having praised Yancey a Prophet and given him an AMEN, you later imply he is impaired by being "the most pro slavery" and "a fire eater who had little to no impact". This coming from you who has consistently projected yourself as a proud slave apologist and echoing continually fire eater rhetoric babble. You are either confused or not well researched. Fire Eaters were the major intellectual power and physical force of the Deep South insurrectionist movement. The saying "the most pro slavery" seem to be comic babble as how is one most pro slavery or less pro slavery or various degrees between?

                  You are not allowed to say the Southern Democratic Party was the "mixed party" simple because they dragged around their negro slaves as property, thus they are a mixed party. This is comic foolishness but somewhat laughable. You are being quite mischievous in saying Free Soilers/Republicans were opposed to blacks moving to the western territories. Yes, there were bans but it was aimed mainly at the southern slaveholders who had in their possession black slaves. Or you capable of seeing the difference?

                  Here's yet another correction, your insurrectionists did not say the Republican Party, if elected and empowered, would put the negro "in charge of whites" across the slave states, somewhat like a school principal over students in school. These insurrectionist propagandists did say, much more insanely, that this Party would free the slaves, and then make them slave masters over the southern white race in the South. Why do you attempt a feeble mitigation here? Finally, for now, you once again attempt to find a great Prophet, among the immoral, in your silly attempt to project that this silly babble over slaves becoming slave master over whites magically happen later during Reconstruction. Later, there were elected Black politicians, who represented political districts in the South, that contained large numbers of whites, which is what happens in a Republic. Normal person would not declare that negro enslavement of the white race unless you are a militant and espousing propaganda with an agenda.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
                    Now you are calling Yancey a Prophet for have simply uttered what millions were saying that Slavery was not safe from modernity and likely will soon die out. Your level of what it takes to be a Prophet is terribly low for babbling something so oblivious. What is very disturbing is your claim (same claim as the slaveholder insurrectionists of 1861) that sacred principle of one man/one vote which leads to a democratic majority poses an unacceptable threat to the American Republic which is based on democracy. You claim to be so tenderly focused upon the protection of the rights of minorities, yet you are clearly uninterested in a real minority most suffering: the negro slaves. Your interest is clearly not the poor white southerners who were marginalized and kept outside of the economic/social/political loop of this southern oligarchy of wealthy planters that you are so proud of. Your focus is, clearly and solely, upon that self-created conglomeration of agricultural capitalists engaged in immoral human slavery. The most powerful of which are the World's most wealthy and influential interest in that time period. Yet you claim to be an upholder of all Southerners liberties and rights, but for whom (only the white elites just cited).

                    Modernity was destroying American slavery and its dying was not "an attack on the constitution and union". Did not the Constitution and the Union survive after the death of your beloved slavery in 1865? American southern slavery was granted certain restricted and specific safeguard (three fifth ratio), so that those powerful elites would support the Constitution and Union and not become traitors by way of swing support to the British Monarchy; who was expected to appeal to the southern slaveholder elites with promises of protection of slavery in the South. Therefore, your weak argument that slavery/constitution/union is interconnected due to some wrongly implied notion of white man liberty and rights is mythology and propaganda.
                    I think the OP is discussing the historical record, and not the merits of slavery or Democracy. The United States organized into a federalist Republic. In other words, each state retained its sovereignty but delegated certain powers to a federal government, and that federal government had limited particpation-you had to own land to vote, and senators were chosen by state legislatures. I'm not sure what the rules were for individual states. For example, did Virginia have universal white male suffrage for its state elections? Did Massachusetts?

                    This did change with the Civil War. The U.S. became mostly a unitary state-controlled by a central government-even though the Constitution still reads that states have all powers not delegated to the federal government. The merits of this historical fact are up to debate, but the fact remains.

                    The South was fighting to prevent this change from happening, and the issue happened to arise over slavery. Defending the South's cause is not necessarily the same as defending slavery. And even if Southerners did support slavery, it was nothing but an ethical question for those north of the Mason-Dixon line. The most passionate and morally rigteous abolitionist never had a right to interfere with it in the states where it existed.

                    The Constitution is also silent on secession, but reserves all power not delegated to the federal government to the states.

                    How does the North's invasion of the South fit into all of this?
                    "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                    "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
                      Now you are calling Yancey a Prophet for have simply uttered what millions were saying that Slavery was not safe from modernity and likely will soon die out. Your level of what it takes to be a Prophet is terribly low for babbling something so oblivious.

                      Apologies if I was in any way unclear. I was referring to the bolded section when Yancy said if the republicans were in power democracy would rule. Of course you are correct that was pretty obvious at the time. However it was a radical transformation of our republic when Yancy said these words.




                      Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post

                      What is very disturbing is your claim (same claim as the slaveholder insurrectionists of 1861) that sacred principle of one man/one vote which leads to a democratic majority poses an unacceptable threat to the American Republic which is based on democracy.
                      Article 4 - The States
                      Section 4 - Republican Government


                      The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.



                      You are unwilling to look at the Constitution and the united states union from antebellum america 1861. Instead you are taking the post war republican national centralized nation view of out "nation" "america." Thus you will never come to a just conclusion. Here are just a few examples of the founders thought on democracy. Post 69-70 that you refuse to read goes into more detail on this.




                      Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide
                      -John Adams, Letter, April 15, 1814US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)
                      “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.”
                      -Fisher Ames






                      A simple democracy, or an unbalanced republic, is one of the greatest of evils. Benjamin Rush to John Adams21 July 1789Letters 1:522--24

                      A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
                      Thomas Jefferson
                      “A pure democracy is generally a very bad government, It is often the most tyrannical government on earth; for a multitude is often rash, and will not hear reason.”
                      Noah Webster, The Original Blue Back Speller


                      “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
                      Benjamin Franklin








                      Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
                      You claim to be so tenderly focused upon the protection of the rights of minorities, yet you are clearly uninterested in a real minority most suffering: the negro slaves. Your interest is clearly not the poor white southerners who were marginalized and kept outside of the economic/social/political loop of this southern oligarchy of wealthy planters that you are so proud of. Your focus is, clearly and solely, upon that self-created conglomeration of agricultural capitalists engaged in immoral human slavery. The most powerful of which are the World's most wealthy and influential interest in that time period. Yet you claim to be an upholder of all Southerners liberties and rights, but for whom (only the white elites just cited).

                      I am focused on what is historically true. You want my politics? I am for liberty for all. I never said i liked or agreed with slavery [that was passed down on the south inherited] or that Africans with no rights in their home country should not earn rights in ours. This thread is on the causes of the cotton states secession.



                      Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
                      Modernity was destroying American slavery and its dying was not "an attack on the constitution and union".
                      Modernity was an attack on slavery yes, and the united states politics [decentralization] and culture as "modernity" gave us the great centralized nations across Europe and with Lincoln, here as well. It has given us evil unknown to the ancient world, but that is another thread.




                      Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post

                      Did not the Constitution and the Union survive after the death of your beloved slavery in 1865?
                      Do you read responses? please read post 69-70 than come back.



                      Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
                      American southern slavery was granted certain restricted and specific safeguard (three fifth ratio), so that those powerful elites would support the Constitution and Union and not become traitors by way of swing support to the British Monarchy; who was expected to appeal to the southern slaveholder elites with promises of protection of slavery in the South. Therefore, your weak argument that slavery/constitution/union is interconnected due to some wrongly implied notion of white man liberty and rights is mythology and propaganda.

                      And the history recorded and presented that you refuse to read shows your unsupported claims nothing but "mythology and propaganda"




                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
                        Wait there more cleaning up to do here!

                        In the same above postings after having praised Yancey a Prophet and given him an AMEN, you later imply he is impaired by being "the most pro slavery" and "a fire eater who had little to no impact".

                        This coming from you who has consistently projected yourself as a proud slave apologist and echoing continually fire eater rhetoric babble. You are either confused or not well researched. Fire Eaters were the major intellectual power and physical force of the Deep South insurrectionist movement. The saying "the most pro slavery" seem to be comic babble as how is one most pro slavery or less pro slavery or various degrees between?

                        This is well known, Yancy was a leading fire eater who along with the other fire eaters, had little impact on the csa Constitution or politics. I agree he was a leader for preaching that the federals intrusion on the states over the issue of slavery would lead to a centralized nation and their push for democracy was a leading cause in his mind for the cotton states to get out of the union. Please see op. I will add I think your assessment is off on your conclusions as well.




                        Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post

                        You are not allowed to say the Southern Democratic Party was the "mixed party" simple because they dragged around their negro slaves as property, thus they are a mixed party.
                        When the republicans were segregationist who did not want to allow blacks west, how can I not say such a thing. Blacks and white living together, eating working, even having sex, large numbers of free blacks and mulattoes, that makes a republican run for the hills.



                        Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
                        This is comic foolishness but somewhat laughable. You are being quite mischievous in saying Free Soilers/Republicans were opposed to blacks moving to the western territories. Yes, there were bans but it was aimed mainly at the southern slaveholders who had in their possession black slaves. Or you capable of seeing the difference?
                        I dont disagree they wanted the liberty old union minded Jeffersonian democrats from getting west, I have shown such in my posts. However


                        “Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We cannot then make them equals”
                        -Abraham Lincoln The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln


                        "The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [new western] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people."
                        -Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854


                        “It is not rather our duty to make labor more respectable by preserving all black competition, [free and slave] especially in the territores”
                        -Abraham Lincoln


                        “The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been concern for the welfare of the white man, and not an unnatural sympathy for the negro.”
                        -William Seward Secretary of State s







                        Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
                        Here's yet another correction, your insurrectionists did not say the Republican Party, if elected and empowered, would put the negro "in charge of whites" across the slave states, somewhat like a school principal over students in school. These insurrectionist propagandists did say, much more insanely, that this Party would free the slaves, and then make them slave masters over the southern white race in the South. Why do you attempt a feeble mitigation here?

                        The south that stood for the founders union and the principles of the declaration [or as you like to say insurrectionists] indeed were correct that republicans would make political tools of slaves [freed] and put them politically over the white southerners who dared insist on the decentralized union of the founders. This we call reconstruction [thread in the works]



                        Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
                        Finally, for now, you once again attempt to find a great Prophet,
                        ? I said he was prophetic, and he was. His warning of the republican party were true. I have a great prophet already. Many, they are in the bible.





                        Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
                        among the immoral, in your silly attempt to project that this silly babble over slaves becoming slave master over whites magically happen later during Reconstruction.

                        I would call it corruption not magic. But as i said, yancy was prophetic in that he said what would happen if the republicans would rule. A centralized nation and democracy [post 69-70] and blacks used as tools to rule southerns who dared stick with the decentralizes union of the founders. Or as we call it reconstruction [thread coming]




                        Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
                        Later, there were elected Black politicians, who represented political districts in the South, that contained large numbers of whites, which is what happens in a Republic. Normal person would not declare that negro enslavement of the white race unless you are a militant and espousing propaganda with an agenda.

                        More proof threads like these are needed and how easy it is to propagandize the masses. Please be patient i have a few threads to do.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by American87 View Post

                          I think the OP is discussing the historical record, and not the merits of slavery or Democracy. The United States organized into a federalist Republic. In other words, each state retained its sovereignty but delegated certain powers to a federal government, and that federal government had limited particpation-you had to own land to vote, and senators were chosen by state legislatures. I'm not sure what the rules were for individual states. For example, did Virginia have universal white male suffrage for its state elections? Did Massachusetts?

                          This did change with the Civil War. The U.S. became mostly a unitary state-controlled by a central government-even though the Constitution still reads that states have all powers not delegated to the federal government. The merits of this historical fact are up to debate, but the fact remains.

                          The South was fighting to prevent this change from happening, and the issue happened to arise over slavery. Defending the South's cause is not necessarily the same as defending slavery. And even if Southerners did support slavery, it was nothing but an ethical question for those north of the Mason-Dixon line. The most passionate and morally rigteous abolitionist never had a right to interfere with it in the states where it existed.

                          The Constitution is also silent on secession, but reserves all power not delegated to the federal government to the states.

                          How does the North's invasion of the South fit into all of this?

                          I would also add that slavery was not the sole cause of the resistance of the south to northern movements towards Marxism/democracy/centralized nation. These issues came up in the 1820's over non slavery related issues. But the centralized nation/democracy types did not have power till the large immigration of later decades and Lincoln. Before that they were the crazies the southern politics was the normal united states politics.


                          “Union victory in the war destroyed the southern vision of America and ensured that the northern vison would become the American vision. Until 1861, however, it was the north that was out of the mainstream, not the south
                          -James McPherson Battle Cry of freedom



                          “Abraham Lincoln was elected president.... for 253 years America prospered under a system of limited government. That was to be brought down and replaced by a consolidated, centralized power.”
                          -Dr Charles T Pace Lincoln as he Really was Shotwell Publishing Columbia South Carolina 2018


                          "Jeffersonianism still prevailed in the minds of most Americans but was all but snuffed out by Lincolns war"
                          -Thomas J Dilorenzo the real Lincoln


                          “The whig party, witch had sorry record of failure during its lifetime, achieved its greatest success, years after its official demise. In the presidency of Abraham Lincoln.”
                          -David Donald Lincoln Reconsidered


                          “The war . . . has tended, more than any other event in the history of the country to militate against the Jeffersonian idea, that “the best government is that which governs least.”
                          -Richard Yates Illinois Governor , January 2, 1865


                          “Lincoln...undermined the constitutional safeguards of freedom as he opened the way to centralized government with all its political evils”
                          -Edmund Wilson


                          "Abraham Lincoln personified every trait that opposed to the republic founders under the Constitution of 1787."
                          -Jerry Brewer Dismantling the Republic 2017


                          Comment


                          • What great fondness for repeatedly uttering the phrase: the powers not given to the Federal Government shall belong to the States. You error in your blindness to the historical context! The utterance is simply a statement of the then state of negotiation, that made a construct, that hopefully would win support for the Union. It certainly is not what those of you who wrongly claimed the utterance is an Eternal Truth; written on a Tablet of Stone by God, never to be altered. All knew the affair was subject to change, because the Will of the People could freely vote a change, as allowed by the amendment process. Strangely, I heard a confession that the framers not once declared the utterance as eternal and unchangeable. But then it was wrongly declared the framers silence meant they did believe it; just did not feel it needed saying it or they were too lazy. The silence meant there is nothing there to it. I labor the point as it is this point that many claimed the Slave States had the right to secede.

                            I also see the great fondness for repeatedly uttering the statement: Lincoln and the Republican Party posed an immediately threat to the Constitution and the Union. And this granted the Slave States the need to secede instantly. It is important to note Lincoln and the Republican Party had not one act of aggression against the Slave States prior to their insurrection of 1861. Therefore, there exist only two factors to explain the Deep South Slave States armed insurrection. First, Lincoln's plan to block western expansion, preventing new Slave States forming, which would eventually end the effectiveness of the three-fifth ratio chokehold in Congress, held by southern slaveholders for decades. Second, Lincoln's honest and thoughtful interpretation of that part of the Declaration of Independent: that all men are created equal. Lincoln had long argued that the saying included the American Negro, and now Lincoln had just been elected President. Lincoln's position had made slavery immoral, which was an immediately dangerous position for the Institution of Slavery, and an unacceptable insult to slaveholders.
                            Last edited by Bo Archer; 28 Jun 19, 22:00.

                            Comment


                            • Now I think it time to reveal to perhaps some of our readers your contrived falsehood notion: Lincoln and the Republican Party are the original and only representatives of centralization of power within the framework of a Union. You imply that the original so-called Union, under the Articles of Confederation, with its vast blessings of state sovereignty and state rights to all states, was a time of great blissfulness and enjoyment of liberty and rights. This time period should be your proudest time in American History, as it has all that which you appear to praise. But you seem to decline this admission and instead you declare for the false declaration: that the follow up Constitution was a device for further empowerment of state sovereignty and state rights for some unexplained reason by the framers. The historical record proves your notion to be a complete falsehood. In fact, the Articles of Confederate were soon declared to be unworkable and a failure. Thus, your dream Confederation Union with dominate state sovereignty was rejected by the framers. The founding of our Constitution and Union was commenced and created solely for the purpose (that you endlessly denounce) to have more centralization and a more power federalized Union. Therefore, we now have caught you wrongly and in error accusing Lincoln and the Republican Party of doing that which the framers had already done with the Constitution: making a Republic more federally centralized. You are caught claiming this was a criminal offense and contrary to the original framers; when in fact is was the original working plan all long from the beginning with Lincoln and the framers working together on the same page at different times in history. Once again, I feel the need to say that the Insurrection of 1861 begun before Lincoln even took Office. But you ignore this by saying Prophets exist!

                              Comment


                              • Now we have the oddness of one who plays down his strong affinations and shared beliefs with those who may now be seen infamous in reputation and intellect. You have repeated often the belief systems of Yancey and other Fire Eaters who brought us the bloody Civil War. But we find you trying to mitigate your relationship to them. In your above posting, you without emotion belittle Yancey by playing down his role in influencing the Confederate Nation and its Constitution. I understand as I have relatives I play down and wish others would not associate me with them at times. But as lovers of history you do not have that right here in this honorable historical forum. You utter his sayings therefore you must own up to Yancey legacy that which you embrace. This leads me to yet another misleading characterization: Confederates upheld the U.S. Constitution, and presented themselves as its truth protectors, with very little alterations and changes in the Confederate Constitution. If this is truthful, why did not the Confederates just carry over the U.S. Constitution unchanged? In fact, the historical record proves the Confederate made important altercations and additions to their Constitution that made it poisonous to the U.S. Constitution. It could be said the Confederate did keep major portions of the U.S. Constitution. Under the direct influence of Yancey and other militants, the Confederate Constitution had added four significant clauses, all having to do with making the Institution of Slavery immortal and forever.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X