Can States Succeed From US?

Toymaker · Aug 31, 2008

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

that still doesn't prove anything. Yes, the Confederate forces were forced to surrender, but that doesn't negate theprinciples for which they fought.

As for Secession not being specifically prohibited, BUT...

simply put, there is not BUT. as far as Constitution is concerned, Federal authority STOPS at the constitution. If it isn't expressly delegated to the FED, or expressly prohibited from teh States, then the FED has no constitutional background in the matter, period. end of story.

This is why we have the overgrown Federal beauracracy that so many complain about now. So many people are absolutely ignorant of what the constitution says, that they allow the FED to trample all over the constitution.

in truth, probably at least 70 percent of the federal agencies currently draining the treasury coffers are both unconstitutional,and completely unnecessary, but out of concerns of "safety", "national security" and other terms used to persuade the sheep, the FED gets away with whatever they want.

The only thing that the War of Northern aggression proved is that if the FED had no problem killing innocent civillians for excercising their God God given rights in 1865. I personally wonder how much of a problem they would have now. If athief breaks into your house and kills you after you attempt to defend yourself, does that make him right? should he be allowed to keep your house because he had greater might? well that is exactly the scenario that you are supporting when you imply that just because the FED invaded the South that they were right.

"theprinciples for which they fought"

You mean slavery?

"the FED had no problem killing innocent civillians for excercising their God God given rights in 1865"

So.....there's a God given right to enslave other people?

You're into history so you know as well as everyone else, who's into history, that the main reason for the war was the South's refusal to give up slavery:idea:

........but then you complain about the human rights violations of the FED:uhoh:

Human rights violations are human rights violations. It doesn't matter who commits them. If we ever expect to be taken seriously about gun rights there's one thing that we definitely have to be, and that'sconsistent.

Task Force 16 · Aug 31, 2008

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

For any state to secede from the Union through legal means seems highly unlikely, given that the US Congress most likely would never ratify such a move. To push the issue beyond legalities would result in armed conflict. It would be most likely a slaughter of the armed rebel citizens by the US Military.

Click to expand...

and can you show me where in the constitution does it give Congress the ability to block such a move?

yes, the federal military would respond, but now, just as in 1861, it wouldn't make them right.

understand, I am not in any way advocating open armed resistance, but I am just pointing outthe obvious. LEGALLY, the FED has no right, nor any true authority in stopping a state from seceding.

I was attempting to point out the likelyhood of secession succeeding through legal means. Slim to none. Should a state or number of states be determined to secede, regardless of legalities, the citizens of those states would need to be prepared for an armed engagement with Federal forces. One that we would not likely win.

I don't advocate an armed revolt either. I still believe that an oppressive government can be stopped (at least as things stand now) via the ballot box and political activism. That's how those that want to oppress our freedoms and liberties are trying to get it done. We can fight back by the same means.

An armed revolt should be considerd a last resort for those of us that subscribe to those famous words..........

Give me Liberty......or give me death.

Task Force 16 · Aug 31, 2008

imported post

Toymaker wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:
"theprinciples for which they fought"

You mean slavery?

"the FED had no problem killing innocent civillians for excercising their God God given rights in 1865"

So.....there's a God given right to enslave other people?

You're into history so you know as well as everyone else, who's into history, that the main reason for the war was the South's refusal to give up slavery:idea:

........but then you complain about the human rights violations of the FED:uhoh:

Human rights violations are human rights violations. It doesn't matter who commits them. If we ever expect to be taken seriously about gun rights there's one thing that we definitely have to be, and that'sconsistent.

Slave ownership was also legal in the Northern States. Your argument doesn't quite fly, bud.

Sig229 · Aug 31, 2008

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Toymaker wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:
"theprinciples for which they fought"

You mean slavery?

"the FED had no problem killing innocent civillians for excercising their God God given rights in 1865"

So.....there's a God given right to enslave other people?

You're into history so you know as well as everyone else, who's into history, that the main reason for the war was the South's refusal to give up slavery:idea:

........but then you complain about the human rights violations of the FED:uhoh:

Human rights violations are human rights violations. It doesn't matter who commits them. If we ever expect to be taken seriously about gun rights there's one thing that we definitely have to be, and that'sconsistent.

Click to expand...

Slave ownership was also legal in the Northern States. Your argument doesn't quite fly, bud.

Not to mention that the slavery issue was low on the list on the causes of the war.

MetalChris · Aug 31, 2008

imported post

Sig229 wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

Toymaker wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:
"theprinciples for which they fought"

You mean slavery?

"the FED had no problem killing innocent civillians for excercising their God God given rights in 1865"

So.....there's a God given right to enslave other people?

You're into history so you know as well as everyone else, who's into history, that the main reason for the war was the South's refusal to give up slavery:idea:

........but then you complain about the human rights violations of the FED:uhoh:

Human rights violations are human rights violations. It doesn't matter who commits them. If we ever expect to be taken seriously about gun rights there's one thing that we definitely have to be, and that'sconsistent.

Click to expand...

Slave ownership was also legal in the Northern States. Your argument doesn't quite fly, bud.

Click to expand...

Not to mention that the slavery issue was low on the list on the causes of the war.

Nuh-uh! Don't you know that Sherman marched through Georgia just to free the slaves?
The burning of thousands of peoples homes and crops were just a bonus. :uhoh:
/sarcasm

Toymaker · Aug 31, 2008

imported post

Sig229 wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

Toymaker wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:
"theprinciples for which they fought"

You mean slavery?

"the FED had no problem killing innocent civillians for excercising their God God given rights in 1865"

So.....there's a God given right to enslave other people?

You're into history so you know as well as everyone else, who's into history, that the main reason for the war was the South's refusal to give up slavery:idea:

........but then you complain about the human rights violations of the FED:uhoh:

Human rights violations are human rights violations. It doesn't matter who commits them. If we ever expect to be taken seriously about gun rights there's one thing that we definitely have to be, and that'sconsistent.

Click to expand...

Slave ownership was also legal in the Northern States. Your argument doesn't quite fly, bud.

Click to expand...

Not to mention that the slavery issue was low on the list on the causes of the war.

Declaration Of Causes Of Seceding States

Georgia

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Georgia

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Mississippi

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

South Carolina
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina
"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue. "
"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
"This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River."

Texas

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas

"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

Causes Of The American Civil War

Code:

http://www.cyberessays.com/History/86.htm

There were many reasons why the South wanted to succeed but the main reason
had to do with the North’s view on slavery. All of this was basically
a different interpretation of the United States Constitution on both
sides.

There were many reasons for the Civil War but, all of the reasons stemmed from the North's change in it's stance regarding the constitutionality of slavery.

unreconstructed1 · Aug 31, 2008

imported post

Toymaker wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:
"theprinciples for which they fought"

You mean slavery?

Oh dear lord. here we go.

Slavery was an issue in the war, yes. that fact is well documented. Slavery was not however the issue.As has already been pointed out, slavery was legal in the North before, during and even after the war.Lincoln himself admitted on several occasions that he did what he did for preservation of the Union, not to mention the fact that Lincoln endorsed the "Corwin ammendment", which would have explicitly guaranteed slavery as constitutionally protected. Lincoln was also supportive of the "colonization" idea of post slavery America.

Slavery in the 19th century wasn't viewed in terms of ethics or morality, it was viewed in terms of economics. You simply can't judge 19th century Americans by 21st century standards, otherwise you'll need to start demonizing virtually every founding father, because each was guilty of owning slaves, and in the case of the Northern founders, trading and importing slaves.

The Confederates mentioned slavery due to the economic and constitutional impact that it would have had.Slavery WAS constitutional. If the abolitionists didn't like it, then they should have worked through the proper channels to eliminate it, not overstepping their authority as outlined in the constitution. Let me put it to you in more modern terms.

I am dead set against abortion. I believe that it is a morally bankrupt practice, and an ethically corrupt one as well. HOWEVER, if a law was passed outlawing it, I'd be the first one in line to speak up against it. why? because the FED has absolutely no authority to interfere in the practice, until they can get a constitutional ammendment passed saying as much. there are many parrallels between slavery and abortion, if you think about it, but that is somewhat irrelevant here, as is the issue of slavery.

now that you have proved that you have no real merit regarding the issue of the legality of Secession, or in constitutional history, can we kindly return to the subject at hand?

Flyer22 · Aug 31, 2008

imported post

Takezo wrote:

Now--
While the states have certain powers of sovereignty, they are most emphatically NOT independent countries.

They were meant to be independent countries, and they are independent "states" (meaning countries), what do you think the word state means?!! An area? A prefecture?! A jurisdiction??!!

And the states in agreement use a common means of defense, common money, common interstate means of commerce, a frame work in which to respect fundemental rights--but they are not, nor are they just "federal areas" or "prefectures" within a federal scope.

Unreconstructed is completely correct (and thanks for the info on the flags, very interesting), the Federal Government has completely overstepped its authority in every respect--the most occuring within the last 100 years.

And no this argument was not settled during the war of the states in the 1860's.

It is an issue that will be revisited in the next few years, when the economic crisis unfold and there is unimaginable chaos.

I gues you've never heard of the term "nation-state," which Merriam-Webster Online defines as "a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state." Nor, apparently, have you heard of "city-state" which is "an autonomous state consisting of a city and surrounding territory." If "state" always meant an independent nation, why would it need modifiers such as "autonomous" and "sovereign"? In fact, the word has several meanings, two of which are as follows: "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory" and, (the one that applies most often to this country),"one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government."

Nor do you seem to know what "federal" means. In political science, it has a very specific meaning: "of or constituting a form of government in which power is distributed between a central authority and a number of constituent territorial units."

By the way, you don't seem to know history either. For the first several years of this country's existence, it was governed under the Articles of Confederation, under which the separate states essentially were independent countries; Congress had virtually no real power whatsoever, and could not force the states to do anything. You may or may not recall that this form of government was judged to be a resounding failure. It was replaced by the Constitution, which, as I quoted earlier, puts VERY DEFINITE AND SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF THE STATES!!!!

Now, if Canada put restrictions on America, such as not allowing us to print our own money, and not allowing us to enter into treaties with other countries, would we consider ourselves to be living in an independent nation? Of course not. So do us all a favor and drop your assertion, that flies in the face of both logic and the plain meaning of the English language, that the 50 states are independent countries.

Flyer22 · Aug 31, 2008

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

as for the statement Flyer made:

Secession is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, but--while Article IV, Section 3 establishes procedure for ADMITTING states, nowhere does the Constitution set forth any procedure for states to WITHDRAW. Moreover, the Civil War settled the question forever. Once a state joins the Union, that decision is irrevocable for as long as the Union endures.

Click to expand...

that still doesn't prove anything. Yes, the Confederate forces were forced to surrender, but that doesn't negate the principles for which they fought.

As for Secession not being specifically prohibited, BUT...

simply put, there is not BUT. as far as Constitution is concerned, Federal authority STOPS at the constitution. If it isn't expressly delegated to the FED, or expressly prohibited from teh States, then the FED has no constitutional background in the matter, period. end of story.

So how exactly does a state withdraw from the Union? Does it just go "poof"? Does it send out a circular letter to the other states notifying them to take one star off the flag? Or do you expect us to believe that the Founding Fathers were hung-over one morning and simply forgot to put into the Constitution the procedure thatspells out howstates areto withdraw? Because unless you can come up with a withdrawal procedure in the Constitutionthat is the equivalent of the admittance procedure, you quite simply don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Toymaker · Aug 31, 2008

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

Oh dear lord. here we go.

Slavery was an issue in the war, yes. that fact is well documented. Slavery was not however the issue.As has already been pointed out, slavery was legal in the North before, during and even after the war.Lincoln himself admitted on several occasions that he did what he did for preservation of the Union, not to mention the fact that Lincoln endorsed the "Corwin ammendment", which would have explicitly guaranteed slavery as constitutionally protected. Lincoln was also supportive of the "colonization" idea of post slavery America.

Slavery in the 19th century wasn't viewed in terms of ethics or morality, it was viewed in terms of economics. You simply can't judge 19th century Americans by 21st century standards, otherwise you'll need to start demonizing virtually every founding father, because each was guilty of owning slaves, and in the case of the Northern founders, trading and importing slaves.

The Confederates mentioned slavery due to the economic and constitutional impact that it would have had.Slavery WAS constitutional. If the abolitionists didn't like it, then they should have worked through the proper channels to eliminate it, not overstepping their authority as outlined in the constitution. Let me put it to you in more modern terms.

I am dead set against abortion. I believe that it is a morally bankrupt practice, and an ethically corrupt one as well. HOWEVER, if a law was passed outlawing it, I'd be the first one in line to speak up against it. why? because the FED has absolutely no authority to interfere in the practice, until they can get a constitutional ammendment passed saying as much. there are many parrallels between slavery and abortion, if you think about it, but that is somewhat irrelevant here, as is the issue of slavery.

now that you have proved that you have no real merit regarding the issue of the legality of Secession, or in constitutional history, can we kindly return to the subject at hand?

Yes, slavery was 'the' issue. Denial doesn't change the evidence of that.

Just because slavery was a standard accepted practice back then doesn't mean that it was morally right.

Lincoln and the abolishionists porposed that slavery not be allowed to spread beyond where it was. The Southern states rebelled because of the fear of the economic impact of this trend.

Lincoln was an abolishionist. Yes, even back then when slavery was an accepted economic practice, there were some people who had the guts to speak up and say thatthis needed to be changed. Long before Lincoln the revered Thomas Jefferson also proposed that slavery should be excluded from all of the American western territories after 1800. Although he himself was a slaveowner, he believed that slavery was an evil that should not be permitted to spread.

It was the Original Poster who started this thread about Secession.

Itwas you who left the beaten path when you wrote this:

"in 1861, 11 Southern states ( 13 if you count Kentucky and Missouri, who did in fact secede but their secessions weren't "officially" recognized) exercised this basic human right of self determination, the exact same right excersiced by the founding fathers 85 years previously, and were invaded, subjugated and subjected to a grueling regime of "Reconstruction" for their efforts."

Right to self determination????? Or, right to continue a barbaric practice of slavery?

You can't lookthe anti's in the face and say 'it's my basic human right tokeep and beararms, then on the other hand,infer that it wasa basic human rightin the old South toown slaves. You lose all credibility at that point.

God given rights are God given rights, no exceptions.

Comp-tech · Aug 31, 2008

imported post

Toymaker wrote:

Yes, slavery was 'the' issue. Denial doesn't change the evidence of that.

You really need to study history a bit more...the real facts, not just what you learned in grammar school.....
If slavery was "the issue" as you contend...would you PLEASE explain the FACT that several of the seceeding states had passed laws against the slave tade LONG before 1861?

Just because slavery was a standard accepted practice back then doesn't mean that it was morally right.

Agreed as to the moral aspects.....but, does the federal govenrment have any right to make laws based on morals?....wouldn't that be unconstitutional on the grounds that our government can't "force" any particular religion on anyone?
And please, don't say that morals have nothing to do with religion....

Lincoln and the abolishionists porposed that slavery not be allowed to spread beyond where it was. The Southern states rebelled because of the fear of the economic impact of this trend.

Again, please explain the FACT that some of the southern states had passed laws against the slave trade long before the war if this was indeed "the issue"

Lincoln was an abolishionist. Yes, even back then when slavery was an accepted economic practice, there were some people who had the guts to speak up and say thatthis needed to be changed. Long before Lincoln the revered Thomas Jefferson also proposed that slavery should be excluded from all of the American western territories after 1800. Although he himself was a slaveowner, he believed that slavery was an evil that should not be permitted to spread.

And yet slavery actually continued (to some degree) in the north.....where it all started.

It was the Original Poster who started this thread about Secession.

Itwas you who left the beaten path when you wrote this:

"in 1861, 11 Southern states ( 13 if you count Kentucky and Missouri, who did in fact secede but their secessions weren't "officially" recognized) exercised this basic human right of self determination, the exact same right excersiced by the founding fathers 85 years previously, and were invaded, subjugated and subjected to a grueling regime of "Reconstruction" for their efforts."

Right to self determination????? Or, right to continue a barbaric practice of slavery?

You miss the point entire....it wasn't about slavery so much as it was about the federal government trying to determine a states right to self government and free trade. As stated earlier, many of the states had already passed laws against the slave trade...for example, Alabama (the 4th state to seceed) had passed laws against the slave trade as early as the 1820's....how could slavery be "the issue" as you contend?

You can't lookthe anti's in the face and say 'it's my basic human right tokeep and beararms, then on the other hand,infer that it wasa basic human rightin the old South toown slaves. You lose all credibility at that point.

I don't see where anyone "infered" that slave ownership was a "basic human right"
Do you not understand that slavery started (in America) LONG before the even WAS an "old South"
Geeez man....study up a bit

God given rights are God given rights, no exceptions.

Agreed...

SouthernBoy · Sep 1, 2008

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

impulse418 wrote:

"The south will rise again!"

By far the greatest laugh, I have ever got.

Click to expand...

We already have in one area. The South is the wealthiest region in the United States. Were the fifteen Southern states a separate country, they would rank third in economic wealth, behind the United States as a whole, and Japan.

Click to expand...

I saw the same statistics elsewhere .

In the book "The Southern Nation: the new rise of the Old South", it lists that as of 1990, that the South (whether the South as defined by the census beaureau, Congressional quarterly, or as the historical 11 sate Confedaracy) would have ranked second, behind the U.S. in terms of the GDP. I haven't seen any newer date than that. Could you give me a source on that?

Another point is whether that takes into account the loss of revenue resulting from a loss of Southern assets. I wonder if we'd still rank behind the U.S., or above it.

I've seen this information several places but the one that comes to mind right away is a book, "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat" by former Georgia governor Zell Miller.

SouthernBoy · Sep 1, 2008

imported post

Slavery, as an institution in the colonies, began in 1619 by the Dutch. A shipment of 20 African blacks, who were already enslaved, were brought to the colonies. Slavery grew primarily in the South because it was almost completely agricultural. As the North turned more towards industrial output, and as their populations grew faster than the Southern states, their demand for Southern product increased significantly. This demand prompted additional numbers of slaves to be bought to the country. But who brought them here? And how many?

The South had no merchant marine (no shipping to speak of), so they had not means of conducting this type of trade. So who did? Initially, it was Europe who had both the shipping means and the colonized interests in Africa. But it wasn't long before the North took over the reins of slave shipping and since they were the principal customers of the South's output, they had an avowed interest in seeing that the South was well populated with the personnel to work the fields and produce the products they needed.

And how many came here? Roughly 12 million slaves, of all kinds, were brought to the Americas but guess what? Only 5% of them were brought to the U.S. The rest were taken to Caribbean islands and South America.. mostly Brazil.

The South was trying to loose the yoke of slavery in the latter half of the 18th century, and then in something substantial occurred. The cotton gin was invented. This machine vastly increased the rate at which cotton could be separated from the seedpods. This also meant that more people were needed to work the fields picking the cotton to feed this machine.

The war was largely one of economics and states rights. The unfortunate thing for all of us, whether we are Southerners or Northerners or Westerners, is that slavery was introduced into this land in the first place. It's introduction and growth haunts us to this day and is used as a crutch and a tool by those who see political and social capital to be made and continued on its back. I fear I shall never see the end of this in my lifetime as there continues to be much to be gained by raising this beast's head when the need is perceived.

like_the_roman · Sep 1, 2008

imported post

Toymaker wrote:

Yes, slavery was 'the' issue. Denial doesn't change the evidence of that.

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side." - Ulysses S. Grant, Union general and slaveholder.

Lincoln was an abolishionist. Yes, even back then when slavery was an accepted economic practice, there were some people who had the guts to speak up and say that this needed to be changed. Long before Lincoln the revered Thomas Jefferson also proposed that slavery should be excluded from all of the American western territories after 1800. Although he himself was a slaveowner, he believed that slavery was an evil that should not be permitted to spread.

Lincoln was not an abolitionist in the Henry Thoreau/John Brown sense of the word. He supported the original 13th Amendment proposed in 1861 that would have protected slavery at the constitutional level, allowing the southern states to keep slaves and the northern states to keep freed slaves from settling there. Lincoln was also a white supremacist who only occasionally criticized the practice of slavery because he didn't like blacks tarnishing the American continent with their presence. Lincoln was a major player in the American Colonization Society, whose goal was to round up all the slaves and deport them all to South America and Liberia. Jefferson too advocated in his Notes on the State of Virginia that Africans should be returned to their "native clime" of Africa.

You can't look the anti's in the face and say 'it's my basic human right to keep and bear arms, then on the other hand, infer that it was a basic human right in the old South to own slaves. You lose all credibility at that point.

Nobody here supports slavery. But you lose credibility when you suggest, against all historical evidence, that the South only seceded to protect slavery. Slavery wasn't the issue, the issue was self-government and the crushing tax burden federal tariffs placed on the southern states.

BB62 · Sep 1, 2008

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

Toymaker wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:
"theprinciples for which they fought"

You mean slavery?

Click to expand...

Oh dear lord. here we go.

Slavery was an issue in the war, yes. that fact is well documented. Slavery was not however the issue...

Thank you for that post. I knew that slavery was not the match that lit the fire, despite what government schools and the biased, ignorant media preach - but I couldn't have put it so eloquently as you have.

Last year, when I was in Gettysburg, I took the opportunity to ask several Park Service Rangers(?) about the issue, and to a person, they all agreed with what you said - and it was evident that they had done some studying on the subject.

One went so far as to say that slavery wasn't even on Lincoln's radar, and the Emancipation Proclamation (which "freed" only the SOUTHERN slaves)was merely a late political move by him.

BB62 · Sep 1, 2008

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

Toymaker wrote:

...Lincoln and the abolishionists porposed that slavery not be allowed to spread beyond where it was. The Southern states rebelled because of the fear of the economic impact of this trend...

Click to expand...

Exactly!!

Gunslinger · Sep 1, 2008

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:

I thought this question was settled 143 years ago. As I recall, we won the argument.

Gunslinger, Yankee born and bred.

Click to expand...

"A question settled by violence, or in disregard of law, must remain unsettled forever."
--- President Jefferson Davis, CSA

Unreconstructed1, Unreconstructed, Unapologetic, Unrepentant Southerner

Here's the funny thing: if another Civil War happened, the sides would be a lot different. New Hampshire, VT and ME fighting next to Alabama and Mississippi against MA, RI, CTand NY. The Rocky Mountain states against the PDR of CA. Same Rebs, just some Yankees joining them this time...

Gunslinger · Sep 1, 2008

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Toymaker wrote:

unreconstructed1 wrote:
"theprinciples for which they fought"

You mean slavery?

"the FED had no problem killing innocent civillians for excercising their God God given rights in 1865"

So.....there's a God given right to enslave other people?

You're into history so you know as well as everyone else, who's into history, that the main reason for the war was the South's refusal to give up slavery:idea:

........but then you complain about the human rights violations of the FED:uhoh:

Human rights violations are human rights violations. It doesn't matter who commits them. If we ever expect to be taken seriously about gun rights there's one thing that we definitely have to be, and that'sconsistent.

Click to expand...

Slave ownership was also legal in the Northern States. Your argument doesn't quite fly, bud.

No, it wasn't. State laws prohibited it in most Northern states. There were exceptions, but generally free states were that way because slavery was unlawful.

Toymaker · Sep 1, 2008

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

You really need to study history a bit more...the real facts, not just what you learned in grammar school.....
If slavery was "the issue" as you contend...would you PLEASE explain the FACT that several of the seceeding states had passed laws against the slave tade LONG before 1861?

Click to expand...

Yes, all of the states except South Carolina had laws against the importation of slaves and slavery but, in all of the states slavery was STILL practiced.

Click to expand...

Agreed as to the moral aspects.....but, does the federal govenrment have any right to make laws based on morals?....wouldn't that be unconstitutional on the grounds that our government can't "force" any particular religion on anyone?
And please, don't say that morals have nothing to do with religion....

Click to expand...

The Constitution and It's Bill Of Rights are based on morals, basic human rights granted to us by our creator. The Federal Government has the POWER to enforce the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Again, please explain the FACT that some of the southern states had passed laws against the slave trade long before the war if this was indeed "the issue"

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many laws were passed against the slave trade and slavery if the plantation owners were still practicing slavery and holding slaves.

Click to expand...

And yet slavery actually continued (to some degree) in the north.....where it all started.

Click to expand...

Common! Slavery started in the original 13 states before the southern states existed. Does this invalidate the argument that it should have been COMPLETELY abolished?

Click to expand...

You miss the point entire....it wasn't about slavery so much as it was about the federal government trying to determine a states right to self government and free trade. As stated earlier, many of the states had already passed laws against the slave trade...for example, Alabama (the 4th state to seceed) had passed laws against the slave trade as early as the 1820's....how could slavery be "the issue" as you contend?

Click to expand...

No, I'm not the one who's missing the point. Passing laws against slavery but not enforcing those laws were tantamount to those laws not existing. Those laws were simply a facade.

Click to expand...

I don't see where anyone "infered" that slave ownership was a "basic human right"
Do you not understand that slavery started (in America) LONG before the even WAS an "old South"
Geeez man....study up a bit

Click to expand...

You wrote above that it was about the federal government trying to determine a states right to self government and free trade. You put the rights of states above human rights. First of all states don't have rights. Just like the federal government, states have POWERS. Neither the federal government NOR THE STATES have the power to trample over the RIGHTS of human beings. Yes......slavery existed before the old South but that didn't justify it's continued existence.

Click to expand...

SouthernBoy · Sep 1, 2008

imported post

like_the_roman wrote:

Toymaker wrote:

Yes, slavery was 'the' issue. Denial doesn't change the evidence of that.

Click to expand...

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side." - Ulysses S. Grant, Union general and slaveholder.

Lincoln was an abolishionist. Yes, even back then when slavery was an accepted economic practice, there were some people who had the guts to speak up and say thatthis needed to be changed. Long before Lincoln the revered Thomas Jefferson also proposed that slavery should be excluded from all of the American western territories after 1800. Although he himself was a slaveowner, he believed that slavery was an evil that should not be permitted to spread.

Click to expand...

Lincoln was not an abolitionist in the Henry Thoreau/John Brown sense of the word. He supported the original 13th Amendment proposed in 1861 that would have protected slavery at the constitutional level, allowing the southern states to keep slaves and the northern states to keep freed slaves from settling there. Lincoln was also a white supremacist who only occasionally criticized the practice of slavery because he didn't like blacks tarnishing the American continent with their presence. Lincoln was a major player in the American Colonization Society, whose goal was to round up all the slaves and deport them all to South America and Liberia. Jefferson too advocated in his Notes on the State of Virginia that Africans should be returned to their "native clime" of Africa.

You can't lookthe anti's in the face and say 'it's my basic human right tokeep and beararms, then on the other hand,infer that it wasa basic human rightin the old South toown slaves. You lose all credibility at that point.

Click to expand...

Nobody here supports slavery. But you lose credibility when you suggest, against all historical evidence, that the South only seceded to protect slavery. Slavery wasn't the issue, the issue was self-government and the crushing tax burden federal tariffs placed on the southern states.

This is correct. And the reason was that the North wanted to control the sale of cotton to Europe and not let the South sell their product direct to European countries. In this way, the North could impose duties (taxes and tariffs) on exported product. This also meant that prices could be controlled and dictated to the Southern growers as well as output. Sort of a cartel.

Can States Succeed From US?

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member